Draft New York State Solid Waste Management Plan

DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................................. 3
1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Goals ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Materials and Waste Management in New York State 1987 to Present ................................................................. 7
1.3 Materials and Waste Management in New York State 2009 .................................................................................... 9
1.4 Moving Forward: Sustainable Materials Management Action Plan ...................................................................... 11
1.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
2. Beyond Waste: A New Vision for Sustainable Materials Management in New York State ............................................ 15
3. Materials Management Planning, Roles and Responsibilities ....................................................................................... 22
3.1 The History of Solid Waste Management Planning in New York State .................................................................. 22
3.2 Roles and Responsibilities ....................................................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Industry Consolidation and Facility Privatization ................................................................................................... 31
3.4 Overseeing Privately Operated Waste Management Services .............................................................................. 32
3.5 Resources for Implementation ............................................................................................................................... 33
3.6 Data Collection and Use ......................................................................................................................................... 33
3.7 Waste Composition Information ............................................................................................................................. 34
3.8 Enforcement ........................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.9 Inconsistent Implementation .................................................................................................................................. 35
3.10 Recycling Markets ................................................................................................................................................. 36
3.11 Changing Roles—Product Stewardship ................................................................................................................. 36
3.12 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................. 36
3.13 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................ 37
4. Greenhouse Gas and Materials and Waste Management ............................................................................................. 40
4.1 Waste Contributes to Global Warming .................................................................................................................. 41
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Current Municipal Solid Waste Management in New York State .............................. 50
4.3 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................... 51
4.4 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 52
5. Product and Packaging Stewardship: An Emerging Materials Management Strategy .................................................. 53
5.1 Roles and Responsibilities in the Context of Product Stewardship ......................................................................... 57
5.2 Products Targeted for Stewardship ....................................................................................................................... 58
5.3 Findings .................................................................................................................................................................. 68
5.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................... 69
1 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

6. Financial Assistance and Funding Sources .................................................................................................................... 70
6.1 DEC Financial Assistance Programs ........................................................................................................................ 70
6.2 ESD Financial Assistance Programs ..................................................................................................................... 74
6.3 Financing the Move Beyond Waste ...................................................................................................................... 78
6.4 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................... 86
6.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................. 87
7. Materials Composition and Characterization ................................................................................................................ 89
7.1 Materials Composition ....................................................................................................................................... 90
7.2 MSW Materials Characterization ......................................................................................................................... 95
7.3 Non‐MSW Materials Characterization ................................................................................................................... 98
8. Materials Management Strategies ............................................................................................................................ 111
8.1 Waste Prevention .................................................................................................................................................. 111
8.2 Reuse ..................................................................................................................................................................... 118
8.3 Recycling ................................................................................................................................................................. 124
8.4 Composting and Organic Materials Recycling ....................................................................................................... 148
8.5 Beneficial Use Determinations (BUDs) ............................................................................................................... 160
9. Disposal ..................................................................................................................................................................... 170
9.1 Transfer and Processing Prior to Disposal ............................................................................................................. 171
9.2 Disposal Capacity Overview ................................................................................................................................... 174
9.3 Municipal Waste Combustors (MWCs) ................................................................................................................ 177
9.4 Landfilling .............................................................................................................................................................. 186
9.5 Import/Export for Disposal .................................................................................................................................... 212
9.6 Emerging Technologies .......................................................................................................................................... 219
10. Agenda for Action ...................................................................................................................................................... 221
10.1 Legislative Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 221
10.2 Regulatory Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 237
10.3 Programmatic Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 238
11. Implementation Schedule and Projections ............................................................................................................... 244


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The development of Beyond Waste: A sustainable materials management strategy for New York
State has been a collaborative effort that harnessed the energy and expertise of many people both
within and outside of the New York State Government. The planning process was launched at the
direction of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner, Pete
Grannis, and Deputy Commissioner for Materials Management and Remediation, Val Washington. It
was led by Resa Dimino, Special Assistant in the Commissioner’s Policy Office, with support and
assistance from Sharon Gebhardt, from the Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials’ Bureau of
Program Management.
Staff of the DEC’s Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials, and in particular its Bureau of Solid
Waste, Reduction and Recycling, were essential partners in the development of this plan. Division
Director Ed Dassatti, Assistant Division Director David O’Toole and Bureau Director Jeff Schmitt
provided valuable guidance and direction, and the Bureau’s Section chiefs, Sally Rowland, Tom
Lynch, David Vitale, Scott Menrath and Peter Pettit, along with DEC’s regional staff, debated
alternative directions and provided significant input on the substance of the Plan and its
recommendations. The Section chiefs also drafted key portions of the Plan. Of particular note,
David Vitale, Scott Menrath, and staff engineers Jaime Lang and Gerard Wagner refined and
analyzed the data presented and developed the assumptions on which the projections and
estimates are based.
The staff of Empire State Development’s Environmental Services Unit, particularly Brenda Grober
and Linda Jacobs Glansberg, contributed to the discussion and to the drafting of the Plan, and
particularly to the sections on economic development, job creation, and financing programs.
The staff of DEC’s Division of Public Affairs provided essential assistance in editing, layout and design
of the plan. Special thanks go to Bernadette LaManna, Ellen Bidell and BobDeVilleneuve.
External stakeholders also provided important input. The more than 150 people who attended
stakeholder meetings in February and March of 2008 helped formulate a basic outline and direction.
Members of the Solid Waste Advisory Group, formed by DEC to aid in crafting the Plan, provided
valuable information and guidance based on their own unique experiences, perspectives and
expertise in the management of solid waste. They also gave generously of their own time and
resources in traveling to Albany to participate in many day long – and longer – meetings over the
course of nearly two years. Their insights were indispensible to DEC staff throughout the planning
process, as dozens of issues and ideas were vetted, fleshed out and debated.


The Solid Waste Advisory Group included:
• Judy Drabicki, Director, DEC Region 6, (Chair)
• Hans Arnold, Former Executive Director, Oneida Herkimer Solid Waste Authority
• John Casella, Karen Flanders & Larry Shilling, Casella Waste Systems, Inc.
• Jeff Cooper, New York State Association for Reduction, Reuse and Recycling
• Fred Cornell, Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries
• Gavin Kearny, New York City Environmental Justice Alliance
• John Kowalchyk, Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
• Robert Lange, New York City Department of Sanitation
• Jay Pisco, New York Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America
• Peter Scully, Director, DEC Region 1
• Kate Sinding, Natural Resources Defense Council
• Abby Snyder, Director, DEC Region 9
• Kevin Voorhees, New York State Association for Solid Waste Management
• John Waffenschmidt, Covanta Energy Corporation
• Barbara Warren, Citizens Environmental Coalition

New York State owes a debt of gratitude to the individuals and organizations who contributed their
time and talents to the production of the SWMP.


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

New York State’s Beyond Waste Plan (Plan) sets forth a new approach for New York State—a shift
from focusing on “end‐of‐the‐pipe” waste management techniques to looking “upstream” and more
comprehensively at how materials that would otherwise become waste can be more sustainably
managed through the state’s economy. This shift is central to the state’s ability to adapt to an age
of growing pressure to reduce demand for energy, reduce dependence on disposal, minimize
emission of greenhouse gases and create green jobs.
Accomplishing this change necessitates increased attention to influencing product and packaging
design to foster a system that minimizes waste and maximizes the use of recyclable materials. This
will require the involvement of all players in the production and supply chain—product
manufacturers, distributors, retailers, consumers, and government. It will also require increased
investment in our recycling and distribution/reverse distribution infrastructure. Ultimately, it will
result in decreased reliance on waste disposal facilities.
The materials management system envisioned in this plan would capture the economic value of our
materials, conserve their imbedded energy, and minimize the generation of greenhouse gases and
pollution. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) projects that
implementing this plan could reduce nearly 23 million metric tons of CO 2 equivalent greenhouse gas
emissions annually, save more than 250 trillion BTUs of energy each year—as much energy as is
consumed by more than 2.5 million homes—and create 74,000 jobs and economic opportunity in
the process. 1
This vision can only be fully realized if the state and local governments obtain and dedicate the
additional staff and resources needed to implement the Plan, if manufacturers take financial or
physical responsibility for the reuse and recycling of the products and packaging they put into the
marketplace, and if private entities embrace their responsibility for proper materials management.
To these ends, this plan recommends a number of potential revenue streams to offset the costs to
the public sector, as well as legislative recommendations to engage the private sector more fully in
moving New York State beyond waste.

1
The methodology and data used to derive these figures is provided in Appendix 1

1.1 GOALS
The quantitative goal of this Plan is to reduce the amount of waste New Yorkers dispose by
preventing waste generation and increasing reuse, recycling, composting and other organic
material recycling methods. Currently, New Yorkers throw away 4.1 pounds of municipal solid
waste (MSW) per person per day, or 0.75 tons per person per year. The Plan seeks to reduce the
amount of MSW destined for disposal by 15 percent every two years. Achieving this will require
the engagement of manufacturers through product and packaging stewardship and the
development of additional reuse and recycling infrastructure, as well as a strong partnership with
other states and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Source: Appendix 1

The qualitative goals of this Plan are to:
• Minimize Waste Generation
• Maximize Reuse
• Maximize Recycling
• Maximize Composting and Organics Recycling
• Advance Product and Packaging Stewardship
• Create Green Jobs
• Maximize the Energy Value of Materials Management
• Minimize the Climate Impacts of Materials Management
• Reemphasize the Importance of Comprehensive Local Materials Management Planning
• Minimize the Need for Export of Residual Waste
• Engage all New Yorkers—government, business, industry and the public—in Sustainable
Materials Management
• Strive for Full Public Participation, Fairness and Environmental Justice
• Prioritize Investment in Reduction, Reuse, Recycling and Composting Over Disposal
• Maximize Efficiency in Infrastructure Development
• Foster Technological Innovation
• Continue to Ensure that Solid Waste Management Facilities are Sited Designed and Operated
in an Environmentally Sound Manner


1.2 MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NEW YORK STATE 1987 TO PRESENT
DEC’s 1987 Solid Waste Management Plan (1987 Plan) was aggressive for its time. It set a goal of
reducing, reusing or recycling 50 percent of the
state’s waste stream in ten years and set forth a
solid waste management hierarchy, adopted into
law in 1988, that placed priority on waste
TERMS prevention, reuse and recycling, followed by
municipal waste combustion (MWC) with energy
A materials management recovery and, finally, landfilling as the lowest
approach necessitates a priority. Twenty‐two years later, the majority of
change in terminology. the materials generated are managed by the
Materials are not waste lowest priority strategy, and the state is still
striving to achieve its recycling goals.
until they are destined for
a landfill or municipal The 1987 Plan was drafted to address what was
waste combustor. So, this determined at that time to be a developing solid
plan uses the terms waste disposal crisis. The Plan focused on an
integrated solid waste management approach, to
“materials” and “materials
be implemented by municipal planning units which
management” in place of
favored reduction, reuse and recycling and local
“waste” or “waste
self‐sufficiency in managing the remaining waste
management” when stream.
referring to activities at the
The implementation of the 1987 Plan, the Solid
upper end of the hierarchy.
Waste Management Act of 1988, and local solid
waste management plans established by municipal

planning units, has yielded significant progress.
The state’s recycling rate has grown from
approximately three percent to 36 percent of the
entire materials stream and 20 percent when only
MSW is evaluated 2 . Many of the state’s
communities have implemented exemplary
integrated materials management systems that
have yielded recycling rates well beyond the
statewide average. However, the state as a whole appears to be stagnating at levels of MSW
recycling near 20 percent—well below the national average MSW recycling rate reported by EPA at
33 percent.

2
The total materials stream includes municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris, biosolids (or
sewage sludge) and industrial waste; municipal solid waste includes materials generated by the
residential, commercial and institutional sectors. For a description of each of these streams, see section 7.
For a discussion of the reporting and data on which this calculation is based, see section 8.3.1.

The 1987 Plan sought to phase out MSW incineration without energy recovery and replace landfills
in the state with a network of 37 municipal waste combustors (MWCs) with energy recovery for
treating the waste remaining after reduction, reuse and recycling.
While at one point 13 MWCs were operational in New York State, only 10 combustion facilities
remain in operation in 2009. The goal of phasing out MSW incineration was accomplished, though
some biosolids (i.e., sewage sludge) are still incinerated without energy recovery.
The 1987 Plan prescribed phasing out landfilling of unprocessed MSW and using landfills only for
discreet streams (i.e., MWC residues, some biosolids, some construction and demolition debris).
Though the number of active MSW landfills has been drastically reduced from 348 mostly unlined
landfills in 1987 to the currently operating 27 lined landfills, landfilling—whether in or outofstate—
remains the predominant waste management method. The 1987 Plan established a framework that
was built around municipal management systems. However, in recent years, operation of much of
the state’s landfill capacity has shifted to private companies instead of municipalities or planning
units, with 75 percent of the state’s operating MSW landfill capacity operated by the private sector.
The many inactive landfills that have been phased out since 1987, as well as urban redevelopment
sites that contain potentially contaminated “historic fill,” can represent a continuing environmental
liability when left in place or an additional source of solid waste requiring management when
excavated or otherwise disturbed by construction projects.
Twenty years after the 1987 Plan and the Legislature’s enactment of the Solid Waste Management
Act of 1988, New York State finds itself relying on a mix of different, local, solid waste management
systems. Due to a number of factors, including a period of uncertainty regarding a local
government’s ability to institute waste flow control, some municipalities that had planned or
developed their own integrated systems of solid waste facilities no longer have any involvement at
all in the management of significant portions of the MSW generated within their borders.
The current network of recycling and solid waste collection, transfer and disposal operations
partially comprises local government‐owned and operated facilities and programs, which were
typical in the 1980s, and also includes significant privately controlled waste collection,
transportation and handling infrastructure.
Also important from a public policy and long‐term planning perspective is New York State’s
significant dependence on privately owned facilities in other states for the disposal of more than
16,500 tons of MSW every day (six million tons per year), including virtually all of the solid waste
disposed from the City of New York and much of Long Island’s waste. While the environmental
impact of export has been reduced in recent years by the movement of waste exports by rail
instead of truck, exports have increased fivefold during the past 20 years—a trend that runs counter
to the self‐sufficiency envisioned in the 1987 Plan.
Waste export leaves many New York communities vulnerable to capacity restrictions and additional
user fees at out‐of‐state disposal facilities. For nearly a decade, Congress has reviewed legislation
that would allow states to constrain the movement of garbage from other states. Fortunately for
New York State, no such laws have passed, but the threat of restriction serves as a reminder that the
state’s reliance on export is not without risks.

While all of the 1987 Plan’s elements were not realized as
envisioned, thanks to the significant efforts of all New
Yorkers, many of its elements were implemented. RECYCLING SAVES
Unfortunately, a reduction in DEC staff dedicated to solid ENERGY, REDUCES
waste issues, combined with the insufficient allocation of
POLLUTION AND
state and local resources, has resulted in many missed
COMBATS CLIMATE
opportunities to prevent waste and increase recycling.
Nonetheless, the state’s solid waste stream is managed in a
CHANGE
far more cohesive and environmentally sound manner Using recycled aluminum in
today than before the development of the 1987 Plan. place of virgin bauxite:
• reduces the energy
used in production by
greater than 90
1.3 MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT IN percent
NEW YORK STATE 2009 • decreases air pollution
Through this planning process, DEC has taken stock of the by 95 percent
current state of materials and waste management in New • decreases water
York State. The key findings are provided below. pollution by 97 percent
• Twenty years after the state adopted a solid waste Substituting recycled paper for
pulp from trees:
management hierarchy that places waste
prevention, reuse and recycling ahead of disposal, • reduces energy use by
nearly 65 percent of the total materials managed in 23 to 74 percent
(depending on the
the state, and approximately 80 percent of MSW,
paper grade)
end up in MWCs and landfills.
• reduces air pollution by
• Although landfilling should be the management 74 percent
method of last resort, landfills, either instate or
• reduces water
outofstate, handle the largest proportion of waste pollution by 35 percent
disposed. (source: Wasting and
Recycling in the US, 2000”
• While there have been waste prevention successes, Grassroots Recycling
they have been offset by negative trends, such as Network, 2000; p. 25.)
planned obsolescence, the growth of convenience Recycling one ton of:
products and advancing technology, and, therefore, • aluminum reduces
have yielded little or no reduction in the amount of GHG emissions by 13.7
waste generated in the last two decades. tons
• New York State and its communities have made • office paper reduces
significant progress in establishing successful GHG by 4.3 tons
recycling programs, as evidenced by the rise in • newspaper reduces
recycling rates between 1987 and 1997, but GHG by 2.5 tons
progress in the last decade has stalled. • steel cans reduces GHG
by 1.7 tons (source: “Solid
Waste Management and
rd
GHG, 3 Edition” USEPA,
2006.

• The well‐established recycling industry in New York continues to meet the challenge of
developing new markets for secondary materials.
• Virtually all municipal recycling programs eventually depend upon the recycling industry for
the ultimate processing and marketing of recovered materials.
• The implementation of source‐separated recycling programs has been inconsistent, not only
from one community to the next, but also in different settings such as schools, businesses,
and public spaces.
• The state’s increasing reliance on waste export from many of its densely populated areas is
problematic and potentially unreliable; principles of sustainability and responsibility dictate
that materials be managed in the most efficient and environmentally sensitive manner, with
consideration of the risks and impacts of out‐of‐state transportation.
• Materials management can play a significant role in combating climate change; landfill gas is
four percent of the state’s GHG inventory, while USEPA estimates that 42 percent of
national GHG emissions are influenced by the lifecycle impacts of the products and
packaging that become waste.
• The continuing reliance on waste disposal—landfills in particular—comes at a significant
environmental and economic cost; landfill gas contributes to climate change, and continuing
to dispose of materials that could be reused or recycled squanders opportunities to create
jobs, conserve energy and natural resources, and reduce air and water pollution.
• Reuse provides multiple environmental, economic and social benefits; there is potential to
expand reuse, particularly in key sectors including building deconstruction.
• Redistributing consumable food through food banks or as animal feed provides social and
economic benefits, as well as reducing waste.
• As for any commodity, recycling markets are variable; however, on average, market values
for conventional recyclables (metal, plastic containers and many grades of paper) have been
consistently strong for the past two decades.
• Organic materials represent 30 percent of both the materials generated and the waste
disposed; recycling organics has multiple benefits, including reducing the generation of
greenhouse gases, creating valuable soil amendments, creating jobs and reducing reliance
on waste disposal.
• Product and packaging stewardship programs create incentives to reduce waste in product
and package design and to increase recycling.
• Pay as You Throw/Save Money and Reduce Trash (PAYT/SMART) programs create a financial
incentive for consumers to waste less and recycle more; based on EPA estimated reductions,
implementation of PAYT/SMART in New York would reduce MSW disposal by nearly three
million tons annually.
• Public education and enforcement are critical tools to prevent waste and increase reuse,
recycling and composting.

• Market development attention is still needed for emerging or problematic recyclables,
including organics, plastics, glass and construction and demolition debris.
• Construction and demolition (C&D) debris recycling has been inhibited by a lack of markets
for inherently valuable materials, a lack of information on material composition, origin and
destination, and concerns about asbestos contamination.

1.4 MOVING FORWARD: SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
ACTION PLAN
This Plan seeks to fundamentally change the way discarded materials are managed in New York
State by progressively reducing the amount of materials that go to disposal over the ten‐year
planning period. Together, the recommendations below are intended to respond to the findings
discussed above and achieve the plan’s goals. Implementing these recommendations will require
allocation of significant resources at the state and local level, as well as the full engagement of the
private sector. The legislative recommendations below are intended to ensure that the fiscal impact
on government is relieved through product and packaging stewardship or mitigated through the
creation of new revenue generating programs.

1.4.1 Legislative Recommendations
Moving Beyond Waste will require a new statutory structure that creates a framework for
sustainable materials management. The Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 envisioned
municipalities working within planning units, acting either as self‐contained entities or through
public/private partnerships, to implement integrated solid waste management programs. For a
variety of economic and legal reasons, that vision has only been partially realized. With continued
growth in the amount of solid waste generated, an evolved understanding of the environmental
impacts of waste disposal, and the emergence of new materials management options, there is a
clear need for new priorities. Moving forward requires an updated statutory framework that sets
the stage for growth and supports the paradigm shift needed to move Beyond Waste. That
framework should include:
An update to the Solid Waste Management Act: An updated act should: set recycling and waste
reduction goals; specify what materials must be recycled, where and by whom; enhance DEC’s
authority to enforce recycling requirements; allocate additional resources for planning, education
and enforcement; update procurement and recycling requirements for state agencies and
authorities; require incentive programs (e.g., PAYT/SMART), and enable DEC to account for MSW
transport and enforce transporter violations of source separation requirements.
Product and Packaging Stewardship Programs: Product Stewardship, also known as Extended
Producer Responsibility, extends the role and responsibility of the manufacturer of a product to
include the entire life cycle, including ultimate disposition of that product or package at the end of
its useful life. Stewardship encourages manufacturers to embrace materials efficiency and design
for recyclability concepts and helps local recycling programs capture more materials.

Through stewardship legislation, manufacturers (also known as producers or brand owners) are
required to take either physical or financial responsibility for the recycling or proper disposal of
products or packages. Instead of requiring local governments to fund collection and recycling
programs for discarded products, stewardship programs incorporate the cost of end‐of‐life
management into the cost of the product, so those costs are borne jointly by the manufacturer and
the consumer, not by local government and taxpayers. Possible initial product targets for
stewardship programs include: packaging, printed products, electronic waste, pharmaceuticals,
household hazardous wastes, and mercury containing products. The product stewardship
framework approach maximizes efficiency by consistently structuring stewardship programs for
multiple products and avoiding extended debates on the proper structure for stewardship for each
product.
Revenue Generating Programs: Achieving the goals of this Plan—reducing waste generation,
increasing reuse, recycling and composting and reducing disposal—will require a significant
commitment of resources and greater flexibility in allocating those resources to respond to
emerging issues and critical needs. Revenue‐generating programs could include: an increase in state
funds allocated for these purposes; solid waste disposal fees, or solid waste facility permit fees.

1.4.2 Regulatory Recommendations
The regulatory changes suggested below can be made within DEC’s existing statutory authority and
are necessary to support implementation of this Plan and achievement of its goals and
recommendations. Key regulatory recommendations include:
• Revision of the Part 360 Solid Waste Management Facility Regulations to:
o update requirements for construction and operation of solid waste management
facilities to better protect human health and the environment;
o update the beneficial use determination program regulations;
o set new requirements for managing the “historic fill” found on many urban
redevelopment sites;
o restrict the disposal of recyclable materials for which alternative infrastructure or
product stewardship programs exist.
• Enactment of a new Part 374‐5 regulation to oversee the collection, handling and recycling
of electronic waste.

1.4.3 Programmatic Recommendations
The following recommendations fall within the state’s current statutory and regulatory authority.
Taken together, these activities represent a comprehensive sustainable materials management
program. The state’s ability to implement these initiatives and achieve the goals of this Plan will
depend on its ability to increase the staff and financial resources available to the program. A
comprehensive program should include the following key elements:

The State Leading by Example: Agencies and authorities should demonstrate comprehensive waste
reduction and recycling programs by: working aggressively to implement Governor Paterson’s
Executive Order 4 on State Agency Sustainability and Green Purchasing; consistently implementing,
publicizing and enforcing recycling programs at all state facilities and events, and promoting and
demonstrating organic materials composting and recycling.
Public Education: Public participation in waste prevention, reuse and recycling is key to achieving
sustainable materials management in New York State. To improve participation, the state will:
launch an aggressive public education campaign to promote waste prevention, reuse, recycling and
composting; develop templates for local governments to use in educational efforts, and publicize
innovative reuse, recycling, composting and other model programs.
Outreach and Technical Assistance: Municipalities, businesses, institutions and agencies in the state
will need guidance and assistance to develop sustainable materials management programs. To meet
this need, the state will: develop written guidance on waste prevention for specific commercial
generating sectors; encourage the use of food banks and other reuse networks; facilitate forums on
construction and demolition debris management and recycling opportunities; help entities (private
and public) interested in developing organics recycling systems, and provide tools to local
governments to better plan and implement sustainable materials management programs.
Comprehensive Materials Management Planning: The state must allocate additional funding and
resources to plan for and implement sustainable materials management programs. The state must
refocus on materials management planning by: seeking staff and resources to implement the state
Plan; issuing a technical guidance document to assist local decision‐making, and working with
planning units to craft a new generation of local solid waste management plans that reflect the
broader concepts of materials management, embody new approaches and technologies to reduce
waste, achieve higher levels of recycling, and reflect current market and regulatory conditions.
Combat Climate Change: DEC will: maximize waste prevention, reuse and recycling and minimize
waste disposal; assess the emissions and operations of landfills in New York to ensure they pursue
every possible mechanism for achieving greenhouse gas reductions, and work with other state
agencies and entities to enable landfill gas‐to‐energy projects to connect to the electrical grid in a
cost‐effective and technically effective manner.
Infrastructure and Market Development: Expanding the universe of materials diverted from disposal
will require additional processing, reuse and recycling infrastructure and new or stronger markets
for the materials processed. To do so, DEC will evaluate and implement, where appropriate,
strategies to promote the establishment of recycling and composting facilities in the environmental
quality review and regulatory process for other solid waste management facilities, particularly
disposal facilities. Further, the state will allocate additional resources to: develop critical recycling
and manufacturing infrastructure for key recovered materials, including glass, plastics, and organic
materials; expand market development initiatives to target glass, plastic film, plastics #3‐7, compost
and construction and demolition materials; establish a New York State Center for Construction and
Demolition Debris Recycling; encourage and facilitate food scrap recycling demonstration projects;
and expand beneficial use applications for mixed color recovered glass.


1.5 CONCLUSION
The new framework proposed in this Plan seeks to put forward policy and programmatic tools and
options for planning units and communities that will help ensure strong waste reduction, reuse and
materials recovery throughout the state, both in areas where there is a substantial private sector
role and in communities that practice flow control or use other oversight tools. The
recommendations summarized above and detailed in subsequent sections of the Plan include a new
broad policy, expanded financial assistance for progressive solid waste and sustainable materials
management, and education for consumers and businesses to help them reduce their generation of
waste and recycle what cannot be reduced. They also include detailed recommendations for how
planning units can better plan for recovery and offer strategies for developing and/or improving
New York State’s recovery infrastructure. As a package, these recommendations will lead New York
State on a path Beyond Waste.


2. BEYOND WASTE: A NEW VISION FOR SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT IN NEW YORK STATE

New York State’s Beyond Waste Plan sets forth a new approach—a shift from focusing on “end‐of‐
the‐pipe” waste management techniques to looking “upstream” and more comprehensively at how
materials that would otherwise become waste can be more sustainably managed through the
state’s economy. This shift is central to the state’s ability to adapt to growing pressure to reduce
demand for energy, reduce dependence on disposal, minimize emission of greenhouse gases and
create green jobs.
This shift is especially critical given American consumption patterns and global resource constraints.
While the United States (US) has only five percent of the world’s population, it consumes 24 percent
of the world’s energy and one‐third of the world’s materials 3 . According to the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, the US generates more waste per person than any other
country in the world. Municipal solid waste (MSW) generation in New York State, estimated at 5.15
pounds per person per day in 2008, is greater than the national average, reported by EPA at 4.6
pounds per person per day, and thus well beyond that of other countries.
As developing countries strive to achieve a standard of living comparable to that of the US and other
industrialized nations, the demand for materials and the energy needed to extract and process them
will continue to increase. It is likely, too, that the costs of energy and material will increase as well.
Unless we change the status quo, the environmental and climate implications of this growing
demand could be devastating, and the economic impact to New York State will be a burden to
individuals, businesses and especially municipalities. Never has it been more critical to examine the
way we use and dispose of the materials that fuel our economy. It is simply no longer sensible to
expend energy and resources to extract, transport and process materials only to use them for
minutes and then throw them away. The change has to start now.
The role of solid waste managers in the global context is significant. As this Plan clearly
demonstrates, waste disposal facilities contribute to climate change and the related environmental
degradation, while waste prevention and the use of recovered materials in manufacturing reduces
energy consumption, greenhouse gas generation and air, water and land pollution and creates green
jobs. It is critical to expand the understanding of the role sustainable materials management can
play in improving the environment, locally as well as globally. Whether in government, private
industry, or as individuals, all New Yorkers must help confront these challenges. All players in the
materials economy are challenged to continually strive for better planning, smarter design, more
efficient markets, and ever‐increasing levels of materials‐use reduction and recycling.

3
Source: US Geological Survey; http://pubs.usgs.gov/annrev/ar‐23‐107/aerdocnew.pdf

Beyond Waste is a Plan to create a more sustainable materials economy. This will require fostering
a system where products and packaging are designed to minimize waste and maximize the use of
recyclable materials and where there is infrastructure in place to recover and use those materials.
This system would capture the economic value of our materials, conserve their imbedded energy,
and minimize generation of greenhouse gases and pollution. This Plan will lead New York State to
this desired system. In addition to reducing our reliance on disposal, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) projects that implementing this Plan could
generate more than 74,000 jobs, reduce nearly 23 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2E)
4
greenhouse gas emissions, and save 259 trillion BTUs of energy.
Moving Beyond Waste requires increased attention to influencing product and packaging design,
which will require the involvement of all players in the production and supply chain—product
manufacturers, distributors, retailers, consumers, and government. It will also require increased
investment in our recovery and distribution/reverse distribution infrastructure. Ultimately, it will
turn the trend on New York State’s ever‐growing waste stream.
Other more traditional tools will be reforged for the task of achieving a true sustainable materials
management approach—a combination of programmatic, regulatory and policy actions that reduce
or eliminate waste or divert materials for reuse, recycling and composting. To realize this vision,
the state will need to update, strengthen, and expand its regulatory and statutory authority; obtain,
develop and dedicate resources that are not yet inhand; use its substantial purchasing power and
other opportunities to lead by example, and achieve coordinated cooperation from all levels of
government, the private sector and individual New Yorkers. Accordingly, this Plan identifies what
the state can do now within the confines of existing regulatory structure and fiscal constraints; what
it will be able to do with expanded authority, and what it will do with new resources. It defines the
steps DEC will take to obtain this expanded authority and additional resources.
What is a sustainable materials economy? In broad terms, a sustainable materials management
strategy involves:
1. Waste Prevention – creating and implementing a combination of policies and programs aimed at
reducing the volume and toxicity of waste generated and disposed, including:
a. packaging reduction through stewardship and other means;
b. product stewardship/ producer responsibility for key material streams;
c. purchasing and practices, both public and private, that advance sustainability goals;
d. community outreach and education; and
e. incentives for waste prevention through volume‐based pricing for waste management
programs, commonly referred to as Pay As You Throw (PAYT) or Save Money And
Reduce Trash (SMART).
2. Reuse – supporting an expanded infrastructure to redirect items that still have a value for their
original intended purpose (e.g., clothing, furniture, building materials, etc.) from those who no
longer need them to individuals and entities that can put them to use.

4
The methodology and data used to derive these figures is provided in Appendix 1

3. Comprehensive Recycling – including more materials and more places (e.g., workplaces, MTA
transit stations, public spaces, public venues, special events); improve education and
enforcement to achieve greater participation and greater capture of targeted recyclables in all
generating sectors (e.g., residential, commercial, institutional, industrial); develop local markets
for both traditional recyclables and new materials targeted, and support a manufacturing base
that can utilize recycled materials.
4. Recovery of Organics (food scraps, non‐recyclable paper and yard trimmings) – creating a
combination of policies and programs to: expand backyard composting; expand on‐site
composting at institutions and large generators and develop greater collection and recovery
infrastructure for commercial, institutional and residential food scraps and yard trimmings.
5. Beneficial Use – developing policies and programs to redirect items that still have value for uses
other than their original intended purpose (e.g., paper for use as animal bedding, glass and tires
for use in civil engineering applications, etc.)
6. Recovery of Energy – promoting a combination of policies and programs to recover energy from
materials that cannot yet feasibly be recycled or composted.
7. Best Residual Management Strategies – advancing policies that ensure adequate capacity of the
most environmentally sound and most sustainable means of disposal for the waste that cannot
be reduced, reused, recycled, composted or otherwise diverted.

Opportunity Knocks
Solid waste management in the US has followed a pattern of dramatic change and progress in the
1990s, with the implementation of recycling, composting, and waste prevention programs, followed
by five to ten years of maintaining the status quo. Even as recycling programs have become more
efficient and have captured more material, greater and greater amounts of non‐recyclable products
and packaging have entered the waste stream.
Nationally, recycling rates have been static or only increased in small increments in recent years,
even for the materials considered the most recyclable—newspapers, steel, aluminum and PET
plastic containers. Communities in New York State report recovery rates that are stagnant at best
and may be dropping.
Much of the material sent to disposal facilities has a significant value, in terms of both direct market
value and in broader economic and environmental terms. Though markets have periodically
experienced downturns, markets for traditional recyclables, including paper, metals and some
plastics, have been strong overall and have achieved consistently high values in the last decade.
Perhaps more important, using recovered materials in place of virgin materials saves significant
amounts of energy, conserves water, and reduces pollution. The closer to home this takes place,
the greater the economic and environmental value to New York State.
In 2008, the 3.7 million tons of MSW materials recycled in New York State helped to avoid more
than nine million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO 2 E) and conserve 85 trillion BTUs of energy.
Increasing the municipal recycling rate to 30 percent would improve those gains by more than five

million MTCO 2 E. Achieving a 90 percent recycling rate statewide would yield impacts of an
additional 23 million MTCO 2 E greenhouse gas emissions reductions and save an additional 259
trillion BTUs of energy 5 . Waste prevention has an even more significant impact on greenhouse gas
emissions. Reducing materials use, through product and packaging stewardship initiatives and other
means, would avoid the use of energy and the release of even greater amounts of greenhouse
gases.
The state can also fuel economic development and job creation using the materials that are not
currently recycled but ultimately could be with new programs and policy. In general terms, on a
per‐ton basis, for every job required to operate a landfill or municipal waste combustor (MWC), 10
jobs can be created to process recyclable materials and prepare them for market. In the case of
organics, four jobs can be created in composting those materials for every one job in disposal. Once
recycled materials are used in manufacturing, the jobs ratio becomes even greater, and the quality
and pay scales of those jobs is higher. Remanufacturing industries are the most significant job
creators, with between 28 and 296 jobs—depending on the type of remanufacturing—for every one
in disposal 6 .
A 2008 report by Progressive Investor found that with $236 billion in revenues in 2007, recycling
industries already represent more than two percent of the national gross domestic product. The
U.S. Recycling Economic Information Study Prepared for The National Recycling Coalition by R. W.
Beck, Inc. (July 2001), found that 174 million tons of material were being recycled per year and
about 1,100,000 jobs were created in the "recycling" sector, including collection, processing, and
manufacturing. This equates to about 6 jobs per 1,000 tons per year recycled.
New York State’s Empire State Development (ESD) Environmental Investment Program has proven
that, in financing recycling‐based businesses, it can create significant jobs and economic benefit.
(For a summary of ESD’s investment results, see Appendix 6.2). A February 2009 study prepared by
DSM Environmental Services, Inc, for the Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) found that New York
State’s recycling and reuse industries directly support more than 32,000 jobs, with less than 5,000 of
those in collection. A broad‐scale increase in recovery efforts, as outlined in this Plan, could increase
the green jobs related to recycling by more than 74,0007 .
At the dawn of the 21st century, society is confronted by broad and inter‐related social and
environmental challenges topped by global climate change and increased energy demands. In this
context, it is not enough only to ensure environmentally sound disposal. Capturing the economic
value and imbedded energy in our materials, minimizing greenhouse gas impacts of our actions, and
maximizing materials and energy efficiency in our systems must be key drivers.

5
These conclusions are based on the results of modeling using data explained in Appendix 1 and summarized
in Section 7, materials composition and characterization, and the Northeast Recycling Council’s
Environmental Benefits Calculator. For more detail, see Section 4.
6
Institute for Local Self Reliance, 1997, as published in Wasting and Recycling in the US 2000, Grassroots
Recycling Network, p.27.
7
An explanation of the methodology and data used to derive these figures is provided in Appendix 1.

A New Approach for New York State
As New York State moves forward, it must address new ways to reduce the amount of waste
generated and further reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills and combustors.
Improvement on the old strategies to promote reuse, recycling and reduction are overdue, and this
Plan maps recommendations for such improvement. The Plan also aims to tackle the unanticipated
increase in waste from consumer products and packaging—the waste that is undermining and has
essentially nullified all waste reduction efforts to date. This problem must be confronted head on by
engaging product manufacturers in the end‐of‐life management of their products and packaging.
This Plan begins to address what each of the many players—the state, local governments, planning
units, private sector solid waste managers, product manufacturers, distributors and retailers, and
individual consumers—can achieve collectively and in partnership with other states and the federal
government. The challenge is significant, and progress will not be measured solely against a single
numerical goal. Success will be measured by sustained and continual improvement in maximizing
recovery and minimizing waste. Remaining flexible, committed, and coordinated in these efforts
will help to face that challenge. Using this Plan to raise awareness of these issues is critical so that
New Yorkers are collectively engaged in the effort and willing to support the funding needed to
ensure its success.
This Plan lays a foundation for the next chapter in solid waste management in New York State. It
identifies critical areas for local, state and individual action and provides a menu of options that can
help communities on the path toward sustainable materials management. On the state, regional or
national level, it presents a strategy to engage product manufacturers to make end‐of‐life
management costs a part of their economic equation. Doing so will begin to turn the tide and
ultimately reduce waste generation.
Recognizing that local governments are often the firewall between waste and the environment, DEC
is committed to partnering with local communities and planning units that grapple with these issues
daily in their efforts to provide safe, affordable methods for solid waste management while
protecting the environment. Only through leadership by New York in cooperation with committed
planning units can the state successfully implement the goals of this Plan.

Goals
The quantitative goal of the Plan is to reduce the amount of waste New Yorkers dispose by
preventing waste generation and increasing reuse, recycling, composting and other organics
recycling methods. In 2008, New Yorkers threw away 4.1 pounds of municipal solid waste (MSW)
per person per day, or 0.75 tons per person per year. The Plan seeks to reduce the amount of MSW
destined for disposal by 15 percent every two years 8 . Achieving this will require the engagement of

8
The referenced per capita waste disposal goal will apply to MSW (i.e., the materials included in the materials
composition analysis provided in section 7.1). It does not apply to construction and demolition debris,
biosolids, or industrial waste.

manufacturers through product and packaging stewardship and the development of additional
reuse and recycling infrastructure, as well as a strong partnership with other states and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The qualitative goals of this Plan are to:
• Minimize Waste Generation
• Maximize Reuse
• Maximize Recycling
• Maximize Composting and Organics Recycling
• Advance Product and Packaging Stewardship
• Create Green Jobs
• Maximize the Energy Value of Materials Management
• Minimize the Climate Impacts of Materials Management
• Reemphasize the Importance of Comprehensive Local Materials Management Planning
• Minimize the Need for Export of Residual Waste
• Engage all New Yorkers—government, business, industry and the public—in Sustainable
Materials Management
• Strive for Full Public Participation, Fairness and Environmental Justice
• Prioritize Investment in Reduction, Reuse, Recycling and Composting Over Disposal
• Maximize Efficiency in Infrastructure Development
• Foster Technological Innovation
• Continue to Ensure Solid Waste Management Facilities are Designed and Operated in an
Environmentally Sound Manner
The new framework proposed in this Plan seeks to put forward policy and programmatic tools and
options for planning units and communities that will help ensure strong waste reduction, reuse, and
materials recovery throughout the state, both in areas where there is a substantial private sector
role and in communities that practice flow control or use other oversight tools. The
recommendations detailed in subsequent sections of the Plan include new broad policy, such as an
updated Solid Waste Management Act and a product stewardship framework, expanded financial
assistance for progressive solid waste and sustainable materials management, and education for
consumers and businesses to help them reduce their generation of waste, as well as detailed
recommendations for how planning units can better plan for recovery and strategies for developing
and/or improving our recovery infrastructure. As a package, these recommendations will lead New
York State on a path Beyond Waste.


Without additional regulatory or legislative action, the Plan does not and cannot provide new legal
authority beyond that which currently exists. Rather, the Plan provides a direction and goals for
solid waste management in New York State, alerting planning units, permittees, and the general
public of the lens through which future solid waste planning, decision‐making, and assessment will
be viewed.

TABLE 2.1 BEYOND WASTE GOALS

MSW Pounds/Person
Recycling Per day
Rate Disposed

2010 20% 4.1

2012 30% 3.5

2014 50% 2.4

2016 75% 1.2

2018 90% 0.6


3. MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLANNING, ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 THE HISTORY OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING IN NEW YORK STATE
While the value of solid waste management planning was acknowledged by both the federal and
state governments more than 30 years ago, initial progress was intermittent and overshadowed by
efforts to address the environmental consequences of hazardous waste mismanagement.
The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 required states to develop solid
waste management plans, and the New York State Legislature responded with Chapter 425 of the
laws of 1977, which required DEC to prepare a draft “comprehensive resource recovery plan.” DEC
prepared and submitted a plan in 1978, but the legislature took no further action until 1980.
Chapter 552 of New York State’s laws of that year acknowledged the development of the draft plan
required by Chapter 425 and recognized the need for solid waste management planning. It made
DEC responsible for preparing a solid waste management plan and mandated that all solid waste
management projects be in accord with the plan, once completed.
DEC prepared a draft plan in accordance with RCRA and Chapter 552, but in fiscal year ‘80‐‘81
federal funding for the municipal solid waste program was withdrawn, and further development of
the plan ceased. At the federal and state levels, emphasis and funding were shifted from MSW
management to hazardous waste management programs.

3.1.1 The 1987 Solid Waste Management Plan (1987 Plan) and Updates
DEC drafted the 1987 Plan in response to several laws and concerns that arose in the 1980s. First, in
1983, the Long Island Landfill Law mandated the phaseout of landfills in the deep flow aquifer
recharge zones on Long Island, thereby encouraging the transition to “resource recovery” through a
combination of municipal waste combustion (MWC) and recycling, and the development of
infrastructure to transfer waste for long‐haul export. Across the state, groundwater contamination
and operational deficiencies at many older unlined landfills became a primary concern. By June
1986, New York State had 358 active landfills, only 47 of which had valid permits, and seven
operating MWCs with another six under construction. At that time, available disposal capacity in
New York, not including New York City’s waste or the Fresh Kills landfill, was estimated to be four
years. This all led to the concern of a looming disposal crisis in New York State.
In response, Governor Cuomo called for the preparation of a State Solid Waste Management Plan,
which DEC issued in March 1987. The 1987 Plan articulated an integrated waste management
system approach to the impending crisis, and implementation of Part 360 finally brought New York
State into compliance with the provisions of RCRA and the state’s own Chapter 425 of the laws of
1977 and Chapter 552 of the laws of 1980.
About the same time, on March 22, 1987, the Mobro 4000 barge set sail from Islip, New York
carrying 3,168 tons of baled MSW destined for a pilot project in Morehead, NC to be converted to

methane. Once in Morehead City, North Carolina officials began an investigation and ultimately
ordered the now infamous “garbage barge” to find another home for its rotting cargo. This began a
months‐long odyssey that took the barge all the way to Belize and back to New York State until
October 1987, when, under an agreement with the New York City Department of Sanitation, the
garbage was incinerated in New York City and the ash disposed of in Islip. Although the saga was an
embarrassment, the garbage barge incident was widely publicized across the nation and became
emblematic of what was considered at the time to be a solid waste disposal crisis that lead to
significant improvements in solid waste management.
The 1987 Plan was not intended as a panacea for the state’s disposal problems at the time, but,
rather, represented the beginning of a change in solid waste management practices to meet both
current and future needs. It was explicitly intended to be the first step of what was envisioned to be
a long‐term, ongoing, solid waste management planning process. The state was to update the plan
annually (which was subsequently amended in a 1992 law to biennially) to address emerging issues
and recommend actions to improve solid waste management in New York State. This iterative
approach was intended to provide a dynamic solid waste management planning process.
The 1987 Plan contained important goals, including a goal to reduce, reuse, or recycle 50 percent of
the waste stream (using 1988 as a base year) and a recommended hierarchy of preferred solid waste
management methods. The 1987 Plan set what was seen at that time as visionary and aggressive,
yet achievable, goals for a ten‐year planning period with the intent of using annual updates to adjust
policies, programs, plans and goals to ensure continued progress.
The first update of the State Solid Waste Management Plan, produced in fiscal year 1987/1988,
revised the 1987 Plan to incorporate the requirements and direction embodied in the Solid Waste
Management Act, passed in 1988 (described below). Subsequent updates of the 1987 Plan did not
directly revise or replace portions of the 1987/88 Plan update. Instead, each update became a
stand‐alone document that characterized the activities undertaken within the state with respect to
solid waste management during the update period. In time, as the state’s regulations and local solid
waste management plans (LSWMPs) were developed and implemented, the plan updates became
more of a reporting mechanism of achievements, obstacles encountered and comparisons to the
initial base year of the Plan. The Plan updates also made recommendations for action.
Because the initial ten‐year planning period ended in 1997, the 1997/1998 update was prepared to
serve as more than a report. It:
• launched a new five‐year planning period (1998‐2003);
• identified objectives for the five‐year planning period;
• provided baseline solid waste management data for the new planning period; and
• summarized developments and progress in solid waste management since the last update of
the plan.
Draft Plan updates were prepared for 1999/2000 and 2001/2002. The 1999/2000 update was
approved and released, but while the 2001/2002 draft update was released for public comment, it
was never finalized. There have been no updates since.

3.1.2 The NYS Solid Waste Management Act
In response to the 1987 Plan, the Solid Waste Management Act (ECL 27‐0106, the Act) was signed by
the Governor, establishing in law the Plan’s preferred hierarchy of solid waste management. The
hierarchy established the following priorities to guide the programs and decisions of DEC and other
state agencies:
a) First, to reduce the amount of solid waste generated;
b) Second, to reuse material for the purpose for which it was originally intended or to recycle the
material that cannot be reused;
c) Third, to recover, in an environmentally acceptable manner, energy from solid waste that cannot
be economically and technically reused or recycled; and
d) Fourth, to dispose of solid waste that is not being reused or recycled, or from which energy is not
being recovered, by land burial or other methods approved by the department.
In addition to the hierarchy, the Act established:
• the structure and expectations for regional solid waste management planning units to
encourage regional cooperation;
• the requirements and funding for local solid waste management plans in accordance with
the hierarchy of solid waste management methods;
• a mandate that municipalities adopt and implement source separation laws or ordinances
for recyclables from all generating sectors by 9/1/92 (less than five years from enactment);
and
• DEC’s role in fulfilling these requirements.
The Act’s requirements were intended to ensure that both state and local governments work
actively toward establishing environmentally sound solid waste management systems that integrate
the hierarchy of solid waste management methods and emphasize waste reduction and recycling,
using landfills only for materials that could not be managed in a more productive way.
In broad terms, the Act has been a success in spurring the development of municipal recycling
programs across the state and making recycling opportunities available to most New Yorkers. The
requirement for local governments to establish source‐separation programs has yielded an increase
in the state’s recycling rate. While the Act’s implementation launched successful waste prevention
and recycling programs and integrated solid waste management systems, it lacks a mechanism for
fostering continual improvement beyond the minimum mandates. Furthermore, changes in the
marketplace have led to legal and economic realities that, in some cases, undermine the state’s solid
waste management planning constructs. The roles and responsibilities of the various players in the
solid waste chain must evolve to respond to current conditions.


3.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
3.2.1 The Role of the State
Prior to 1987, state government’s role in solid waste management was primarily as regulator,
ensuring the protection of public health and the environment from inappropriate disposal practices.
The state, through DEC, regulated the siting, construction and operation of waste disposal facilities
through permits and upheld the permit conditions through enforcement. The state, through DEC,
also provided technical assistance and limited financial assistance to local governments. The most
notable source of financial assistance prior to 1987 was the 1972 Environmental Quality Bond Act,
which provided loans for the proper closure of municipal landfills and grants for MWCs. The state
did not dictate to a community how to dispose of its waste; rather, it ensured that a community’s
waste disposal practices did not impair the environment or threaten public health.
Through the Act, the legislature affirmed the primacy of local and regional governments in solid
waste management while clearly articulating the state’s role. The state was to fulfill its responsibility
to ensure environmentally, economically and technically viable solid waste management programs
by:
• encouraging waste reduction and the expansion of materials recovery programs;
• establishing clearly articulated, responsive and consistently applied regulatory oversight;
and
• providing a full range of technical assistance to local governments.
DEC is the lead state agency for materials and waste management. However, other state agencies
have explicit responsibility for certain solid waste related programs. Empire State Development
(ESD) is charged with the implementation of the state’s Secondary Materials Utilization Grant
Program, through which it invests in projects and companies that use recycled materials.
The Office of General Services (OGS) is responsible for implementing a recycled product
procurement program and establishing recycling programs in state agencies. The New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) provides targeted investments in solid
waste and recycling projects that generate energy or achieve energy conservation.
In addition, all agencies have routine and ongoing roles and responsibilities for undertaking proper
environmental stewardship, establishing waste prevention and recycling programs, and responsibly
managing solid waste within their own operations. The requirements of the Act were bolstered by
Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order 142, signed on January 16, 1991, which required all state
agencies and authorities to implement far‐reaching and aggressive waste reduction and recycling
practices and support recycling markets by buying products made with secondary materials.9 This
order remained in effect until it was superseded by Executive Order 4, signed on April 24, 2008 by
Governor Paterson. Executive Order 4 challenges state agencies and authorities to set an example
for communities and businesses with regard to sustainability in operations and green purchasing.
The order requires agencies and authorities to appoint a sustainability and green procurement

9
A report on the progress toward implementing EO 142 is provided in Appendix 3.1 and
at http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/bldgAdmin/facmod/3RsAnnualReport07_08.pdf.

coordinator to lead these efforts. It specifically requires state agencies to implement waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and composting programs and to purchase products that meet key
“green” criteria, including recycled content, waste reduction, recyclability, compostability and
extended producer responsibility requirements.
In the context of solid waste management, the state also performs the following specific functions:
1. Policy Direction: As in other issue areas, the executive branch, through state agency leadership,
develops materials and waste management policy initiatives and provides direction for the
administration of programs to carry out executive policy. To ensure that local solid waste
management plans and programs are consistent with state policy, DEC provides guidance and
direction to local governments by:
Articulating the state’s vision for materials and waste management through the state Solid Waste
Management Plan, making recommendations on how that vision can be achieved and setting the
context for the actions of local governments and other stakeholders.
Reviewing local solid waste management plans (LSWMPs) and solid waste management facility
permit applications to ensure consistency with the state solid waste management hierarchy, which
emphasizes maximizing waste reduction, reuse, and recycling;
Reviewing permit applications submitted by or on behalf of a municipality for most solid waste
management facilities to ensure consistency with the LSWMP in effect for the municipality and
confirming that a comprehensive recycling analysis (CRA) is in place that identifies the materials
available for recycling and the strategies the municipality will implement to reduce, reuse, recycle
and compost those materials;
Reviewing permit applications for most solid waste management facilities submitted by or on behalf
of non‐municipal entities to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the state solid waste
management policy and includes an assessment of the proposed facility as it relates to the LSWMP
in which the facility is located and the planning units from which solid waste is expected to be
received; and
Placing conditions on permits to prohibit most solid waste management facilities from accepting
solid waste that was generated within a municipality that has not met core planning requirements
by either completing a DEC‐approved CRA or LSWMP or being included in another municipality’s
approved CRA or LSWMP.
2. Technical Assistance: DEC routinely provides technical assistance to local government, the private
sector, and the general public through several methods and means, including: the solid waste
management facility permitting process; public information meetings; planning and policy
guidance; materials and waste management information and data, and training. ESD serves as the
state’s repository for recycling market information and assists both public and private sector
recyclers in accessing and developing markets. In that capacity, ESD has developed a recycling
markets database, available at www.empire.state.ny.us/recycle.


3. Public Education/Information: DEC provides valuable information and guidance on solid waste
management requirements and issues to the public. To disseminate information, DEC uses written
materials, its website and other venues, such as conferences, seminars and meetings. (For a list of
available resources, see http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8801.html) ESD provides tools to
businesses, including Environmental Improvement Resources for Businesses in NYS, a directory of
state environmental assistance programs available
at http://www.nylovessmallbiz.com/growing_/environm.htm.
4. Financial Assistance: Since 1987, DEC has provided nearly $700 million in financial assistance to
municipalities and businesses for reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, recycling outreach and
education, and solid waste management projects. Funding sources have included: the 1972
Environmental Quality Bond Act (EQBA); the 1986 EQBA; the Kansas Stripper Well Settlement; the
Petroleum Overcharge Restitution Act; the Solid Waste Management Act; the Environmental
Protection Fund (EPF), and the 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air (CW/CA) Bond Act. Today, the EPF is the
only ongoing state assistance funding source for solid waste management projects. Other state
agencies have also provided financial assistance for waste and recycling related projects.
For example, landfill closure projects have obtained loans from the Environmental Facilities
Corporation (EFC) through the State Revolving Fund, and ESD and NYSERDA provide financial
assistance for certain waste reduction, recycling, and organics recovery businesses. (For more
information on state financial assistance programs, see Section 6.)
5. Statewide Planning: DEC is responsible for preparing and updating the State Solid Waste
Management Plan (State Plan) in accordance with the requirements of Environmental Conservation
Law (ECL) 27‐0103. The state Plan is intended to provide direction, guidance and information on
solid waste management and identify policy recommendations. The update process dictated in the
ECL makes the Plan a “living” document that will change as new information becomes available and
as planning units identify both obstacles and opportunities through implementation of their
LSWMPs. This iterative process is informed by stakeholder input, feedback from planning units,
LSWMP compliance reports and modifications, and other information available to the state. By
monitoring local program experiences, DEC can gauge progress toward statewide goals and
objectives and identify the need for new programs to help overcome obstacles impeding local
planning objectives.
6. Regulatory Oversight: DEC’s role as regulator is the backbone of its solid waste management
program. Through regulations and their enforcement, DEC ensures that legal requirements are
upheld and that public health and the environment are protected. Through its Part 360 regulations,
DEC regulates the construction and operation of solid waste management facilities to ensure they
are protective of public health and the environment. The Part 360 regulations also dictate
requirements for local solid waste management planning. These regulations can be updated
periodically to reflect new legal requirements and developments in the industry. To enforce its
regulations and permit conditions, DEC places environmental monitors (DEC employees funded by
permittees) at many permitted solid waste management facilities. Where monitors are not
available, DEC staff carry out inspections, compliance counseling and enforcement, sometimes with
the assistance of environmental conservation officers and the State Attorney General’s Office.

3.2.2 The Role of Local Governments
The implementation of solid waste management programs in New York State has historically been
the responsibility of local government. The day‐to‐day activities at the core of materials and waste
management (e.g., separation, collection, recycling, transport, storage, transfer, and disposal) occur
at the local level, either by the local governments themselves or through contracts or agreements
with private entities. As part of that role, municipalities may:
• acquire land for waste management and disposal facilities;
• construct solid waste management facilities;
• provide or contract for waste and recyclables collection services;
• conduct facility siting studies;
• manage application processes for state permits;
• lead the state environmental quality review (SEQR) process;
• operate or contract for the operation of facilities;
• ensure compliance and reporting;
• enact flow control ordinances (see details below); and
• educate the public.
Some local responsibility is specifically assigned under state law, most notably the Act’s
requirements for localities in the state to have mandatory source separation laws or ordinances in
place and to develop and maintain LSWMPs if they seek permits for solid waste management
facilities. Under the Act (through amendments to General Municipal Law 120‐aa), municipalities
were to require source separation of recyclables in all generating sectors (e.g., residential,
commercial, institutional and industrial) no later than September 1, 1992. Thus, the law placed the
responsibility for mandating, designing and implementing recycling programs on local governments
and the planning units they created. Some local governments do not have the expertise or resources
to adequately carry out all of the functions dictated in the act and have relied on support from the
private sector (see section 3.2.3).
The Act also encouraged local governments to join together to form solid waste management
planning units and create LSWMPs to guide their programs and ensure alignment with the state’s
solid waste management hierarchy10 . Most of the 64 planning units in the state function on the
county level, but several upstate and western New York planning units include multiple counties or
solid waste management authorities, while some downstate units are organized on the city level (in
New York City and Nassau County) and the town level (on Long Island).

10
A planning unit must consist of a county; two or more counties acting jointly; a local government agency or
authority established pursuant to state law for the purpose of managing solid waste; any city in the
county of Nassau, or two or more other municipalities which DEC determines to be capable of
implementing a regional solid waste management program.

Since 1990, 60 of 64 planning units have had DEC‐approved LSWMPs, and two of the remaining four
have had CRAs approved by DEC. The planning periods for the LSWMPs have varied from 10 years
to 20 years. As discussed more fully later in this section, LSWMP implementation has been
inconsistent across the state.
As evidenced by the data in Table 3.1, New York State is at a critical point in local solid waste
management planning, with more than 70 percent of the planning units in the state required to
submit new or modified plans in the next two years. In at least eight planning units, one or more
municipalities have ceased active participation and have not joined another planning unit or
developed a CRA. While the lack of a CRA makes them technically out of compliance with the state’s
regulatory requirements, these requirements are only enforceable in conjunction with a permit
action or condition. For a profile of each planning unit, see Appendix 3.3.

TABLE 3.1
LSWMP Status Number Percent of Total
Never Approved 4 6%
Expired 7 11%
Expiration 2009 4 6%
Expiration 2010 30 47%
Plans Expiring after 2010 19 30%
Total 64 100%

3.2.3 The Role of the Private Sector
For more than a century, there has been a vibrant private recycling industry focused on the recovery
of paper and metals. This vital role continues today with a greatly expanded menu of materials
processed by private companies into marketable commodities and products. Virtually all municipal
recycling programs eventually depend upon the recycling industry for the ultimate processing and
marketing of recovered materials. The recycling industry has developed and implemented
innovative strategies for the processing and marketing of materials from such sources as electronics
scrap, tires and end‐of‐life vehicles.
Beyond the recycling industry, the role of the private sector has grown during the last two decades
as companies increasingly provide integrated solid waste management services to planning units,
including collection, processing and disposal of both recyclables and waste. In support of those
functions, private companies have made significant investments in collection, transportation and
disposal capacity in New York State. In fact, private companies manage most of the waste in the
state, either in their own facilities or by operating municipally owned facilities, and they are the
primary mechanism for transporting waste and materials both in and out‐of‐state.

As such, their role is a significant one, and their engagement is critical to the state’s success in
moving Beyond Waste.
Local government interaction with and oversight of private sector collectors, processors and facility
operators varies throughout the state. Some communities heavily regulate the activity of the
private waste industry, using tools such as flow control, contracts, registration, permitting, and
enforcement, while others provide little oversight.
Although the state’s oversight of private waste collection services is minimal—only transporters of
industrial waste, regulated medical waste, and septage are regulated by 6 NYCRR Part 364—DEC
regulates solid waste management facilities, whether they are operated by public or private entities,
through the NYCRR Part 360 regulations. To ensure compliance with regulatory and permit
requirements, some private operators of permitted solid waste management facilities are required
to fund a DEC monitor to oversee their operations.
In addition to day‐to‐day waste management activities, local governments also increasingly rely on
private consulting and engineering firms to support their programs and facilities through planning,
design, and construction. Furthermore, private companies are also consumers of products and
packaging and generators of waste. In their role as consumers, businesses and industries can help
to drive the market toward less wasteful and more recyclable products and packaging. For example,
many large companies have begun to require minimal packaging and that products and packaging
be developed without the use of toxic and hazardous chemicals. In the role of waste generator,
businesses and industries must institute source separation programs in conformance with local laws
or ordinances and should simultaneously work to instill a recycling ethic among the work force.

3.2.4 The Role of New York State’s Residents
No integrated solid waste management program can succeed without the active engagement of the
citizens of the state. Indeed, every New Yorker is affected by and involved in materials and waste
management. For waste reduction, recycling and organics recovery programs to succeed, the public
must participate. The choices New Yorkers make in what they buy, how they use it and how they
dispose of it can have significant impacts on materials management—waste‐preventing purchasing
sends a signal to companies that consumers don’t want waste; getting maximum use and reuse out
of household items reduces materials use, and choosing to recycle or compost reduces waste.
Members of the public can also play an important role in local materials and waste management
planning and can influence the direction taken by their local elected officials. The local planning
process encourages ample public involvement and participation.


3.3 INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATION AND FACILITY PRIVATIZATION
As anticipated and encouraged in the ECL, the private sector has played an increasingly significant
role in providing solid waste management services to planning units. The implementation of
integrated solid waste management systems has also created enhanced opportunities for increased
involvement of the private sector in various aspects of materials and waste management.
At the same time, a national trend of significant consolidation within the solid waste collection and
disposal industry emerged. Fewer large companies have grown to dominate the industry, limiting
the competition in what was once a very diverse field of players. However, as companies grow,
their investment capability also grows, facilitating greater expansion, better facilities, advancement,
and opportunity.
As a result, the industry has established:
• more technologically advanced and consistently operated and maintained facilities; and
• greater long‐term investments in recyclables processing, waste processing and disposal
infrastructure.
Privatization of solid waste management facilities (i.e., private ownership or operation of facilities
that provide a public service) has also become much more commonplace during the last 20 years—
so much so that it is now sometimes difficult for local government‐owned solid waste facilities to
compete. Privatization can be an attractive option for planning units because it allows them to
provide various services for their constituency without incurring the long‐term indebtedness and
risk associated with a large capital project or the ongoing operational costs and management
burden associated with operating municipal programs. However, full privatization without the
necessary safeguards obtained through competitive negotiated procurement can have negative
consequences, essentially placing the municipality in a position of dependency on a private company
in a monopoly situation, thereby limiting its options.
Recognizing both the positive and negative potential of privatization, some local governments have
used a hybrid approach whereby the materials and waste management infrastructure is owned by
the public sector, and operations are contracted out to the private sector. New York City’s LSWMP
rests on this public/private partnership approach for its recycling and waste transfer facilities. This
type of structure reduces the risk to the public entity by ensuring the capacity is always available,
while offering the benefits and efficiency of private operations.
Whether privatizing an entire system or just facility operations, local governments can maximize the
benefits of privatization and minimize the risk of monopoly by using competitive procurement
procedures, developing rigorous contracting processes and carefully negotiating compensation
rates.


3.4 OVERSEEING PRIVATELY OPERATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
There are several tools available to local governments to help ensure that solid waste services
provided by the private sector are consistent with and supportive of waste reduction, reuse,
recycling and organics recovery goals and the solid waste management infrastructure developed by
the locality. Those tools include flow control legislation, registration or permitting programs, and
contractual requirements.
Flow control refers to laws or ordinances enacted by local governments to direct or otherwise
regulate the movement of solid waste generated within their jurisdiction by designating transfer,
recycling, disposal, or other facilities at which the material will be managed. Flow control can be an
important financial and planning tool to ensure delivery of sufficient solid waste to satisfy debt
payments for capital intensive facilities and to generate revenue that can support waste reduction
and recycling initiatives. It also ensures that materials are directed to a facility that the municipality
determines is safe and approporiate for handling its waste. While implementation of flow control
ordinances has been hampered by legal challenges, in 2007 the US Supreme Court held, in United
Haulers v. Oneida Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, that flow control ordinances are
constitutional if used to support an integrated solid waste management program. (For a full
discussion of flow control, see Appendix 3.2.)
Many communities in New York State require companies that collect solid waste to register or
obtain a license or permit to operate within their jurisdictions. The requirements for licenses,
permits or registrations can include provisions that:
• require that collectors provide recycling services;
• restrict the co‐mingling of recyclables with other waste;
• include reporting on material origin and destination; and
• establish other initiatives that support the municipality’s goals and programs.
As with any permit program, it is important for communities to maintain an active and visible
Enforcement component.
Using contractual structures, such as districting, local governments can bid out the recycling and
solid waste collection services in a defined area and, as a condition of the bid, set requirements that
support the locality’s goals, such as designating certain materials for recycling collection, requiring
education and outreach, directing that certain solid waste management facilities be used, and
requiring reporting.
In other states, communities can use franchise agreements to structure recycling and waste
collection service agreements with private sector operators. In these cases, the franchise can be bid
out for a neighborhood or area, can require that certain services be provided, and can specify the
facilities to be used for recycling or disposal. Franchises are similar to contract structures and
districting, but enable municipalities to bid for the service and allow the contractor to bill the
generator directly in accordance with the terms of the franchise. Municipalities in New York State
cannot enter into franchise agreements without explicit state legislative authority.

3.5 RESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
DEC provides technical and planning assistance, as well as financial assistance, for capital and
education costs related to waste reduction and recycling programs, household hazardous waste
management, landfill closure projects and landfill gas management programs.
For the first ten‐year solid waste management planning period (1987 ‐1997), the state’s program
interacted regularly with planning units to support the development of their initial LSWMPs. During
that time, DEC provided significant technical assistance to planning units and their consulting
engineers on available technologies, data, tools, and concepts. For example, DEC worked with
NYSERDA and the New York State Association for Solid Waste Management (NYSASWM) to
distribute modeling software to local solid waste management officials throughout the state and
trained them in the fundamentals of using it.
The majority of LSWMPs were approved and implemented in the late 1990s. Unfortunately, in the
last decade, solid waste management planning program staff were reduced, and programs and
technical assistance efforts became more limited. At the same time, a number of LSWMPs expired
without the submittal of replacement LSWMPs for review and approval.
While the state’s financial assistance programs have been significant, the available funding has not
been sufficient to address the need, particularly in the last decade. Waste reduction and recycling
related programs have been chronically underfunded, with $6 to $10 million awarded annually and
a waiting list of pre‐applications for projects consistently totaling between $20 to $35 million. There
has been no funding for the development or modification of LSWMPs since the $7.5 million in
funding provided in 1988 was exhausted in 1992. (For more on state investments, see section 6.)

3.6 DATA COLLECTION AND USE
For the past 20 years, DEC has relied on planning units to aggregate, analyze and report recycling
data, and for some composting and disposal data, for waste from all generating sectors within their
planning unit. Data collection has been a great challenge for planning units, especially with respect
to commercial and institutional waste. For the most part, data collection for municipally collected
residential waste has provided basic, usable planning and tracking information. However, in sectors
and regions with predominantly private collection, data has been weak.
Even so, the data provided by planning units was considered the best available and was used for
both state and local planning and reporting purposes. In an effort to avoid double counting
materials already reported by planning units, DEC did not include individual recycling and
composting facility report data in the state’s recovery rate calculations. However, through 2001, the
state’s recycling rate included data provided by the American Forest and Paper Association and the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for non‐municipally generated materials, as well as
disposal data provided by facilities in the state. Since that time, recycling rate calculations have
been based solely on information provided by the planning units.
Additional analysis of reported planning unit data compared to reported recycling and solid waste
management facility data performed as a part of this Plan’s development indicates that, in

aggregate, the planning unit reports have been underreporting material processed at private
recycling and waste transfer and disposal facilities. Furthermore, reported data for yard trimmings
has been inconsistent in terms of both accuracy and units. This has likely resulted in a number of
data gaps over the years, especially with respect to commercial and institutional wastes. The data
presented in this Plan is more accurate than previously reported information, as discussed more
fully in section 8.3.1. As the state transitions to the new goal structure—a reduction in per‐capita
waste disposal—discrepancies must be resolved to ensure the best data is gathered and used for
analysis and measurement.
Additional attention to the issue of the collection and use of data is critical to the state’s ability to
measure progress in moving Beyond Waste. It is important to evaluate one community against the
next and to evaluate the state’s progress in comparison to other states. DEC will continue to work
with the USEPA and regional organizations (e.g., the Northeast Waste Management Officials
Association, NERC) to develop consistent measures of success.

3.7 WASTE COMPOSITION INFORMATION
To plan for greater levels of recovery, it is important to understand what materials are available in
the waste stream. Comprehensive waste composition analyses can be expensive but are an
essential tool for gaining that understanding. New York State has not conducted a statewide waste
composition analysis but, rather, has relied upon planning units to aggregate specific waste
composition and generation data as part of their planning efforts. For their part, few planning units
have had the resources to perform a field analysis, so most LSWMPs employ USEPA’s national
estimate of waste composition for projections and planning or rely on outdated waste composition
studies that do not capture the changes in materials use and packaging trends that have had
significant impacts on waste composition in the last two decades. Furthermore, few composition
analyses represent the entire waste stream, including residential, commercial, and institutional
waste.
There are, however, a couple of exceptions. Most notably, New York City (NYC) has conducted two
in‐depth waste composition analyses on its residential stream, one as part of its original LSWMP in
1990 and one in 2004‐2005. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Authority conducted waste
composition analyses in 1987, 1993, 1998 and 2005. Through these studies, both NYC and Onondaga
County were able to learn what portion of targeted materials was not being captured completely
and what materials are generated in sufficient quantity to warrant new programs or market
development attention. These studies and those compiled in other states form the basis of the
composition analysis presented in Section 7. However, a fuller data set, covering the entire state
and all of the waste streams, would provide the basis for better planning on both the state and local
levels.


3.8 ENFORCEMENT
While the statutory and legal basis for mandatory recycling envisioned by the New York State
Legislature when the Act was created has been partially realized, the intended result—the
statewide implementation of recycling programs across the residential, commercial, industrial and
institutional sectors—has not been achieved. It is noteworthy that nearly 20 years later, some
municipalities (representing more than three percent of the state’s population) still do not have
local laws that comply with the basic source separation requirements of Section 120‐aa of Article 6
of the General Municipal Law (GML 120‐aa). Of those local governments that do have recycling laws
or ordinances in place, much of the focus has been on residential recycling programs, and the
requirements established by the legislature in GML 120‐aa have been for the most part ignored as
they relate to commercial, industrial and institutional generators. In addition, there has been little
effort on the part of many municipalities which do have local laws in place to enforce those laws in
instances where there is non‐compliance in any category of generators.
As state solid waste planning staff and resources have diminished, DEC’s oversight of LSWMP
performance and updating has suffered. Nonetheless, the regulatory tools to create a vibrant and
meaningful state and local solid waste management planning program remain in place to be more
fully used and enhanced. Most particularly, the LSWMPs must have relevance and rigor beyond the
permitting of facilities.

3.9 INCONSISTENT IMPLEMENTATION
Several planning units have established and implemented integrated solid waste management
systems with aggressive waste reduction and recycling programs that demonstrate the capability
and promise of the originally envisioned system. Still, there is a great disparity in the scope and
performance of integrated waste management programs across the state, and progress on recycling
has varied dramatically by planning unit and municipality (See Figure 8.1 in Section 8.3). The
experience of the higher performing programs has simply not transferred throughout the state. For
example, in 2008, on a per capita basis, reported MSW recycling rates ranged from 764 pounds per
person per year of paper and containers to 17 pounds per person per year.
While some of the differences in performance can be attributed to specific regional circumstances,
such as proximity to markets and possibly to data collection anomalies, these variables cannot
account for the full breadth of the disparity in programs statewide. Much of the disparity is the
result of a lack of uniformity in local implementation of LSWMPs and enforcement of the LSWMPs
and their recycling requirements. DEC generally lacks enforcement authority over LSWMPs. While
the permitting of solid waste management facilities provides some legal opportunity to enforce
consistency with related LSWMPs, the fact that some facilities serve municipalities located in
numerous LSWMPs and the lack of specific enforcement guidance have reduced use of this
authority.


3.10 RECYCLING MARKETS
Like any commodity market, markets for most recyclable materials have fluctuated dramatically in
the past two decades. No year illustrated this point as well as 2008, when many recyclable materials
experienced both record high and record low market values. That fluctuation is a reminder that
recycling markets are global in nature and subject to external factors well beyond the control of
local solid waste managers or companies. Fortunately, New York State’s recycling programs have
weathered dramatic market fluctuations and, for the most part, programs have successfully
endured. The state, primarily through the efforts of ESD, has worked to both develop and
strengthen recycling markets for various materials. (ESDs efforts are discussed in Section 6 and
Appendix 6.2.) Planning units can help to stabilize markets by providing a consistent supply of clean,
uniform recyclable materials and entering into long‐term supply agreements with local or regional
markets. For more on recycling markets, see Section 8.3.

3.11 CHANGING ROLES—PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
As the state transitions to a materials management system that relies more heavily on product
stewardship (also known as extended producer responsibility), there will be a greater role for
private sector players that are somewhat new to materials management, most notably brand
owners (also referred to as producers or manufacturers) and retailers. The precise roles of brand
owners and retailers will be determined by the structure of the state’s product stewardship laws,
but it is fair to presume that an enhanced role for both of these types of companies will be realized.
Brand owners will be required to either develop or finance materials management programs for
their products. Retailers may be required to collect or aggregate materials from consumers. (For
more on potential roles and structures of product stewardship programs, see Section 4 and
Appendix 4.2.)

3.12 FINDINGS
State agencies must lead by example and demonstrate progressive materials management
strategies and sustainable operations.
The state must strengthen its efforts to direct policy, provide technical and financial assistance,
perform outreach and education functions, and ensure a strong and enforceable regulatory
structure.
• The state must refocus on solid waste management planning by:
o seeking staff and resources to implement the state Plan; and
o working with planning units to craft a new generation of LSWMPs that embody new
approaches and technologies to reduce waste and achieve higher levels of recovery
and that reflect current market and regulatory conditions.

• DEC must uniformly apply planning requirements statewide under new and existing
authority to ensure that LSWMPs and CRAs represent concerted efforts to reduce waste and
increase recycling and are aggressively implemented.
• DEC must work to improve data collection to better measure progress in moving Beyond
Waste.
• The state must allocate additional funding and resources to plan for and implement
sustainable materials management programs and to provide necessary oversight and
enforcement.
3.13 RECOMMENDATIONS
As we move Beyond Waste, the state and its solid waste management planning units must
implement the wide range of actions listed below. Fully realizing these recommendations will
require additional resources—both financial and human—at the state and local level.

•Work aggressively with New York State agencies and authorities to implement Governor
Paterson’s Executive Order 4, which requires agencies and authorities to set an example of
sustainable operations, including minimizing waste and maximizing recycling of materials and
organics; work with the Pollution Prevention Institute 11 to evaluate products for consideration
as EO4 “green products.”
•Expand the local solid waste management planning technical assistance program, and provide
guidance and tools to help municipalities, advocates, and other stakeholders address
challenging planning issues, including:
o recycling market development and stabilization;
o flow control or other private sector oversight programs (e.g., hauler licensing or
reporting);
o recycling and waste composition data collection and use;
o technology transfer and data/information sharing;
o incentives, education and enforcement; and
o program implementation uniformity.

11
The Pollution Prevention Institute is a collaborative of several universities and technology development
centers, funded through the Environmental Protection Fund. For more information,
see http://www.nysp2i.rit.edu/.

•Require planning units to evaluate and implement, where feasible, the following programs,
policies and initiatives as they develop new LSWMPs, modify existing LSWMPs, and otherwise
plan for and implement programs:
o education, and enforcement;
o incentives, including variable rate pricing structures (e.g., PAYT/SMART Program);
o public space, event, institutional and commercial recycling;
o additional materials for recovery, including food scraps and other organics; and
o long‐term recycled material supply agreements and/or processing contracts with
multiple market outlets.
• Evaluate current planning unit membership and structure to ensure that original structures
are functioning, and, if not, support efforts to adjust structures or create new planning units
to best carry forward the next stage of planning and program implementation.
• Assist planning units in analyzing infrastructure needs for greater materials recovery in their
service area as appropriate.
• Develop an on‐line reporting system to collect more timely and accurate recycling and
disposal data from solid waste and recycling facilities and planning units; work with industry
to develop methods to gather data on materials recovery that is not currently reported.
• Develop guidance for planning units on performing waste composition and characterization
analyses to ensure consistency in analyses undertaken across the state so that the
characterization data can support state and local planning; identify funding sources to
incentivize local waste characterization efforts.
• Develop critical recovery infrastructure through inter‐agency collaboration (with ESD,
NYSERDA, and EFC) or public‐private partnership, including the following suggested
facilities:
o organic material recycling facilities across the state;
o new or upgraded material recovery facilities in select areas of the state;
o regional glass processing facilities across the state; and
o plastics recovery capacity in the state for processing both rigid plastics #1‐7 and film
plastics.
• Network with other agency stakeholders to facilitate immediate response to disasters and
to mitigate the impacts of disasters through better planning.

• Develop a regulatory approach to ensure consistent implementation of the requirements to
source separate recyclables, particularly in areas served by private collection companies.
• Increase DEC’s authority to enforce state and local source‐separation requirements.
• Advance a comprehensive and integrated financial assistance program to support
development and implementation of LSWMPs. (For more detail, see Section 6.)
• Develop a targeted funding program for specific priority areas identified by the state as
having the greatest potential for advancing the state’s goals in moving Beyond Waste. The
fund must be flexible enough to allow funding to planning units, the private sector, state
agencies or a combination of the three.
• Require local governments to be members of a planning unit and make local solid waste
management planning mandatory and enforceable, notwithstanding the facility permitting
process.
• Authorize municipalities to franchise solid waste management services.
• Expand the Waste Transporter Program to place specific requirements on transporters of
MSW, C&D debris and historic fill to: enforce source separation requirements, account for
wastes that are not currently tracked, and ensure that communities who export comply with
source separation requirements and disposal restrictions.


4. GREENHOUSE GAS AND MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE MOST PRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE OF OUR TIME…BY TAKING
ACTION, WE SEND A SIGNAL THAT NEW YORKERS WILL DO OUR SHARE TO ADDRESS THE
CLIMATE CRISIS AND WE WILL DO IT IN A WAY THAT CREATES OPPORTUNITIES FOR
INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP TO FLOURISH.
David Paterson
Governor
August 6, 2009

WE ARE AT A CHANGE MOMENT, A PIVOT POINT IN WORLD HISTORY. WE CAN EITHER HOLD
FAST TO OUTMODED NOTIONS THAT IMPERIL THE FUTURE OF OUR PLANET, OR WE CAN STAND
UP AND TAKE ACTION TO SAVE IT.
Pete Grannis
Commissioner, NYS DEC
May 20, 2008

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH4) and other “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) prevent heat from
leaving the earth’s atmosphere, causing the planet’s temperature to warm in the same way as glass
allows heat to build up in a greenhouse. While GHG is naturally present in the atmosphere, a
number of human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuel, have led to higher than normal
concentrations of the gases. As a result, the greenhouse effect is enhanced and Earth’s temperature
is rising with the potential to change the planet’s climate.
Scientific evidence suggests that a changing climate poses a serious threat to environmental
resources and public health in New York State, nationally and globally. Climate change will affect air
quality, water quality, fisheries, drinking water supplies, wetlands, forests, wildlife, and agriculture.
The Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA) prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists,
concludes that flooding from climate change‐related severe weather events and rising sea levels
threaten communities and infrastructure in floodplains and along coastlines.
Scientists have already observed significant warming in New York State’s climate due to increased
concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere. Since 1970, the northeast United States has been
warming at a rate of 0.5° F per decade. Winter temperatures have risen even faster, at a rate of
1.3°F per decade from 1970 to 2000. Temperature increases in the metropolitan coastal areas of the
state have been more dramatic. As outlined in the NECIA, scientists have concluded that New York
State’s climate has already begun to take on the characteristics of the climate formerly found in the
states to the south.


The scientific literature confirms that large and rapid reductions of GHG emissions will help to
mitigate the impacts of climate change, but to do this, we will need to adopt thoughtful new
approaches to the way we use and produce energy. Indeed, mitigating the impacts of a warming
climate represents one of the most pressing environmental challenges for the state, the nation, and
the world. New York State is now updating its Energy Plan to facilitate more aggressive reductions of
GHGs. In August 2009, Governor Paterson issued Executive Order 24, establishing a state goal of
reducing GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Achieving these goals will require a fresh look at materials and waste management strategies. In
addition to the direct emissions of GHGs from solid waste management facilities, the way materials
are managed also has GHG impacts. Overall, waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting are
better performing materials management strategies from a GHG reduction perspective and also
conserve energy and offer other environmental and economic benefits compared to disposal.
Maximizing the deployment of these strategies will help the state meet its GHG reduction goals. To
manage the waste that remains after comprehensive waste prevention, reuse, recycling and
composting are in place, municipal waste combustion (MWC) offers significant GHG reduction
advantages compared to landfilling.

4.1 WASTE CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL WARMING
According to USEPA, on a life‐cycle basis, 42 percent of the national GHG inventory is influenced by
the energy and fuel consumed in the production, use and management of the materials that
become waste. 12
The most obvious and well‐documented contribution to GHG from the management of waste is
from the uncaptured emissions of methane from landfills—as organic materials break down in a
landfill’s anaerobic environment they generate methane, a GHG 23 times more potent than CO 2 .
USEPA estimates that, nationally, landfill methane emissions represent 1.8 percent of GHG
emissions. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) statewide
GHG Inventory for 2006 estimates that MSW contributes 9.8 million tons of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 E)
to Earth’s atmosphere. This represents 3.8 percent of the state’s GHG emissions, second only to
fuel consumption as a single source of emissions.
In addition to direct emissions, the transportation and handling of solid waste also generates GHGs.
And the GHG implications of waste go beyond waste handling considerations. More than 70 percent
of MSW comprises products and packaging, the production, distribution and disposition of which
generates GHGs. Every step of the process—mining, harvesting, manufacturing, and distribution—
consumes energy and generates pollution. In fact, for every ton of MSW, 71 tons of industrial
discards are produced. 13 Thus, to the extent that waste can be reduced through extended use of

12
Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices US‐
EPA, September 2009
13
Office of Technology Assessment, Managing Industrial Solid Wastes from Maufacturing, Mining, Oil and Gas
Production and Utility Coal Combustion (OTA‐BP‐0‐82), February 1992, pp. 7, 10.

products and materials and through various recovery strategies, they will not have to be replaced
with new materials requiring an equivalent demand on resources and the environment. Through
changes in product design and packaging, many materials might not be generated in the first place,
a particularly relevant concept for things that currently go from store shelves almost immediately to
the garbage bin upon purchase—packaging, single‐use products and other items of limited value.
In its report, Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life Cycle Assessment of Emissions
and Sinks, USEPA describes the life‐cycle impacts of waste:
For many wastes, the materials in MSW represent what is left over after a long series of steps:
(1) extraction and processing of raw materials; (2) manufacture of products; (3) transportation
of materials and products to markets; (4) use by consumers, and (5) waste management.
Virtually every step along this “life cycle” impacts GHG emissions. Solid waste management
decisions can reduce GHGs by affecting one or more of the following:
(1) Energy consumption (specifically, combustion of fossil fuels) associated with making,
transporting, using, and disposing the product or material that becomes a waste.
(2) Non‐energy‐related manufacturing emissions, such as the CO2 released when
limestone is converted to lime (e.g.,in steel manufacturing).
(3) CH 4 emissions from landfills where the waste is disposed.
(4) CO 2 and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions from waste combustion.
(5) Carbon sequestration, which refers to natural or human‐made processes that remove
carbon from the atmosphere and store it for long periods or permanently.
The first four mechanisms add GHGs to the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. The
fifth—carbon sequestration—reduces GHG concentrations by removing CO 2 from the
atmosphere.
This USEPA assessment also notes that the end‐of‐life management of different materials has
varying implications for GHG generation related to energy consumption, methane management, and
carbon sequestration. According to USEPA, composting can result in carbon storage in the soil, so
that composting one ton of food scraps results in a net GHG reduction of 0.185 tons of CO 2 E, while
landfilling that material would increase GHGs by 0.74 CO 2 E. Recycling a ton of aluminum yields an
estimated net reduction of 13.7 CO 2 E as compared to aluminum production from virgin materials,
while landfilling that material would yield an increase of 0.037 CO 2 E. Table 4.1, excerpted from the
NERC’s Environmental Benefits Calculator (EBC) and derived from EPA’s Waste Reduction Model
(WARM), provides a generic comparison of the GHG impact of managing various waste materials
using different techniques.
The most significant GHG impacts during the life cycle of products and packaging result, not from
disposal, but during production of the products and packaging that eventually become waste.
According to the US Department of Energy Energy Information Administration, industry worldwide
uses more than 50 percent of the energy consumed. Within that sector, virgin raw materials
industries are among the world’s largest consumers of energy. In the US, the four largest material

industries—paper, metal, glass and plastic—consume more than 20 percent of the energy used
nationally for all purposes. 14
Waste prevention and recycling can significantly reduce industrial energy consumption. For
example, a life‐cycle study on the paper industry found that recycling paper and using that recycled
paper in production reduces the GHG impacts of paper manufacturing by two to six times
(depending on the paper grade) as compared to virgin manufacturing and landfilling or MWC. 15
Using recycled materials in paper production can also reduce demand for virgin timber, conserving
trees that absorb CO 2 . 16 The potential for positive impacts of material recovery and reuse in the
metals industry is even greater. When manufacturing aluminum, 95 percent of the GHG emissions
can be avoided by substituting scrap aluminum for virgin feedstock. 17 The GHG reductions related
to manufacturing with recycled materials in place of virgin are so substantial that the emissions from
transportation of materials for recycling are not a significant factor in the overall carbon footprint of
recycling.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations
Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, recognizes the important
link between materials use and global climate change in its Fourth Assessment Report, stating:
Changes in lifestyles and consumption patterns that emphasize resource conservation can
contribute to developing a low‐carbon economy that is both equitable and sustainable.
In its Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy report, McKinsey & Company identified recycling as a low‐
cost carbon abatement strategy. In fact, recycling and landfill gas‐to‐energy projects are listed as
products with a negative abatement cost; that is, their implementation actually saves money or
generates revenue.
This Plan considers impacts to the climate within the discussions of the various waste management
options and planning recommendations. An important element of the Plan is its attention to the
opportunities for saving energy and reducing climate impacts from a life cycle perspective. This
concept forms the basis for proposed strategies to reduce waste, increase the reuse and recycling of
discarded materials to capture their material properties and embedded energy, and recover organic
materials to avoid the generation of methane in landfills and provide benefit to soils.
In this way, the Plan and its recommendations are linked to a larger vision for a sustainable New
York State, where all resources are conserved to the maximum extent feasible, GHGs are reduced,
and our unique natural environment is preserved for future generations.

14
Energy Information
Administration; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2002/data02/pdf/table1.1_02.pdf)
15
Paper Task Force Recommendations for Purchasing and Using Environmentally Preferable
Paper; www.edf.org .
16
conservatree.com
17
www.world‐aluminum.org

4.1.1 Waste Prevention and Reuse
Avoiding the production of a product or package or reusing it in its original form, and thereby
preventing waste altogether, offer the most significant GHG reductions in that they eliminate the
need to extract resources, turn them into products and materials, transport them to market, and
dispose of them as waste. For example, the NYC Department of Environmental Protection changed
its practice of distributing printed phone directories and now provides them in an electronic format.
In so doing, the agency eliminated the use of approximately 1.3 tons of paper each year. 18 In
addition to saving money on purchases and disposal, the move reduced GHG impacts by 12.8 tons of
CO 2 E annually. By contrast, recycling that same amount of material would have reduced only 3.7
tons of CO 2 E, combusting it would have reduced .66 tons of CO 2 E, and landfilling those materials
would have resulted in an increase of 2.59 tons of CO 2 E annually.

18
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/at_agencies/govt_case_studies_waste.shtml#9

TABLE 4.1
Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions from MSW Management Options (CO2E/Ton)
Material Reduction Recycling Composting Combustion Landfilling
/Reuse
Aluminum Cans ‐8.37 ‐13.80 NA 0.06 0.04
Steel Cans ‐3.22 ‐1.81 NA ‐1.55 0.04
Copper Wire ‐7.47 ‐5.01 NA 0.06 0.04
Aluminum Scrap ‐8.37 ‐13.80 NA 0.06 0.04
Metal
Ferrous Scrap Metal ‐3.22 ‐1.81 NA ‐1.55 0.04
Glass ‐0.58 ‐0.28 NA 0.05 0.04
HDPE ‐1.82 ‐1.42 NA 0.91 0.04
LDPE ‐2.31 ‐1.72 NA 0.91 0.04
PET ‐2.13 ‐1.57 NA 1.08 0.04
Corrugated Cardboard ‐5.65 ‐3.14 NA ‐0.66 0.34
Magazines/Bulk Mail ‐8.74 ‐3.10 NA ‐0.48 ‐0.33
Newspaper ‐4.94 ‐2.82 NA ‐0.76 ‐0.90
Office Paper ‐8.08 ‐2.88 NA ‐0.64 1.78
Phonebooks ‐6.40 ‐2.68 NA ‐0.76 ‐0.90
Textbooks ‐9.26 ‐3.14 NA ‐0.64 1.78
Dimensional Lumber ‐2.04 ‐2.48 NA ‐0.79 ‐0.53
Fiberboard ‐2.24 ‐2.49 NA ‐0.79 ‐0.53
Food Scraps NA NA ‐0.20 ‐0.18 0.69
Yard Trimmings NA NA ‐0.20 ‐0.23 ‐0.35
Grass NA NA ‐0.20 ‐0.23 0.15
Leaves NA NA ‐0.20 ‐0.23 ‐0.59
Branches NA NA ‐0.20 ‐0.23 ‐0.53
Residential Mixed NA ‐3.57 NA ‐0.66 0.19
Paper
Mixed Paper, Office NA ‐3.45 NA ‐0.61 0.39
Mixed Metals NA ‐5.31 NA ‐1.08 0.04
Mixed Plastics NA ‐1.54 NA 0.98 0.04
Mixed Recyclables NA ‐2.91 NA ‐0.60 0.08
Mixed Organics NA NA ‐0.20 ‐0.20 0.15
Carpet ‐4.06 ‐7.30 NA 0.38 0.04
Whole Computers ‐56.48 ‐2.29 NA ‐0.20 0.04
Clay Bricks ‐0.29 NA NA NA 0.04
Fly Ash NA ‐0.88 NA NA 0.04

Tires ‐4.05 ‐1.86 NA 0.08 0.04

A negative sign (‐) indicates a net reduction in GHGs or a positive impact on climate change.

This plan proposes new product and packaging stewardship programs as a key means of achieving
waste reduction. In stewardship programs, the producer of a product or package must take either
financial or physical responsibility for managing that product or package at the end of its useful life.
This reduces GHGs in two ways. First, product and packaging stewardship programs create a
financial incentive for producers to use fewer materials and use materials that are more easily
reused or recycled. Second, stewardship has the potential to increase the recycling and diversion of
products that are currently going to disposal. For example, Washington State estimates that a
product stewardship program for recycling carpet in that state could reduce GHG emissions by up to

0.9 million metric tons of CO2E in 2020 (assuming 80 percent recycling). 19

4.1.2 Recycling
Recycling products, packaging and other materials is, generally speaking, the third best way, after
reduction and reuse, to manage materials at the end of their useful life. From a GHG emissions
perspective, this management strategy has significant advantages compared to land filling and
combustion techniques. Recycling avoids the emissions related to energy consumption and
manufacturing associated with the extraction, production and transportation of virgin materials
used in original production. For example, recycling just one aluminum can conserves enough energy
to power a television for three hours. Further, recycling avoids production of the GHG emissions
associated with handling and disposing of these materials through conventional waste management
practices.
Of all the materials readily amenable to recycling, metals offer the most significant potential for
GHG emission reductions, in large part due to the energy intensive process of mining and preparing
virgin metals for production. Recycling paper is also particularly important from a climate
perspective because of the energy intensive virgin production process and the benefits of reducing
demand for pulp and, in some cases, leaving trees standing to absorb carbon.

4.1.3 Composting and Organics Recycling
From a climate perspective, recycling food scraps, through composting or anaerobic digestion, also
has advantages compared to landfilling.. As outlined in Table 4.1, the EPA WARM model predicts a
slight advantage for composting food scraps compared to combustion and a slight advantage for
combustion of yard trimmings compared to composting. EPA has acknowledged that WARM does
not give credit for the GHG savings due to use of the compost product. EPA is currently developing
models to quantify these savings. Given the substantial volume of organic materials currently
managed in landfills— organics make up 30 percent of waste generated statewide—recovering
organics is a key solid waste management strategy to combat climate change.

19
Washington Climate Action Team, Leading the Way: Implementing Practical Solutions to Climate Change.

Recognizing this important connection, in 1999, the European Union issued a landfill directive to
reduce land disposal of biodegradable materials. 20 Implementing the directive resulted in a 30
percent reduction in methane emissions (below 1990 levels) by 2002. To comply with this directive,
communities in Europe have transitioned to systems that foster greater organics recovery through
composting and anaerobic digestion, deployed mechanical biological treatment (MBT) systems to
stabilize waste prior to land disposal, or combusted waste for energy recovery.
As the impacts of this policy and additional research in the field suggest, by diverting the materials
that would generate methane in a landfill setting, a well‐run composting operation will avoid potent
GHG emissions. 21 Anaerobic digestion systems intentionally generate methane but capture the gas
for energy recovery, which serves the dual purpose of destroying the methane and offsetting the
generation of energy from fossil fuels. The production and capture of methane through the process
of anaerobic digestion is far more efficient than recovering gas from a landfill because digestors use
closed systems that are designed to maximize gas production.
Critical to this analysis is the fact that organics recovery facilities generate a valuable soil
amendment as an end product that can supplement fertilizers, thereby reducing the GHG impacts of
the agricultural sector. The compost product that results from organics recovery is considered a
“carbon sink” because it returns that carbon to the soil for the long term. The organic matter
inherent in compost is crucial for moisture retention, erosion control, and the microbial activities
that promote plant growth. Because of these properties, compost also reduces the need for
manufactured fertilizers. A recent report from the California Air Resources Board found that
agricultural use of compost is a cost‐effective way of reducing agricultural GHG emissions while
building the nutrient base of the state’s soils.22 It is important to note that many of the currently
available models that compare the GHG impacts of various waste management techniques
undervalue the contribution of composting by not considering the additional benefits derived from
the use of the compost product.
Still, the extent of the GHG reductions gained by recycling organics relate primarily to the avoidance
of disposal. Composting reduces GHG emissions as compared to landfilling in almost any instance—
methane is such a powerful GHG that its avoidance dwarfs any emissions from transportation or
other factors. As compared to MWC, composting offers a GHG reduction, but it is not as substantial
as landfilling. Therefore, when comparing composting to combustion, transportation distances
could be a more significant factor from a GHG perspective. 23 Obviously, avoiding transportation

20
Council Directive 99/31/EC, http://eur‐
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0031:EN:NOT
21
Greenhouse Gases and the Role of Composting, US Composting Council.
22
Recommendations of the Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee (ETAAC): Final
Report: Technologies and Policies to Consider for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
California; www.arb.ca.gov/cc/etaac/ETAACFinalreport2‐11‐08.pdf
23
This statement is based on information presented in Section 8.4, Composting and Organics Recycling. For a
full discussion and the results of modeling using the Northeast Recycling Council’s Environmental Benefits
Calculator, see that section.

impacts by managing materials closer to the point of generation is always a better environmental
and economic choice.

4.1.4 Municipal Waste Combustion
Waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and composting offer significant climate benefits, further
justifying their preferred status in the waste management hierarchy. For residual waste that is not
or cannot be prevented, reused, recycled or recovered, disposal methods must be employed. When
viewed through a climate lens, disposal in MWC (also known as waste‐to‐energy, energy from waste
or incineration) offers advantages over disposal in landfills. This is primarily because treatment
through combustion facilities: reduces the amount of waste sent to landfills for disposal and the
methane generated by landfilling; recovers metals that would otherwise be wasted; produces
electricity more efficiently than landfill gas‐to‐energy facilities, and offsets fossil fuel electricity
generation. 24 Still, the energy produced at combustion facilities is less than that conserved through
waste prevention and recycling. A 2009 study found that the energy generation potential, per ton
of MSW handled at combustion facilities, is less than one‐quarter of the energy generation potential
of recycling. 25
One study estimates that the GHG impacts of landfilling, during a 30‐year period, are significantly
greater than those from combustion—45 times greater in landfills with gas collection and energy
recovery and 115 times greater in landfills without gas collection and destruction. 26 While the gross
GHG emissions of MWC are higher than fossil fuel‐generated electricity, with the average emission
rate from MWCs in the US at 2,988 lbs./MWh of CO 2 as compared to 1,672 lb/MWh for oil, 2,249 for
coal, and 1,135 for natural gas, common carbon accounting practices discount the biogenic portion
of MSW by approximately 65 percent of total emissions. Once that adjustment is made, the CO 2
emissions from MWC average 1,045 lbs./MWh, less than those from oil, coal or natural gas. As we
move Beyond Waste and more biogenic materials (food scraps and paper) are diverted to
composting and recycling it may justify a reduction in the discount factor thereby changing the
relationship of MWC emissions to oil, coal and natural gas. Specific estimates of GHG emissions from
MWC depend on the design and operation at a given location.

4.1.5 Landfilling
Landfills represent the largest contribution to GHGs of any waste management technique. Landfills
produce methane, a potent GHG, as a result of the decomposition of organic material within the
oxygen‐starved (anaerobic) conditions of a landfill environment. Methane emissions also increase

24
Modern Waste‐to‐Energy as an Energy and Environmental Management System, Brian Bahor, Covanta
Corporaqtion, Keith Weitz, RTI International Inc.
25
Assessments of Materials Management Options for the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan Review,
Tellus Institute, for the MA DEP, December 2008.
26
Greenhouse Gas Dynamics of Municipal Solid Waste Alternatives, by Alan Eschenroeder, Harvard School of
Public Health, 2001.

ozone in the troposphere, which causes radiative forcing that exacerbates global climate change. 27
Capturing that methane, to the greatest extent possible, must remain a priority to limit the GHG
impacts of the state’s primary waste disposal method.
In addition to methane, the gas produced from waste decomposing in a landfill contains non‐
methane organic compounds (NMOCs) such as benzene and toluene, as well as carbon dioxide,
particulate matter and other pollutants. Indeed, landfill gas collection systems are typically installed
to control odors and other pollutants. Nonetheless, methane and carbon dioxide usually make up
more than 90 percent of the total gas produced. If the methane is captured to generate electricity,
it offsets fossil fuel consumption. Landfill gas collection is now common in New York State, and
conversion of landfill‐gas‐to‐energy is growing, particularly at the larger landfills. In New York State
in 2008, approximately 10.5 billion cubic feet of landfill gases were destroyed through flaring at
active landfills, and 14 billion cubic feet were used to generate energy. Implementation of
landfillgas‐to‐energy projects has been inhibited by significant costs and engineering hurdles, most
commonly involving the process for connecting the landfill’s energy generation to the local electrical
grid systems.
According to USEPA, landfill GHG emissions are a function of several factors, including: (1) the total
amount and age of waste in MSW landfills, which is related to total waste landfilled annually; (2) the
characteristics of landfills receiving waste (e.g., composition of waste‐in‐place, size, cover system,
climate); (3) the amount of methane that is recovered and either flared or used for energy purposes,
and (4) the amount of methane oxidized in landfills instead of being released into the atmosphere.
The rate of landfill gas generation is also related to waste composition. The composition of waste
affects not only the volume but the timeframe in which landfill gas is generated. For example,
according to the US Composting Council, food scraps break down quickly and can begin generating
methane in days or weeks, often before capture systems can effectively manage the gas.
Beyond understanding the factors that influence GHG production at landfills, measuring the precise
impacts is difficult and controversial for two key reasons. First, the global warming potential of
methane gas differs depending on the time horizon used. IPCC protocol dictates the use of a 100‐
year time horizon for the global warming potential of GHGs; using this method, methane is 21 times
more potent than CO2. However, unlike other common GHGs (CO2 and N 2 O), methane has an
accelerated decay rate, so when viewed within a 20‐year time horizon, it is 72 times more potent
than CO 2 . Using this method, the contribution of landfill gas to the national GHG emissions
inventory increases from 1.8 percent (based on 100‐year time horizon) to 5.2 percent. 28
Second, there is significant variation in reported landfill gas capture efficiencies. Most models use
USEPA’s default estimated national average of 75 percent collection efficiency. The actual amount
depends on the landfill size and age, gas collection efficiency, “tightness” of the landfill liner and
cover systems, organic/inorganic waste proportions, electrical efficiency, and other factors.
According to a 2007 study by SCS engineers, landfill gas collection efficiency can range from 55 to 99

27
As defined by the IPCC, radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth‐atmosphere
system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered.
28
Institute for Local Self Reliance, 2008.

percent, depending upon the landfill’s design and operation. 29 Other studies have predicted lower
capture efficiencies, in some cases well below 50 percent. As mentioned above, efficiency can be
low early in the landfill’s life, which is not always considered in these assessments. Higher collection
efficiencies are most often predicted for modern state‐of the‐art landfills that have been designed
and constructed from the ground up with liner systems and gas collection systems that were
installed as early as possible in the landfill unit’s operating life.
Most landfill operators estimate methane gas generation using USEPA’s LandGEM model and derive
collection efficiency based on the actual volume of gas collected as a percentage of what the model
predicts is being generated. 30 However, the generation of methane will vary based on several site‐
specific factors, such as rainfall, waste composition, temperature, and specific facility design. Given
the size and physical variations of the many landfills in New York State, differences in actual
performance as compared to the default parameters used in LandGEM can result in significantly
differing estimates of GHGs. Several industry initiatives are underway to better measure actual
methane generation and fugitive landfill gas emissions to verify capture efficiency. Technology for
both quantifying and capturing GHG from landfills continues to evolve.
The level of GHG emissions from the 1,600 inactive landfills in New York State is also largely
unknown and has not been evaluated through any modeling or extensive investigation. However,
DEC staff have found high methane concentrations in tests of sub‐surface gas in New York State
landfills where waste had been in place for decades. Evaluating and addressing the GHG emissions
from these older landfills may be an important strategy to combat the climate change impacts of the
state’s waste legacy.
Despite the difficulties in measuring methane and the lack of information about its continued
production at abandoned landfills, it is clear that mitigating and avoiding the impacts of methane
generation at landfills can play a strategic role in the stabilization and reduction of atmospheric GHG
concentrations and must be a priority for New York State.

4.2 GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS OF CURRENT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT IN NEW YORK STATE
Using the best available data, including facility reports on tonnage, and the NERC EBC model to
estimate GHG emissions, estimated GHG reductions from the state’s existing MSW management
system are represented in Table 4.2, as are projections of the impacts of implementing this Plan to
reduce reliance on disposal. These estimates are based on MSW materials only, which collectively
represent approximately one‐half of the total material stream in New York State. It does not include
construction and demolition debris, biosolids, or industrial wastes. (For an explanation of each of
these categories, see Section 7; for a full discussion of the reporting and data on which the current

29
Current MSW Industry Position and State of the Practice on LFG Collection Efficiency, Methane Oxidation,
and Carbon Sequestration in Landfills, July 2007.
30
Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) Version 3.02 User’s Guide, EPA May
2005, http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/landgem‐v302‐guide.pdf

estimates are based, see section 8.3.1; for an explanation of the NERC EBC calculator and the data
used to derive these estimates, see Appendix 1.)

TABLE 4.2 ANNUAL GHG REDUCTIONS AND ENERGY SAVINGS OF VARIOUS SCENARIOS
MSW Pounds/Person GHG Reduction Energy Savings

Recycling Rate Per day Disposed (Million MTCO 2 E) (Trillion BTUs)
Current 4.1 9.2 85
30% 3.5 14.3 156
50% 2.4 21.7 234
75% 1.2 28.4 294
90% 0.6 32.0 344
4.3 FINDINGS
• Waste contributes to climate change in a number of ways, including: direct emissions of
GHGs from solid waste management facilities, most notably methane emissions from
landfills and, more significantly, life‐cycle impacts of the products and packaging that
become waste, including their production, distribution and use.
• Mitigating and avoiding the impacts of methane generation at landfills can play a strategic
role in the stabilization and reduction of atmospheric GHG concentrations and must be a
priority for New York State.
• An analysis of the climate impacts of waste management supports the existing solid waste
management hierarchy, which places a priority on waste prevention, reuse and recycling
compared to disposal and states a preference for treatment through MWC with energy
recovery compared to disposal in a landfill.
• Waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting provide significant benefits in combating
climate change by eliminating or diverting the materials that may generate methane in a
landfill and by providing valuable materials for industrial feedstocks that will help
manufacturers reduce demand for energy and reduce pollution in the production process.
• Diverting food scraps from landfills to composting or anaerobic digestion is the most reliable
method of methane abatement from landfills. While landfill gas capture and destruction
systems are an important and necessary tool for controlling emissions, even the best
performing systems do not completely capture landfill gas. Thus, a preventative approach
that focuses on minimizing the generation of methane via composting or more efficiently
capturing methane for energy via anaerobic digestion, will provide a greater impact on GHG
emissions.
• Advanced landfill gas collection systems are critical elements of good environmental
management. These systems help to mitigate the contribution of landfills to climate change
and also help to control odors, capture VOCs and prevent other hazardous chemical releases
to the air. Most of the active landfill capacity in New York State has such systems in place.

• Capturing landfill gas to generate energy is an important strategy to help reduce reliance on
fossil fuels for electricity generation.

4.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
The overall goals of moving Beyond Waste require materials management strategies that serve to
combat climate change. As such, the recommendations summarized below are, in large part,
discussed in more detail in other sections of the Plan and in Sections 10 and 11 (Agenda for Action
and Implementation Schedule).
• Maximize Waste Reduction, Reuse and Recycling: Sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 detail a host of
legislative, regulatory and programmatic recommendations that collectively will maximize
reduction, reuse and recycling.
• Implement Product and Packaging Stewardship Programs: As further discussed in Section 5,
product and packaging stewardship are important policy tools to reduce materials use,
increase recycling, and reduce disposal. Their implementation will help to reduce GHGs to
combat climate change.
• Divert Organics from Landfills to Composting or Recycling: Section 8.4. includesdetailed
recommendations to maximize the recycling of organics and thereby avoid the generation of
methane in landfills.
• Ensure that Landfills in New York State Pursue Every Possible Mechanism for Achieving GHG
Reductions: DECs Part 208 and 360 regulations and the financial incentives provided by the
carbon market have resulted in the installation of landfill gas collection and destruction
systems at most active MSW landfills. DEC will continue to assess the emissions and
operations of facilities and markets in New York State to ensure that landfills maximize gas
collection and destruction.
• Maximize Conversion of Landfill Gas to Energy: DEC will continue to work with other state
agencies and entities involved in the electrical grid system’s governance and operation to
minimize the costs to connect, while still ensuring sound engineering.


5. PRODUCT AND PACKAGING STEWARDSHIP: AN EMERGING
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

To accomplish the goals of this Plan, which are largely focused on reducing the amount of waste
destined for disposal, the state will need to fundamentally change the way materials that become
waste are managed. While more waste reduction is certainly possible under the current approach
to waste management, which relies almost exclusively on local government planning and resources
and a mix of public and private facilities, the system has a critical inherent limit—it can only manage
those materials and products that end up in the waste stream. To overcome this significant
limitation and reach new levels of sustainability in light of critical energy and GHG imperatives, the
state must work to change the waste stream at its source. Manufacturers, distributors, retailers and
consumers of products and packages that now end up in the waste stream must become involved
for such a fundamental shift to occur. Product stewardship is a tried and promising vehicle for this
kind of change and this kind of broad involvement.
Product stewardship, also known as extended producer responsibility, extends the role and
responsibility of the manufacturer (also known the producer or brand owner) of a product or
package to cover the entire life cycle, including ultimate disposition of that product or package at
the end of its useful life. In these programs, manufacturers often in cooperation with their
distribution networks and retailers, must take either physical or financial responsibility for the
recycling or proper disposal of products or packages.
Product stewardship can be a powerful driver for the reduction of waste volume and toxicity. By
placing responsibility for end‐of‐life management on the manufacturer, these programs ensure that
end‐of‐life impacts of the product or package are considered during the earliest stages of design. As
such, stewardship programs create incentives for manufacturers to redesign products and packaging
to be less toxic, less bulky and lighter, as well as more recyclable. (For examples, see Text
Box/Sidebar Product Stewardship at Work.) Reducing material use and toxicity and increasing
recycling results in significant environmental, economic, energy and GHG reduction benefits.
Collection in product stewardship programs must be free and convenient to the consumer to
encourage participation. Instead of requiring local solid waste managers to fund collection and
recovery programs for discarded products, in product stewardship programs, manufacturers cover
the cost of recycling or disposal. Pilot projects have found that to maximize recovery,
manufacturers must provide an incentive to drive collection of certain products. For example,
mercury‐containing thermostat stewardship programs have been most successful when a bounty is
offered to the consumer who is otherwise prepared to discard a thermostat. In stewardship
systems, the costs of recycling or end‐of‐life management, including any necessary incentives, are
internalized into the cost of the product and borne jointly by the manufacturer and the consumer,
not by local taxpayers and ratepayers. This ensures that consumers get proper price signals—
materials that are easier to recycle or dispose of at the end of life should be less expensive.


Stewardship programs reduce the financial burden on local solid waste management programs.
Today, local taxpayers or ratepayers are required to pay for whatever winds up on the curb, with
little or no ability to influence the design of the products or packaging to reduce management costs
or improve recycling options. The costs are borne locally for production decisions made remotely,
usually without consideration of end‐of‐life management implications.
The European Union, many Asian countries and many Canadian provinces rely on product
stewardship programs to manage significant and diverse waste streams, including packaging,
electronics and vehicles. In the US, 29 states have at least one legislatively mandated product
stewardship program in place, primarily targeting products considered to be toxic or hazardous,
including electronic waste, mercury switches, mercury‐containing thermostats, and rechargeable
batteries.
Product stewardship is a centerpiece of the Beyond Waste Plan because it represents a paradigm
shift that can help New York State overcome many of the critical hurdles that have hindered further
success. In addition to influencing the design of products and packaging to reduce materials use and
improve recyclability, it can garner resources to optimize collection and recycling systems and
improve efficiency. Ultimately, product stewardship will reduce the amount of waste disposed of
and help New York State move Beyond Waste.
Product stewardship represents the latest evolution of materials management policy from earlier
statutes that regulate whole classes of materials (e.g., the Federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act and the state Solid Waste Management Act), to laws that impose specific
requirements on a product‐by‐product or product category basis. The first product‐based law in
New York State was the Returnable Container Act (also known as the Bottle Bill). A similar deposit‐
based system for lead‐acid batteries followed suit, and subsequent product‐specific programs, such
as the waste tire abatement program, have assessed fees on product sales to address remedial
issues. More recently, New York State enacted legislation requiring retailers to collect cell phones
and plastic bags from their customers at no cost.
These product‐specific laws are considered predecessors of modern product stewardship programs
because they establish requirements to collect and manage materials outside of the taxpayer and
ratepayer‐funded system. However, they do not represent true product stewardship because, in
the case of the cell phone and plastic bag laws, the manufacturers or producers are not required to
participate, and in the case of the bottle bill, collection and recycling is incentivized through deposits
on beverage containers with no formal obligation for the manufacturer to manage the empties or
opportunity to internalize end‐of‐life costs. (A recent amendment provides for the collection of
unclaimed deposits by the state, though the recycling will still be done through local planning units.)


THE NEW YORK PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL
Recognizing the potential of product stewardship to bring necessary change to the way
materials are managed in New York State, in 2009, the NYSASWM created the New York
Product Stewardship Council (www.nypsc.org). The council’s mission is to promote
product stewardship as the priority policy for solid waste management, thereby shifting
our waste management system from one focused on government funded and ratepayer
financed waste diversion to one that relies on product stewardship to reduce public costs
and drive improvements in product and packaging design that promote environmental
sustainability.
The New York Product Stewardship Council works to implement the principles of product
stewardship in New York State and the nation by:
• Developing and recommending workable product stewardship policies and
providing educational tools to individuals, organizations, institutions, local
governments, the State Legislature and elected officials.
• Providing effective leadership and guidance on product stewardship initiatives.
• Coordinating and participating in product stewardship initiatives locally, regionally
and nationally.
• Working with manufacturers and their trade associations to develop and
implement workable product stewardship initiatives.
• Educating manufacturers, the public, elected officials and other decision‐makers
on the benefits of product stewardship.
• Providing a forum for the exchange of information regarding existing and
proposed product stewardship programs.
• Evaluating and, where necessary, recommending improvements to product
stewardship programs once they are instituted.


PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP AT WORK
The implementation of Germany’s stewardship program (the Duales System
Deutschland, or Green Dot) resulted in a decrease in packaging of 14 percent between
1991 and 1995; during that same period, US packaging increased 13 percent. (Source:
Summary of Germany’s Packaging Take‐Back Law; Clean Production Action, September
2003; http://www.cleanproduction.org/library/EPR_dvd/DualesSystemDeutsch_REVISEDoverview.pdf)

In Belgium and other European countries, amounts of packaging have remained fairly
constant despite a substantial increase in the gross domestic product; thus, stewardship
has helped to “decouple” economic growth from packaging growth. (Source: Implementation of
the European Packaging Directive in Different European Member States, Joachim Quoden, Packaging Recovery
Organization Europe; Presentation at the Fourth National Product Stewardship Forum, June 4, 2008.)

Electronics product stewardship programs in Europe and Asia have included directives to
phaseout many hazardous constituents in those products.
The product stewardship approach that is core to Xerox’s business model—leasing
copiers—resulted in the company implementing significant design changes to enable
easy disassembly and the reuse and refurbishing of component parts; in 2004, 90 percent
of Xerox‐designed product models introduced were designed for reuse .(Source: DEC
Environmental Excellence award information; http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/36178.html)

Automobile product stewardship programs in Europe and Asia have led to the
standardization of materials, allowing for greater levels of recovery and much less auto
shredder residue requiring disposal. (Source: web report)
In 2009, the State of Washington’s electronics product stewardship program will save
Snohomish County $368,000 in annual electronic waste (e‐waste) program operating
costs and generate $180,000 in revenue per year for providing some of the e‐waste
collection infrastructure/services for manufacturers, for a net gain of $548,000 per year
for that county. (Source: Proceedings from the Product Stewardship Policy Summit, November 20, 2008; New York
State Association for Solid Waste Management and NYSDEC.)


5.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP

5.1.1 The Private Sector’s Role
In product stewardship programs, the primary responsibility for managing products or packaging at
the end of their useful life is placed on the entity with the most control over the item’s design—the
manufacturer, producer or brand owner. This means that the manufacturer must provide or arrange
for collection, reuse, recycling and/or disposal of the product or packaging targeted. Product
stewardship programs allow for flexibility so that manufacturers can, for example, design the
collection system that works best within their business model or work collaboratively with other
manufacturers, distributors or retailers.
While collection and recycling of the products targeted are the key elements of product
stewardship, public education, reporting, consumer convenience, and standards for performance
are also critical elements of these programs. Public education is needed to garner participation in
any recycling or end‐of‐life management program. Manufacturer reporting requirements on key
program elements ensure transparency in the product stewardship program and provide measures
for success and accountability. Convenience standards (e.g., requiring that collection options are
available in each county of the state) ensure that any consumer who wants to participate has a
reasonable opportunity to do so. Performance standards (e.g., requiring manufacturers to collect a
certain amount of the targeted product) create an incentive for manufacturers to develop effective
programs and promote them widely to encourage participation.
Retailers also often play an important role in product stewardship programs. Because they
communicate directly with the consumer at the point of sale, engaging retailers is critical to
promoting product stewardship programs and ensuring that citizens are aware of their recycling
options. In some product stewardship programs, retailers also provide collection services, either on
behalf of a manufacturer or as the result of statutory requirements to do so.

5.1.2 The Local Government Role
Many product stewardship programs allow for local government participation; however, local
government collections are generally not required. Communities that have or seek to establish
collection infrastructure for a targeted product can usually participate as a partner in a
manufacturer sponsored program. For example, in Washington State’s E‐Cycle electronic waste
product stewardship program, manufacturers have entered into contracts with local government
collection centers to meet their stewardship obligations. In the few stewardship programs that
require local government collections, the costs of those collections are paid by manufacturers and
consumers, not taxpayers.


5.1.3 The State Government Role
The state’s primary role in product stewardship programs is to enact product stewardship legislation
and then, through an appropriate state agency, promote participation in programs, provide
oversight and ensure accountability. In most cases, manufacturers are required to register with the
state and regularly report on their programs. The state must compile and analyze the information
provided by manufacturers and enforce compliance with key program requirements, including
registration, reporting and compliance with convenience and/or performance standards. Often, the
state must also enforce other elements of product stewardship programs, including, for example,
disposal bans for targeted products and operating standards for collection, handling and recycling
facilities. In many product stewardship programs, the state is required to produce periodic reports
on program implementation, thereby helping to keep the public informed and the participants
accountable.

5.1.4 The Role of New York State’s Citizens
No product recycling or end‐of‐life management program can succeed without the participation of
the consumer. Just as most New Yorkers have become familiar with recycling programs and
understand the wisdom of recycling, once they are introduced to the concept and logic of product
stewardship, it should not be difficult to persuade them to participate.

5.2 PRODUCTS TARGETED FOR STEWARDSHIP
DEC will pursue product stewardship for several individual product categories. The initial high‐
priority targets are described in more detail in this section. The list of potential products targeted
for stewardship was developed through internal research and feedback from stakeholders
throughout the development of this Plan.

5.2.1 Electronics
When DEC prepared the 1987 Plan, it did not anticipate the onslaught of electronic devices that
would, during the next two decades, take the world into the digital age. The sale of electronics in
the US (including televisions, cell phones, computers, printers and peripherals) has increased from
61 million units in 1987 to more than 426 million units in 2007. This growth in sales, coupled with
rapid technology development that leads to more immediate obsolescence and technological
incompatibility, has facilitated the dramatic growth of the electronics waste stream.
USEPA estimates that the amount of electronic waste entering the waste stream almost doubled
between 1999 and 2007, from 7.7 to 14.9 pounds per person per year. 31 While the amount of
electronics collected for recycling has increased somewhat in the last few years, the diversion rate

31
Electronic Waste Management in the Unites States, Approach 1; EPA 530‐R‐08‐009; USEPA, July 2008

has remained small. USEPA estimates that 10 percent of electronics generated were ultimately
recycled in 2000 as compared to 13.6 percent in 2007. 32
The proliferation of electronic waste or “e‐waste” has created a new challenge for waste managers.
The presence of certain hazardous constituents in electronics makes their proper management
essential to protecting the environment. For example, televisions and computer monitors with glass
screens (CRTs) contain four to eight pounds of lead, while those with flat panel screens often
contain mercury. Electronic components can contain a variety of hazardous chemicals and
compounds, including brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and toxic metals.
In New York State, used electronic equipment such as monitors, televisions, computers, printers,
keyboards, etc., may be collected and managed via two different regulatory approaches described
below. The goal of both approaches is to promote the collection and recycling of used electronic
equipment.
Like other wastes with hazardous constituents, electronic waste generated by households is exempt
from regulation as hazardous waste and can be handled, at this time, in the MSW stream. Many
communities in New York State and across the nation have included electronic waste in their
household hazardous waste (HHW) collection programs. In 2008, 38 communities in the state
received state financial assistance to collect nearly 3.5 million pounds of electronic waste or .18
pounds per capita representing a fraction of a percent of estimated generation. In the communities
that held collections, rates varied from a low of less than one‐tenth of a pound to a high of 3.8
pounds per capita.
While collection of used electronic equipment for recycling has increased significantly during the last
decade, communities in New York State are capturing only a small fraction of the used electronic
equipment available for collection. Like other HHW campaigns described below, collection events
tend to be infrequent, in some cases inconvenient, and some areas of the state are not served at all.
In recent years, several manufacturers and retailers have begun to voluntarily take back used
electronic equipment. In 2009, large retailers like Best Buy offered electronics recycling to their
customers, as did major manufacturers, including Dell, Apple and Hewlett Packard. Voluntary
programs operated by manufacturers and retailers have not been well promoted or consistently
offered. In some cases, companies only take back their brand or equipment that’s being replaced
through a purchase. In other cases, there is a charge for collection.
Used electronic equipment that is generated by businesses and institutions and, therefore, does not
enjoy the household exemption, may be considered hazardous waste because it contains lead,
mercury, and cadmium, which can be toxic if released into the environment when disposed. Under
current regulation, if the metals in used electronic equipment are ultimately reclaimed, used
electronics can be considered “scrap metal” for the purposes of the regulation and can be exempted
from management as a hazardous waste. To qualify for the exemption, non‐household generators

32
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 2007 Facts and Figures; EPA 530‐R‐08‐010; USEPA, November
2008.


and handlers of used electronic equipment must notify DEC prior to sending it for dismantling or
recycling.
The potentially significant environmental impacts of improper disposal, coupled with the difficulty in
developing effective collection for recycling, have put electronics at the top of the list for product
stewardship. Many European and Asian countries, several Canadian provinces, 19 US states and the
City of New York have already enacted legislation to create electronics product stewardship
programs. E‐waste is the vanguard product for product stewardship. Recognizing this, Governor
Paterson introduced the Electronic Waste Reuse and Recycling Act in 2008. The legislation would
ensure that all New Yorkers have access to free and convenient recycling for a broad range of
electronics. (For more information, see http://www.nypsc.org/content/epr‐legislation.)
The presence of recyclable and reusable materials in waste electronics, such as ferrous and non‐
ferrous metals, precious metals, plastics, and even glass, makes their recycling an important and
appropriate management option. Electronics recycling is a growing industry segment, with
approximately 45 dismantlers/recyclers operating in New York State in 2008.33 To ensure that this
industry grows in a manner that is consistent with the state’s goals for protection of environmental
and public health, DEC is currently developing regulations to set operating standards and
requirements for these facilities.

5.2.2 Pharmaceuticals
Recent scientific studies have revealed that numerous pharmaceuticals are present in rivers and
streams as well as in the drinking supplies of a number of American cities. This condition has likely
existed for some time, but only recently have testing methodologies been developed to detect
pharmaceuticals in water bodies. While the concentrations of pharmaceuticals found in water are
far below typical medical doses, studies have found problematic impacts on wildlife. The EPA has
acknowledged the ecological impacts and the potential for human health concerns and confirmed
that pharmaceutical discharges to waterways are a serious concern.
A 2009 study identified several pharmaceutical substances in the tissue of fish caught near
wastewater treatment plants in five US cities, and a nationwide study conducted in 1999 and 2000
by the United States Geological Survey found low levels of drugs such as antibiotics, hormones,
contraceptives and steroids in 80 percent of the rivers and streams tested throughout the US.
Documented impacts include the feminization of male fish (producing eggs) when exposed to
hormones and reduced fertility or irregular spawning in certain aquatic organisms exposed to other
drugs such as anti‐depressants and beta‐blockers. Scientists also believe that long‐term exposure to
low levels of antibiotics might result in the evolution of, or selection for, drug‐resistant microbes and
bacteria.
One source of pharmaceuticals in the state’s waterways is e wastewater discharge from hospitals,
institutions and individuals that for years have been instructed to dispose of their unwanted
pharmaceuticals by flushing or pouring them down the drain. Proper disposal of unused and
unwanted pharmaceuticals is a critical strategy for avoiding unnecessary discharges of

33
Recycling Economic Information Study, NERC, February 2009.

pharmaceuticals into wastewater treatment systems and ultimately into waterways. Other sources
include direct discharges from manufacturing facilities and excretion of unmetabolized medications
through the human body. DEC is currently addressing these other sources through its inter‐divisional
pharmaceutical work group.
Several communities and pharmacies in New York State have voluntarily established take‐back
programs for unused and unwanted pharmaceuticals. Some communities have included
pharmaceuticals in their HHW collection events, while pharmacies and certain other communities
have established stand‐alone pharmaceutical take‐back events. While these events have been very
successful and popular with New Yorkers, they are limited in their reach because they are available
only to a small number of communities, and they are infrequent.
DEC expects the public demand for collection events to grow, but there are significant and costly
regulatory hurdles that make it unlikely that a broad‐scale, effective program will be developed
without legislation. Pharmaceutical collection events must follow specific protocols to ensure
that pharmaceuticals collected, particularly controlled substances, are not misused or misdirected.
Depending on the actual structure of the event, requirements can include the presence of a
pharmacist and law enforcement personnel.
Other states have demonstrated the viability of several collection methods, including dropoffs in
clinics and pharmacies (Washington), mail‐back programs (Maine, Wisconsin), and dropoff at police
stations (Kentucky). However, sustainable funding for these programs remains a challenge. In
Washington and Maine, legislation was introduced in 2009 to formalize and expand their pilot
collection programs through product stewardship, requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to
absorb the cost of collection and safe handling. Product stewardship programs exist in some
European countries and Canadian provinces. In British Columbia, for example, more than 90
percent of pharmacies collect unwanted pharmaceuticals from consumers. The safe management
and destruction of those pharmaceuticals is financed by pharmaceutical producers.
DEC has developed a webpage—www.dontflushyourdrugs.net—and other educational materials
about proper management of pharmaceuticals. DEC currently recommends that consumers place
unused, unwanted or expired drugs in the trash, taking care to destroy or disguise them to avoid
misuse or misdirection (for full instructions, see the webpage). Pursuant to the Drug Management
and Disposal Act passed in New York State in 2008, the educational materials developed include a
notice that must be displayed in all pharmacies and retail stores that sell medications, including
over‐the‐counter drugs, vitamins, and supplements. This information is intended to provide New
Yorkers with an interim strategy to more appropriately manage their unused and unwanted
pharmaceuticals while a more comprehensive and environmentally protective pharmaceuticals
collection program is developed.


5.2.3 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Most residents of New York State generate waste in their homes which contains some of the same
chemical components as the hazardous waste generated by industry. Termed household hazardous
waste (HHW), this material includes:
• Old “legacy” products that are no longer produced because of the hazards they pose, such
as leaded paint, banned pesticides, and PCB ballasts
• Household pesticides
• Oil‐based paints, varnishes and stains
• Organic‐based solvents and cleaners
• Harsh cleaners, including masonry washes and toilet cleaners
• Pool chemicals
• Reactive chemicals, such as bleach, ammonia and peroxides
• Mercury‐containing products, such as fluorescent light bulbs and electronic waste
Often, HHW is stored within the household for extended periods or is mixed with other solid waste
intended for disposal. DEC estimates that, of the approximately 14.6 million tons of MSW disposed
of annually in New York State, less than half of one percent, or approximately 58,000 tons, is HHW.
Commercially and industrially generated hazardous wastes are subject to stringent management
and disposal standards that are designed to be protective of human health and the environment.
However, all household waste, regardless of its hazardous characteristics, is excluded from the
regulatory definition of hazardous waste and is currently exempt from state and federal hazardous
waste regulations, though some of these wastes are banned from disposal under state law and Part
360 regulations.
The effects of improperly discarded HHW on the environment and human health are hard to
quantify but could be significant. Sanitation workers can be injured if a discarded chemical
container opens suddenly during collection. If incompatible HHWs are released in a waste collection
truck during compaction, the resulting reaction can cause an explosion, fire or release of toxic
vapors. When HHW is deposited in a landfill, liquids can seep down through the layers of waste and
become leachate, which must be collected and treated so that it does not contaminate
groundwater, soil, or surface water. Wastewater treatment plants that accept leachate are not
designed to treat many of these hazardous constituents. Many hazardous products easily evaporate
and contribute to air pollution or, if poured onto the ground or into a storm sewer, can contaminate
groundwater or a nearby stream, river or lake.
To address the potential hazards posed by HHW, communities around the state and the country
have organized programs to collect, package and transport HHW to hazardous waste treatment,
storage, recycling or disposal facilities. HHW programs reduce environmental threats by providing a
collection and management system, informing residents about how to properly manage HHW and,
most important, how to avoid using hazardous products at home.

Collection of HHW is not mandatory in New York State and, consequently, is not available universally
across the state. To encourage these programs, DEC provides reimbursement for 50 percent of the
costs for eligible expenses for community HHW collections through the Household Hazardous Waste
State Assistance Grant Program. (For details, see Section 6.) In 2008, approximately 1.5 percent of
the state’s population participated in a HHW collection event or program. The participation rate in
those municipalities where collection programs were available was approximately three percent of
the local population. This is consistent with national data that indicate that the most active
programs serve no more than five percent or at the very most ten percent of the service‐area
population annually. 34 However, it is important to note that most people do not generate HHW on
a regular basis and, therefore, do not need to participate every year. The popularity of these
programs indicates a higher level of engagement than the numbers suggest.
Furthermore, teaching residents how to reduce or avoid generating HHW is an integral component
of all HHW collection programs in New York State. HHW prevention techniques include: the
substitution of less toxic products; purchasing only the amount of a product that is needed, and
using all of the product for its intended purpose. Although education is an integral component of all
collection programs, its benefits are difficult to calculate and often overlooked when assessing the
value of HHW programs.
Data for 2008 indicate that during that year, approximately 13.7 percent of the HHW generated, or
approximately 0.08 percent of the residential waste stream, was collected through HHW programs.
From 2000‐2008, HHW collection programs in New York State collected and properly managed a
total of approximately 58,000 tons of HHW. It is important to note that these figures include
materials that have been traditionally collected in HHW programs but may no longer be considered
hazardous, such as latex paint.
In New York State, HHW programs either involve scheduled collection days or established collection
and storage facilities.
• Collection Days: Many communities collect HHW through a collection day or a series of
collection days, when residents are encouraged to bring materials to a central location for
proper management. Broome County was among the first communities in the country to
organize HHW collection days in 1982. Since then, the number of HHW collection days
conducted in New York State has grown substantially. In 2008, there were 146 collection
days sponsored by 55 municipalities.
Collection and Storage Facilities: An HHW collection and storage facility occupies a fixed site and is
traditionally open on a regular schedule. 35 The first HHW facility in New York State began operating
in 1988 in the Town of Southold. There are currently 12 HHW facilities in the state, one of which is
privately owned. While several of these facilities only serve as storage and aggregation points for
materials collected on collection days, the majority are open for routine collection of HHW. They
operate, on average, in excess of 30 days per year, with half open more than 100 days per year.

34
Handbook on Household Hazardous Waste; What is Household Hazardous Waste?; Dave Galfin and Phillip
Dicker, 2008; page 25.
35
HHW collection and storage facilities are regulated under 6 NYCRR, Subparts 360 and 373‐4.

Generally, these facilities achieve greater participation at a lower per‐ton cost than individual
collection days. (See Table 5.1.)

TABLE 5.1: COST AND PERFORMANCE OF HHW COLLECTIONS IN NEW YORK STATE
HHW Collection Days HHW Collection & Storage Facilities
2008 2000‐2008 (avg.) 2008 2000‐2008 (avg)
Average Cost/Ton $760 $593 $500 $533
High Cost/Ton $2,740 $3,638 $1,140 $2,438
Low Cost/Ton $220 $184 $200 $133
Average Participation 2.3% 1.9% 4.8% 5.3%
High Participation 25.9% 16% 33.1% 26.2%
Low Participation 0.2% 0.3% 1.3% 0.9%
Source: Based on reports provided to DEC by municipalities. Average participation represents the percentage of the
population in the area served that participated in the HHW program
The low participation rates reported in Table 1 are generally attributed to the limited availability of
collection events or locations. As Table 5.1 demonstrates, however, participation at permanent
collection facilities is greater than at collection day events. This increase can be attributed to
permanent HHW collection facilities hosting multiple collection days year‐round while HHW
collection events are usually offered one or two days per year. These events are generally hosted in
a central location in the municipality sponsoring the collection event. If a resident misses an event,
the waste must be properly stored for up to six months or a year until the next event is offered.
However, this is problematic for people who must dispose of items right away because of personal
circumstances, such as moving. While not an ideal solution, the HHW collection programs offered
throughout the state provide a necessary service to residents and opportunities for outreach, and
help protect the environment of New York State.
The cost per ton for management and disposal of HHW through community programs has dropped
significantly as the experience and the number of programs has grown. Nonetheless, in 2008, the
average cost for HHW programs (reflecting both events and facilities), including disposal, education
and outreach, was still $640 per ton. The cost for disposal of hazardous waste has always been
considerably higher than the cost for disposing of MSW, and these costs reflect that fact. At this
cost, if all HHW generated annually in New York State was collected through current collection
programs, the total costs would be $37.1 million annually or $1.90 per person per year in New York
State.

Several Canadian provinces, including British Columbia and Ontario, have implemented product
stewardship programs to finance effective collection networks for some or all of the materials that
make up the HHW stream.
While HHW programs are extremely popular and have long been seen as a cornerstone of an
integrated materials management program, they are also expensive. The Beyond Waste Plan seeks
to more efficiently and cost‐effectively capture a greater portion of the HHW stream. For these
reasons, the products that become HHW are key targets for product stewardship. The existing
program structure and state financial assistance represent an interim strategy to address this
important stream until a stewardship program is established.

5.2.4 Packaging and Printed Products
Packaging continues to constitute a significant portion of the overall MSW stream—more than 30
percent of waste generated nationwide. Printed products, such as books, magazines, phone books,
newspapers and advertising circulars represent another 10 percent of the MSW stream. Some of
these products are unnecessary and unwanted. For example, phone books are often delivered to
users, sometimes multiple copies, without the user having requested them or given the opportunity
to refuse delivery. While changes such as lightweight packaging and downsizing newspapers have
taken hold in recent years, overall the changes have not yielded a reduction in the amount of
packaging and printed materials generated. In fact, the amount of packaging generated in the US
annually has actually increased by 15 million tons since 1990. 36
While much packaging and printed material is readily recyclable, each year new materials and
packages enter the marketplace with little or no regard to their compatibility with community
recycling programs. As a result, even with effective recycling programs in place in the last 20 years
for many packaging materials and a national recycling rate of more than 30 percent, EPA estimates
that the amount of packaging going to disposal was the same in 2006 as in 1990—47 million tons.
Clearly, conventional approaches to recycling are not reducing the amount of packaging heading to
disposal facilities in the state.
As the primary parties responsible for providing recycling programs, New York State’s municipalities
spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to educate their residents and to collect and process
recyclable materials. Even more local tax and rate‐payer resources are spent to dispose of the non‐
recyclable packages and printed products.
Most communities in New York State offer recycling for basic packaging and printed materials.
Common recyclables include metal and glass containers, plastic bottles (numbers 1 and 2),
corrugated cardboard, newspapers and magazines. However, on a statewide basis, community
programs typically capture less than 50 percent of the materials targeted, and few programs have
added other packaging materials such as rigid plastic packaging to the core list.
To increase recycling and reduce dependence on disposal, manufacturers must embrace materials’
efficiency and design for recyclability concepts, and recycling programs must capture more of the

36
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 2006 Facts & Figures; US EPA.

material targeted and include additional materials. Packaging stewardship is a tool for achieving
these ends. First, it provides an incentive for waste prevention. When manufacturers must pay for
the amount of packaging they use, they have a financial incentive to use less. Programs with more
substantial fees have experienced greater levels of waste prevention/materials‐use reduction.
Second, it generates much needed revenue for community recycling programs. Third, it improves
recycling by allocating resources for critical education programs, infrastructure improvements and
market development. In Ontario, Canada, the packaging stewardship program yielded a ten percent
increase in the recycling rate in the first three years. And fourth, it incorporates the cost of recycling
or disposal into the cost of the product, sending an important signal to the consumer—packages
that are easier to recycle should be less expensive.
To stem the rising tide of packaging and printed material waste and to finance local recycling
programs, the European Union and many Canadian provinces have turned to stewardship programs.
While the programs differ in many ways, most packaging stewardship systems have the following
components:
• Fees: Manufacturers or brand owners pay into a fund based on the amount of packaging
they use or the volume of printed materials they distribute and the cost to recycle those
materials or otherwise manage them at the end of their useful life.
• Funding: Most packaging stewardship programs use proceeds to cover the costs of
collection and recycling or disposal of the packages/materials covered. Many also allocate
funds for market development, infrastructure improvements, education or other methods
to improve materials recovery and efficiency in the system.
• Third‐party Organization or Authority: Packaging stewardship programs tend to be run by
independent or quasi‐governmental organizations or authorities that assign fees, collect and
redistribute funds, and identify and fund system improvements and market development
projects.

5.2.5 Product Stewardship Framework
In many Canadian provinces, multiple product stewardship programs are implemented through a
single piece of legislation that establishes the structure of product stewardship in the province and
creates a process and criteria for identifying products for stewardship. Known as product
stewardship framework, this approach maximizes efficiency by structuring stewardship programs in
a consistent manner and avoiding the inevitable, lengthy process and debate that would accompany
the creation of a brand new program for another product.
Given the many years it often takes to build momentum to pass a law, it makes better sense to
adopt a thoughtfully crafted and fully vetted framework for stewardship rather than pursue
stewardship programs for individual products in a series of legislative efforts during the course of
what would likely take decades.
For these reasons, California, Washington, Oregon and Minnesota all introduced product
stewardship framework legislation in 2009. Framework legislation sets criteria for identifying
products to target for stewardship, defines a legislative or regulatory process for adding products

that meet the criteria, and defines the structure of stewardship programs in the state. The
legislation is based on the Principles of Product Stewardship, which have been endorsed by product
stewardship councils in New York State, California, the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest, Texas and
Vermont (See Appendix 5.1). In support of this approach, the Association for State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) issued a product stewardship framework policy
document that provides greater detail on the various options in pursuing a framework approach
(See Appendix 5.2). Several communities in New York have endorsed the product stewardship
framework by passing local resolutions.

5.2.6 Other Targeted Products
In addition to the products and categories outlined above, DEC has identified the following potential
products for stewardship programs:
• Mercury Containing Thermostats: Thermostats represent a small waste stream that contains a
significant amount of mercury, a powerful neurotoxin. Each thermostat contains an average of
4 grams of mercury, equaling the total amount of mercury in nearly 800 compact fluorescent
light bulbs. Despite their significant potential for environmental harm and the existence of a
voluntary program organized by the Thermostat Recycling Corporation, the recycling rate for
mercury‐containing thermostats is very low. The Product Stewardship Institute organized a
stakeholder dialogue in 2004 to address this critical stream. Subsequently, California, Montana,
Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Vermont passed legislation creating mandatory
product stewardship programs.
• Paint: Paint is a large component of the materials captured at most HHW collection events and
facilities, but most paint used today is latex, which is not, in fact, hazardous. Managing paint
through the HHW stream is expensive and not effective in capturing substantial volumes for
recycling. The Product Stewardship Institute has developed an agreement among many
stakeholders to create an industry‐funded paint stewardship organization. In 2008, the
organization launched a pilot project in Minnesota in preparation for a larger‐scale program. In
addition, in 2009, Oregon passed legislation to establish the first statewide paint product
stewardship program.
• Automobiles: Many countries in Europe and Asia have implemented stewardship programs for
automobiles to achieve several aims: increase recycling rates; eliminate the use of certain
chemicals and materials, and create incentives to design for disassembly, reuse and recycling.
Industry sources report that these programs have led to the development of automobiles that
are more easily recycled and less toxic and have yielded higher recovery rates and less
automobile shredder residue. Because of the clear waste management benefits, stakeholders in
the development of this Plan have recommended that New York State target automobiles for a
stewardship approach.
• Carpets: Carpets were an early target for government stewardship programs for two reasons.
First, they are bulky and expensive to dispose. Second, some carpet manufacturers had already
launched voluntary stewardship and take‐back programs. In 2002, state and federal
governments joined with industry to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for

Carpet Stewardship. The MOU established goals for reduction, reuse and recycling carpets for
the ten‐year period from 2002‐2012. To date, 12 states, NERC, and USEPA have signed the
agreement, as have the major carpet and rug manufacturers and their trade association.
• Office Furniture: Office furniture has a high reuse potential if designed properly but is bulky and,
therefore, costly and difficult to manage through traditional waste management systems. Office
furniture reuse and refurbishing operations exist in New York State on a limited scale.
Stewardship could foster more of this valuable activity.
• Roofing Shingles: Asphalt roofing shingles are a valuable recyclable material, though New York
State lacks a recovery infrastructure and market for recycled shingles. A stewardship approach
could provide financing for the infrastructure needed to reclaim these materials.
• Batteries: Most rechargeable and button batteries contain hazardous components. Alkaline
batteries, on the other hand, do not contain hazardous components but consist of valuable
materials that can be recycled. Rechargeable and button batteries can be included in HHW
collections but these programs are expensive for municipalities and taxpayers. There is a
national voluntary manufacturer's collection program available for rechargeable batteries, but
there is limited participation. Alkaline batteries can also be collected by municipalities, but
there are few markets or collection programs.

5.3 FINDINGS
Product stewardship creates an opportunity to fundamentally change how materials are managed in
New York State by more equitably sharing costs and responsibilities among manufacturers,
governments and consumers. As such, it is a priority for the state and a cornerstone of the Plan to
move Beyond Waste.


5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
The state will pursue product stewardship by:
• Establishing product and packaging stewardship as a preferred approach to implement the
solid waste management hierarchy
• Seeking legislative authority to implement stewardship programs and build toward a state‐
wide framework legislation
• Exploring regional or national approaches to product stewardship through the NEWMOA,
the Association of Territorial and State Solid Waste Management Officials (ATSWMO), the
national Product Stewardship Institute and other multi‐state organizations
• Working with the New York Product Stewardship Council, NYSASWM, and other
stakeholders in the state to develop consensus and support to move a product stewardship
agenda and with the New York State Pollution Prevention Institute 37 to provide assistance to
manufacturers to design and implement product stewardship programs in accordance with
applicable interstate models or state legislation

37
see http://www.nysp2i.rit.edu/

6. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND FUNDING SOURCES

Replacing town dumps with double‐lined landfills and municipal waste combustors (MWCs) and
implementing waste reduction, reuse and recycling programs has come at a substantial cost. The
gains New York State has made in materials and waste management during the past 20 years have
been fueled by significant investment from all stakeholders, including state and local government, as
well as the private sector. Achieving the goals of this Plan will require additional investment and
new funding sources. Such investment will reap significant benefits in terms of environmental
protection, energy conservation, greenhouse gas reduction, job creation and economic opportunity.
This section describes the state’s financial assistance programs that most directly support materials
management programs and summarizes existing and potential funding sources. State funding
awarded through ESD has been matched or exceeded by private investment, and state funding
awarded through DEC has been matched by municipal investment. These funds have been
supplemented by programs in other agencies, including EFC and NYSERDA, that have provided
grants for discreet materials and waste management projects.
In addition to the state investments described below, New York State’s local governments have
allocated significant resources to building the current integrated waste management system in New
York State. A 2009 survey conducted by NYSASWM found that 11 of the state’s planning units (not
including New York City) have made capital investments of more than $526 million in local
infrastructure during the past 20 years. Even with conservative assumptions about investments
made by the other 53 planning units, it is clear that local investment is on a par with, if not greater
than, state investments to date. In addition to capital expenditures, local governments spend
millions every year to maintain and operate these systems.

6.1 DEC FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Since 1987, DEC’s financial assistance to municipalities for solid waste related projects has totaled
nearly $700 million. All of this has been through reimbursement grants for eligible expenses and
require a match of local funding, in most cases 50 percent of the project cost up to a maximum
allowable amount.
The landfill closure and landfill gas programs combined have provided the greatest financial
assistance to municipalities ($319.8 million), followed by the aggregated waste reduction and
recycling programs ($208.7 million). Table 1 provides a breakdown of DEC’s financial assistance for
solid waste‐related projects since 1987 by general program area.
While each program was individually established to address a specific area of concern, collectively,
they have addressed the major solid waste management strategies. Each funding area and grant
program summarized below is described in detail in Appendix 6.1.


TABLE 6.1
Project Type # Amount Source*
(millions)
Waste Reduction & Recycling 769 $208.7
Recycling Equipment 381 $138.0 EQBA; SWMA; CW/CA; EPF
Organics Recycling 191 $31.5 EQBA; SWMA; CW/CA; EPF
Education 160 $30.8 SWMA; KSWS; EPF
Reduction 37 $8.4 SWMA; PORA; EPF
Solid Waste Management Planning 36 $7.5 SWMA
Household Hazardous Waste 461 $30.2 EPF
Municipal Waste Combustors 19 $122.3 EQBA
Other Solid Waste Disposal 3 $11.0 EQBA
Landfill Programs 266 $319.8
Landfill Closure 254 $307.5 EQBA; CW/CA; EPF
Landfill Gas 12 $12.3M EQBA; CW/CA;
Total 1554 $699.5

Source: *Environmental Quality Bond Act (EQBA); Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA);
Kansas Stripper Well Settlement (KSWS); Petroleum Overcharge Restitution Act (PORA); Clean Water Clean Air
Bond Act (CW/CA); Environmental Protection Fund (EPF).


6.1.1 Waste Reduction and Recycling
Since 1987, DEC’s $209 million in funding for waste reduction and recycling programs has supported
769 projects. While this may sound like a substantial amount, given the overall cost of waste
management, these grants do not begin to meet local pleas for assistance. The average annual
appropriation to EPF recycling programs during the last three years has been $10.16 million or $0.53
per capita. By contrast, California allocates more than $36 million annually to recycling and related
activities or $2.42 per capita, and Minnesota allocates more than $5 million or $2.78 per capita.

6.1.2 Solid Waste Management Planning
Recognizing the need for local planning to integrate waste reduction, reuse and recycling with waste
disposal, the 1988 Solid Waste Management Act authorized DEC to administer a $7.5 million
planning grant program. The grants were intended to foster and facilitate local planning for
integrated solid waste management systems to implement the state’s solid waste management
hierarchy. (For more on planning, see section 3.) This $7.5 million represents only 1 percent of DEC
funding to municipalities for solid waste management projects and activities since 1987, as
summarized in Table 6.1.

6.1.3 Household Hazardous Waste
The 1987 Plan identified the need for and the benefits of separate collection and handling of HHW
and recommended actions to help foster development of these programs. In 1982, Broome County
sponsored the first HHW collection event in the state, and by 1988, there were 31 collection events
sponsored by 13 municipalities. While HHW programs continued to grow in popularity, it became
apparent that the major impediment to widespread HHW collection was the high cost of individual
events or permanent collection facilities. To address this need, in 1993, the Environmental
Protection Act authorized and began funding an HHW State Assistance Program, and, since then, the
state’s commitment to local HHW collection efforts has been consistently strong, providing $30.2
million in reimbursement to municipalities during the program’s 15‐year history. (For more
information on HHW, see Section 5.)

6.1.4 Solid Waste Disposal
DEC’s funding for new solid waste disposal capacity has been limited to the High Technology
Resource Recovery Program (HTRRP), which was created in 1972 to assist local governments in the
planning, design and construction of MWC projects. This funding was consistent with the 1987 Plan,
in which MWC was envisioned as a significant part of the long‐term strategy to address what was
viewed as a looming disposal capacity crisis and to move the state toward self‐sufficiency with
respect to solid waste management. Although a statewide network of MWCs was not completely
realized, the state provided more than $122 million toward the establishment of MWCs. (For more
information on MWC, see Section 9.3.)


6.1.5 Municipal Landfill Closure
The 1987 Plan articulated a strong concern about groundwater contamination and operational
deficiencies related to older, unlined landfills. In June 1986, there were 358 active landfills in New
York State, only 47 of which had valid permits while the rest required upgrading or closure. Ninety‐
four of the non‐permitted landfills were under consent orders resulting from enforcement action, 80
of which were required to close by a specific date. The Plan set a goal of upgrading or closing
unpermitted facilities or those not meeting modern landfill requirements. Recognizing the
significant cost this would impose on municipalities across the state, the legislature authorized DEC’s
Municipal Landfill Closure Program which, since its inception, has awarded a total of $307.5 million
to 254 projects, including $75 million specifically allocated for the closure of the Fresh Kills Landfill in
New York City. Thanks to the state’s efforts, the 1987 Plan goal of upgrading or closing substandard
landfills was substantially met.

6.1.6 Landfill Gas Management
The Municipal Landfill Gas Management State Assistance Program was established to improve air
quality and reduce odors at solid waste landfills and to encourage energy recovery from landfill gas.
Municipal owners or operators of non‐hazardous‐waste landfills who have incurred costs associated
with the design and construction of an active landfill gas collection and treatment system are able to
receive reimbursement of up to 50 percent of eligible costs, up to a maximum of $2 million dollars.
Since the program was launched in 1996, $12.3 million in funding has been provided for 12 projects.
As of early 2009, four applications for a total of $8 million remained on the waiting list with limited
funding allocated in the past few fiscal years.

6.1.7 Limited Funding
The funding needs for waste reduction, recycling, HHW, landfill closure and landfill gas programs
have consistently outpaced the appropriations available. Funding has not been sufficient to keep
pace with annual need, creating an ever‐growing backlog of projects on the waiting list. Additional
funding is necessary to address both projects on the existing waiting lists and new project
applications received on an annual basis.

6.1.8 Lack of Flexibility
While each of DEC’s financial assistance programs has helped address an important and clearly
identified need, the lack of flexibility in the programs’ enabling legislation and their implementing
regulations, particularly the first‐in, first‐out provisions, has resulted in an inability to target the
state’s resources to address new priorities or emerging issues. Because funding has been limited to
only certain types of projects and equipment, DEC has not been able to provide more holistic
support to help underwrite integrated programs.


Greater flexibility in funding sources and regulatory and legislative authorization would accomplish
two critical aims:
• Addressing immediate priorities: With greater flexibility in distributing funds obligated to
infrastructure and education (e.g., the EPF), DEC could more effectively advance critical
priorities and achieve more targeted goals. DEC should have the ability to apply the
principles used in grant programs of other agencies, such as NYSERDA, whose programs
identify priorities, issue program opportunity notices, and evaluate responses based on the
greatest likelihood of effectively addressing that priority. For example, potential priority
areas for a DEC program could include commercial recycling improvement, food scrap
recycling infrastructure, or waste prevention education, and awards would be granted for
the most promising and well‐grounded proposals.
• Providing holistic support: A DEC fund to provide core support for planning units to
implement their LSWMPs would provide an incentive for planning units to engage in
substantive planning and would allow DEC to provide comprehensive support for a plan that
implements the solid waste management hierarchy and moves the planning unit toward the
state’s policy goals.

6.2 ESD FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
More than 20 years ago, the New York State Legislature recognized that the state could not achieve
its solid waste management goals without the support of a vibrant recycling industry and the
conversion of its manufacturing base to the use of recycled feedstock and environmentally
sustainable practices. The legislature directed ESD to create a comprehensive program of financial
and technical assistance for business to build a market‐based recycling industry and develop new
technologies to enhance sustainable manufacturing.
ESD assistance to the recycling and manufacturing sectors is a vital component of sustainable
materials management and an essential complement to local and state materials and waste
management strategies. ESD’s Environmental Services Unit (ESU) fosters market‐driven capacity for
recycling and helps manufacturers achieve enhanced competitiveness through pollution prevention,
recycling and sustainable management. As markets and technologies evolve, ESD’s ESU continues to
facilitate economic growth through enhanced environmental management.
The current ESU program represents the latest evolution of a 20‐year history in recycling market
investments, summarized in Appendix 6.2. Despite its broad market development mandate, early
funding was scant. From 1987 through 1993, ESD implemented two key programs to facilitate
recycling market development:
Feasibility Study grants of up to $100,000 (later raised to $200,000) were offered on a
competitive basis to New York State firms to evaluate recycling technologies, processes,
systems or products manufactured from recycled materials.

Recycling Technology financing (direct loans or interest subsidies) was offered competitively
for the construction of recycling facilities or the acquisition of related machinery and
equipment.
Through 1993, ESU (known at the time as the Office of Recycling Market Development) awarded
nearly $2 million in feasibility study grants, committed $1.4 million in loans and interest subsidies,
and directed an additional $36 million in loans, interest subsidies and loan guarantees from the
Urban Development Corporation and the New York State Job Development Authority for recycling
market development projects.

6.2.1 Environmental Investment Program
Funding to support the ESU mandate improved significantly with the passage of the New York State
Environmental Protection Act in 1993, creating the EPF as a dedicated fund to support recycling and
a broad range of other environmental initiatives. Beginning in 1994, ESD received annual allocations
from the EPF. With a reliable source of funds to support the legislative mandate, ESD created the
Recycling Investment Program. In 1998, with legislative expansion, the program became the
Environmental Investment Program (EIP).
EIP assists three types of projects:
• Capital projects assist in the acquisition of machinery and equipment and improvements
to building, property, and infrastructure directly associated with the environmental
outcomes achieved by New York State businesses. Non‐profit organizations or
municipalities apply on behalf of New York State businesses.
• Research, development and demonstration projects answer questions between
product/process prototypes and their commercialization or implementation and are
available to New York State businesses or non‐profit organizations.
• Technical assistance projects for non‐profit organizations or municipalities help groups
of New York State businesses to achieve measurable recycling, pollution prevention or
sustainability outcomes.
EIP operates as an outcome‐based funding program, and applications are reviewed competitively for
multiple criteria including: how well they compare to EIP investment benchmarks for recycling,
pollution prevention and sustainability outcomes; associated economic benefits; return on
investment; ability of the applicant to successfully complete the project, and the amount of private
investment leveraged by the EIP award. Applicants must achieve environmentally significant and
measurable results to receive funds.
EIP establishes investment priorities annually, based on areas of greatest need and inefficiency in
the marketplace and identifies specific strategies within each priority that receive highest
consideration during competitive review. In state fiscal year 2008/09, EIP investment priorities
included paper, plastic, glass, tires, C&D debris/building materials reuse, food‐processing waste and
industrial pollution prevention.


Investment strategies for each priority area assess specific needs for enhanced waste diversion,
processing capacity, technology innovation and development of value‐added end‐use markets. ESD
consults with DEC in the development of investment priorities to advance statewide strategic
objectives for solid waste management. In FY 2008/09, ESD added a new investment priority for
sustainable product and technology development, recognizing the need and opportunity for New
York State firms to compete in the global market for sustainable products.
The EIP program has demonstrated during two decades that investing in environmentally
sustainable business enterprise generates economic development results, as detailed in Appendix
6.2.1. On average, EIP capital projects return $6 of economic benefit to the state economy for every
$1 of public funds invested. As the global conversion to sustainable business practice accelerates,
ESD is positioned to help New York State firms capitalize on this growing market opportunity.
ESD has also learned, through two decades of measuring EIP investment results, what projects are
less likely to succeed. ESD continues to refine the EIP investment strategy and analysis methodology
to ensure the best possible value for the use of public funds–value that is determined by measurable
improvements to environmental quality and sustainable economic return.

6.2.2 Environmental Investment Program Results
From 1994 through 2008, EIP committed $59.74 million to 399 projects that leveraged $221.05
million in private sector support. Appendix 6.2.1 provides aggregated economic and environmental
benefits achieved by all ESD environmental investments from 1987 through 2008, grouped by
investment priority areas. In total, these projects have:
• Established new capacity to recycle 3.329 million tons/year of secondary materials
• Developed the capacity to recycle 421 million gallons/year of water for beneficial uses
• Helped to create or retain nearly 4,800 jobs
• Created a recurring economic benefit estimated at $279.63 million per year

6.2.3 Operating Constraints
In recent years, ESU’s annual EPF appropriations have increased while staffing levels have dropped
by nearly half. Most current staff have been with the program since its inception and represent
more than 80 years of combined experience in recycling market development and pollution
prevention. Their expertise is essential to the development of quality projects that return both
economic and environmental results, as well as to the on‐going facilitation of recycling market
networks in New York State. ESU has outsourced some project and technology development
through partners like the Regional Technology Development Centers and the New York State
Pollution Prevention Institute. 38 But there is a limit to how much external partnerships can

38
see http://www.nysp2i.rit.edu/

compensate for the reduction in in‐house expertise. Staffing constraints limit ESU’s capacity to
address the full spectrum of recycling issues and the growing role of sustainable production,
resulting in lost opportunities for economic growth.
The market forces that shape sustainable recycling and manufacturing have evolved since passage
of the ESD‐enabling statute in 1987 and its amendment in 1998. For example, the cost of energy
and transportation exert greater market pressure now, making some earlier business choices non‐
competitive while supporting new opportunities—transporting heavy waste materials long distances
for recycling becomes less competitive, while the possibility of capturing energy value from them is
increasingly attractive.
The EIP‐enabling statute sought to direct investment to specific policy priorities—waste prevention,
reuse and recycling—and, therefore, precludes investment in projects that don’t fit those criteria,
particularly energy recovery. This prevents ESD from funding technologies, such as anaerobic
digestion, that provide the dual benefit of capturing energy from bio‐gas and creating a digestate
that can be composted and used as a valuable soil amendment. In essence, the statutory preclusion
is an impediment to improving food scrap recycling in New York State.
This result of the statutory restriction is anomalous, in that, during the past two decades, ESD has
invested in a broad range of organics recycling projects. Projects that recover organic materials
from dairy and food processing facilities have been particularly successful when nutrients are
recovered for beneficial uses as nutriceuticals or animal feed. ESD has also invested in various
projects to build merchant capacity to divert commercially generated food scraps into compost,
including research projects to test technologies and waste‐mix formulations and capital projects to
build collection and recycling capacity.
Because food scraps are wet, heavy and putrecible, they cannot be stored for extended periods of
time, and long‐distance transportation is expensive. The specialized equipment needed to collect,
transport and compost the material creates a capital burden that may not be recovered from the
value of composted soils and low tip fees required to compete with relatively low landfill fees in
many parts of the state. Given the benefits of organics recovery as a solid waste management
strategy, including the energy benefits of recovery of bio‐gas through digestion, state assistance
funding categories must be adjusted to support local investment in food scrap recycling.


6.3 FINANCING THE MOVE BEYOND WASTE
To advance the goals of this Plan, the state and its communities will need resources well beyond
what is currently available. While New York State can implement certain elements of the Plan
within existing constraints, additional staff and funding at both the state and local level are critical
to increasing reuse and recycling and reducing dependence on disposal.
While the Plan does not dictate the precise methods that communities and planning units in the
state will use to move Beyond Waste, DEC estimates that a significant financial investment will be
necessary to achieve its goals. These funds would be used to make investments in materials
management program planning and implementation at the local and state level, as well as public
and private sector capital investments to develop the infrastructure necessary to reuse, recycle and
compost more materials in New York State. Substantial as they may seem, these costs will be more
than offset by the economic and environmental benefits to New York State’s communities and to
the climate.
With municipal governments shouldering much of the burden of solid waste management, meeting
new goals and making maximum use of new options for reducing the amount of waste disposed will
necessitate significant state participation in the form of grants, training, planning assistance, and
demonstration projects. To the extent that funding will flow from the state to individual planning
units, the state will seek greater flexibility in targeting funds to achieve the greatest overall gains for
the reasons noted in section 6.1.8.
The funding sources described below include existing revenue streams used by the state, as well as
potential new sources. To develop the list of potential sources, DEC evaluated funding mechanisms
used in other states and looked particularly closely at states with strong recycling programs and high
diversion rates, including California, Minnesota, Oregon and Massachusetts.

6.3.1 Existing and Potential State Funding Sources
6.3.1 (a) Environmental Protection Fund
In 1993, New York State inaugurated the EPF to support environmental programs in special need of
regular and sustained funding. EPF funding is proposed annually by the Governor, and appropriated
by the Legislature as a part of the state budget, using as the primary funding source a dedicated
portion of the proceeds of the Real Estate Transfer Tax. EPF appropriations have increased from
$31.5 million in 1994/95 to $250 million in 2007/08.
Solid waste programs have been funded by the EPF since its inception. In the first program year (FY
94/95), solid waste programs were assigned the largest portion of the fund—$13 million or 42
percent of the $31 million total. However, as the amount of EPF funds grew, the percentage
allocated for solid waste programs got smaller. For example, when the EPF reached its peak of $250
million in FY 07/08, only $21.5 million or 8.6 percent was allocated to solid waste programs despite
a 63 percent increase to the funds allocated to the EPF.
Solid waste program funding has included three primary line items within the EPF: landfill closure
(including landfill gas management); municipal recycling (including HHW collection), and secondary
materials market development. Annual allocations for the landfill closure grants have ranged from

$0 (FY 02 to 05) to $18 million (FY 96/97). Municipal recycling appropriations have ranged from $2
million (FY 94/95) to $10.8 million (FY 09/10). Allocations for the secondary materials markets line,
managed by ESD, have ranged from $2 million (FY 94/95) to $8.75 million (FY 07/08). EPF grants
generally require a match of 50 percent or more from the grantee—a municipality in the case of a
DEC grant and a private company or not‐for‐profit in the case of an ESD grant.

6.3.1 (b) Product and Packaging Stewardship
Product and packaging stewardship programs require the producers or brand owners of a product
or package to extend their responsibility to the end‐of‐life management of the products or materials
they put into the marketplace. In these programs, producers take either physical or financial
responsibility for recycling and safe disposition of their products or materials. As a result, these
programs either relieve a government obligation, generate revenues for state and local
governments or both. (For more information, see Section 5.)
In all cases, stewardship programs reduce the demand for local resources by shifting responsibility
from local governments, taxpayers and ratepayers to producers and consumers. In addition,
stewardship programs often include a requirement that producers pay annual registration fees to
the state to offset the program management and oversight costs.
In some cases, stewardship programs generate revenue for government entities, particularly those
that provide collection services for producers. For example, the Washington State E‐Cycles product
stewardship program has yielded new revenue for local governments with e‐waste collection sites.
One county in Washington was able to achieve a net gain of more than $500,000 per year by
avoiding $368,000 in operating costs and generating $180,000 in revenue by providing e‐waste
collection infrastructure.
In Ontario, Canada, the packaging and printed product stewardship program requires brand owners
to pay 50 percent of the costs of residential recycling programs. Reimbursements to local
municipalities are based on the amount of material recycled and the net cost to manage each
material, as derived from a formula agreed upon by the brand owners and municipalities. The
program generates approximately $48 million per year for municipal recycling programs, and, during
the past four years, it has generated approximately $60 million in investments in efficiency and
other system improvements.39

6.3.1 (c) New York State Bond Act
One tool for financing large‐scale public investments is bonding. The authority to issue bonds must
be approved by the State Legislature, then by the public through a general referendum, and then,
once again, by the Legislature. In New York State, this tool has been used to fund environmental
infrastructure investments three times, with enactment of the 1972 EQBA, the 1986 EQBA, and the

39
Packaging Stewardship in Action; presentation by Gordon Day, Corporations Supporting Recycling;
November 2008. Additional information available
at www.csr.org, www.stewardshipontario.ca, www.ontarioelectronicstewardship.ca

1996 CW/CA Bond Act. Each of these included significant allocations for materials and waste
management.
The 1972 EQBA authorized a total of $1.15 billion in environmental spending, including $175 million
for solid waste projects. The 1986 EQBA provided $1.2 billion for various projects, including $100
million for zero‐interest loans to local governments to properly close municipal landfills. The 1996
CW/CA Bond Act authorized $1.75 billion in total, including $175 million in the solid waste category.
Some stakeholders have suggested a new bond act that would help to finance the move Beyond
Waste.

6.3.1 (d) Solid Waste Disposal Fees
More than 30 states assess some type of fee or tax on the disposal of solid waste, serving as both a
disincentive to disposal and a source of revenue to meet various funding needs. Generally, those
fees are either passed on to the consumer or absorbed by the entity charged with paying it. Fees
vary by state from $.25 per ton, to $8.25 per ton. With the exception of Massachusetts, all of New
York State’s neighbor states assess a solid waste disposal fee. (See Table 6.3/) Most states assess
the fee on waste only (not on recyclables) and use the revenues raised to fund solid waste‐related
programs such as landfill closure or recycling programs and grants.
The state fees and taxes of other states summarized below demonstrate that disposal fees can be
structured in a variety of ways, depending on the policy goals and financial needs of the state and
local governments targeted. For example, in New York State, a fee could be structured either to
exempt facilities that already support an integrated solid waste management system, including
waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting programs, or to enable some portion of the fee
to remain with the local government to fund such systems. In any instance, the fee should be
directed to a special fund dedicated to support planning, infrastructure, education and outreach
expenses to implement waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and composting more aggressively
throughout the state.
Using current disposal figures, New York State could generate more than $100 million each year to
fund recycling activities if a moderate $5 per ton tip fee was imposed. This would have a significant
impact on recycling activities in the state, representing more than five times the funds currently
available from the EPF.


TABLE 6.2 – SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FEES IN NEIGHBORING STATES
State Per‐Ton Comments

Fee
Vermont $6.00 On all waste, including export, to fund Solid Waste

Implementation Fund (grants, state programs, education,
etc.)
Connecticut $1.50 Assessed on waste at MWC facilities; funds Solid Waste Account

at CT DEP
New Jersey $3.00 Funds Recycling Fund (60% to municipalities; 30% to counties; 5%

to higher education institutions; 5% to state)
Pennsylvania $7.25 Includes: $4 waste‐disposal fee; $2 recycling fee; $1 host

municipality benefit fee; $.25 stewardship fee
Ohio $3.50 $1 for hazardous waste fund; $1 for solid waste fund; $1.50 for

environmental protection fund; also authorizes local entities
to levy additional fees for specific solid waste‐related uses
Some states have structured their disposal fees to advance policy goals, either by providing greater
support for areas with lower recycling rates, or by rewarding strong performers. For example, the
fees assessed by the State of Iowa are greater for “planning areas” with lower recycling rates and
lower for areas with higher rates, with some of the fee retained by the planning area for planning
and implementation. Areas with less than a 25 percent diversion rate are assessed a fee of
$4.75/ton, $1.45/ton of which is retained by the planning area; in areas with greater than 50
percent diversion, the fee is $3.25/ton, $1.30 of which is retained by the planning area.
New Jersey’s Recycling Tax funds four distinct revenue streams, with all funding used to support
solid waste and recycling related programs:
• Sixty percent of the proceeds of the Recycling Tax are dedicated to the Recycling Tonnage
Grants Program. This program provides payments to municipalities based on the overall
weight of materials recycled, thereby providing an incentive for communities to achieve
greater levels of recycling and put strong data collection and reporting mechanisms in place.
• Thirty percent of the tax proceeds are distributed to counties in the state in three ways: the
majority of county funds are distributed for implementation of solid waste management
plans based on the counties’ waste generation levels; a portion is set aside for recycling
enhancement grants for counties to establish new programs (e.g., enforcement, education,
etc.) , and a portion is set aside for public information and education.
• Five percent of the tax revenues are used to provide grants to universities and other
institutions of higher education to conduct research on recycling.
• Five percent is used to fund a portion of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection’s solid waste program.

West Virginia has the highest per‐ton tip fee surcharge at $8.75. The funds are raised for the
following specific purposes:
• $1.75/ton Solid Waste Assessment Fee to fund solid waste management programs
• $1.00/ton Solid Waste Assessment Interim Fee for a solid waste management fund, half of
which is distributed to county or regional solid waste authorities, and half is used for grants
and administration
• $2.00/ton Recycling Assessment Fee, half of which is dedicated to grants for municipalities
to plan and implement recycling programs, while the remainder is distributed to other
agency funds
• $3.50/ton Closure Cost Assessment Fee for the landfill closure assistance program
• $.50/ton County Solid Waste Assessment Fee for administration, cleanup, litter control, or
other county solid waste programs
Minnesota originally financed its solid waste management program through a disposal fee assessed
at the solid waste facility but later transitioned to a Solid Waste Management Tax paid by waste
generators (i.e., residents, businesses, and institutions). Non‐residential (i.e., commercial and
institutional) MSW generators pay a 17 percent tax on their waste disposal bills (including fees for
collection and disposal of waste), while residential generators pay 9.75 percent. Generators of
other waste streams, including C&D debris, industrial and infectious waste, pay $.06 per cubic yard
collected. Fees for materials collected for recycling, composting, and use as alternative daily cover
at landfills are exempt from the tax, as are disaster debris and industrial wastes disposed of in a
landfill owned by the generator. Half of the revenue from the tax is dedicated to landfill clean up
and state agency activities, and the remainder goes to the general fund.

6.3.1 (e) Permit and Compliance Fees
Many states raise revenues by assessing fees on solid waste management facility permits.
According to a survey conducted by NEWMOA, New York is the only state in the region that does
not collect fees from solid waste facility permit applicants. DEC does collect fees for many other
types of permits, including those issued by the air and water divisions, and assesses hazardous
waste regulatory fees.
In some states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island), fees are paid to the
general fund, while others (Maine, New Jersey and Vermont) use permit fees to fund their solid
waste programs. The fees charged in other northeastern states differ dramatically, ranging from
approximately $1,000 (for small transfer station permit modifications in MA) to $100,000 or more
(for landfills in NJ and RI). Most states use a formula or a set of criteria for determining the fee
schedule for different types of facility permits, usually related to the facility acceptance rate or
whether the facility is in public or private ownership.
In addition, with the exception of New Hampshire, all of the other northeast states charge permit
renewal or annual compliance fees which, like permit fees, vary widely from state to state. It is
important to note that, although New York State does not have a compliance fee per se, some solid

waste disposal facilities are required to fund a DEC‐employed monitor to provide independent
oversight of their operations. The fees paid by facility operators to cover the cost of monitors are
intended to ensure compliance.

6.3.1 (f) Unclaimed Bottle Deposits
In 2009, thanks to the leadership of Governor Paterson, the New York State budget included an
expansion of the state’s bottle deposit/return program (Bottle Bill) to: capture water bottles and
redirect to the state’s general fund 80 percent of all unclaimed deposits on beverage containers.
The revenues from unclaimed deposits, estimated at $115 million per year, are to be used to offset
substantial anticipated revenue shortfalls in the state’s General Fund.
Several states use, or have used, unclaimed deposits to fund recycling programs or agency activities.
The logic is simple—if the deposit on a container is not redeemed, that container will end up as solid
waste to be managed by a government program. For example, in California, unclaimed deposits
have funded grant programs and administrative activities, as well as municipal recycling programs.
California communities received the unclaimed deposits for those containers that are managed in
their solid waste programs, as determined by reports and periodic audits, instead of being returned
for deposit. 40 For many years, Massachusetts funded its state agency solid waste program and a
municipal recycling grant program through the use of unclaimed deposits.

6.3.2 Existing and Potential Local Funding Sources
6.3.2 (a) Property Tax
Most municipalities in New York State fund their solid waste and recycling programs using general
revenues derived from property taxes. This system provides no incentive to the resident/taxpayer
to reduce or recycle waste because the actual cost of waste disposal is hidden. Moreover, this
approach, while simple and straightforward, leads to difficult budget decisions where investments in
waste reduction and recycling compete with other critical public services, such as police, fire
protection, libraries and schools. Those who waste less essentially subsidize their neighbors who
waste more.

6.3.2 (b) Pay as You Throw/Save Money and Reduce Trash (PAYT/SMART)
More than 400 communities in the state employ some form of volume‐based pricing. These
programs charge residents for waste collection and recycling services based on the volume of waste
generated. When properly structured, the full system costs (including recycling, composting and
waste prevention programs) are included in waste disposal fees, while recycling and composting
collections are provided for free. This gives residents an incentive to reduce their waste and recycle
more. These properly structured volume‐based pricing programs are known as PAYT/SMART. USEPA
has documented the benefits of PAYT/SMART programs
(See http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/payt/ or Appendix 8.2).

40
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dor/lgacp/curbside/Pages/csp.aspx

DEC estimates that if PAYT/SMART was implemented statewide, the amount of MSW disposed
would drop by three million tons or nearly 40 percent.

6.3.2 (c) Integrated Systems Fees
Some municipalities in New York State own solid waste management facilities (transfer stations,
landfills or MWCs) and finance their integrated solid waste management programs with revenues
from the tip fees charged at those facilities. Like PAYT/SMART, these programs generally place fees
on disposal, though not at the household level, but provide recycling programs for free. In some
cases, integrated systems are further supported by flow control ordinances that allow municipalities
to direct the waste generated within its borders to particular waste management facilities. This
structure enables a municipality to set fees based on total system costs without regard to
competition from private waste facilities whose prices can be lower because they either do not
provide or separately charge for other services, such as recycling and composting. (For more on
flow control, see Appendix 3.2.)

6.3.2 (d) Private Subscription Service
In many communities in New York State, the municipality has little involvement in recycling and
waste collection, processing and disposal. In these areas, residents subscribe to collection services
provided by the private sector. Communities can regulate services provided by private carting
companies by local law to ensure, for example, that recycling services are provided or otherwise set
performance parameters. However, many New York State communities do not exercise that
oversight.
While private subscription services are feebased, they tend not to achieve the waste reduction gains
of PAYT/SMART programs because the fees are assessed based on actual service cost, not on system
costs. For example, many private carting companies charge for recycling or yard trimmings
collection services. They also tend to assign a waste management fee amount for collection, with
only minor incremental increases, if any at all, for greater volume—a 64‐gallon container will cost
only a small amount more than a 30‐gallon container. In contrast, PAYT/SMART programs purposely
discourage higher volume disposal by charging more than twice as much for a 64‐gallon container as
a 30‐gallon container. Most private subscription services are simply not structured to incentivize
waste reduction and recycling.

6.3.2 (e) Sales Tax
One New York State county uses a portion of its sales tax to finance its innovative solid waste
management program. In Delaware County, one cent out of every eight cents collected in sales tax
is dedicated to the county’s solid waste management complex, which includes a material recovery
facility, a mixed waste (MSW, food processing waste, and biosolids) composting facility, a C&D
debris recovery facility and a landfill. Sales tax revenues have made possible the substantial
investment in mixed‐waste composting that produces a marketable product and reduces the

residual waste stream, thus facilitating an increase in recycling in the county and a significant
extension to the site life of the county landfill.

6.3.2 (f) Generator Fees and Other Direct Municipal Charges
Some municipalities in New York State charge residents a separate, dedicated fee for solid waste‐
related services. For example, Otsego and Tompkins counties directly bill residents and businesses a
“generator fee” to finance recycling, composting, and solid waste programs. Other municipalities
charge residents for municipally operated or contracted waste collection services either directly, as
a bill, or as a line item on local taxes. These programs can have the same drawbacks as private
subscription services unless they are structured as PAYT/SMART systems or otherwise provide
incentives for waste reduction, recycling and composting. The main benefits of municipally
operated or contracted collection, as compared to private subscription service, are reduced truck
traffic and cost savings that result from collection efficiencies and economies of scale.

6.3.3 Existing and Potential Financial Incentives
6.3.3 (a) Carbon Credits
Carbon offset credits are an emerging revenue stream, designed to monetize the environmental
value of reducing GHG emissions through enhanced environmental management techniques. There
are several voluntary carbon offset trading programs, including the Voluntary Carbon Standard
(VCS), the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the California Climate Registry (CCR). In addition, the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), operates a regulated market. Each RGGI state, including
New York State, has issued regulations setting basic operating parameters, such as what actions
yield tradable credits. The others are venues for private transactions between generators and
purchasers of offsets without government oversight or endorsement, and the vigorous verification
associated with a regulated program.
To trade carbon credits, the offset measure must be verifiable using an approved protocol. Such
protocols exist for the destruction of methane gas and, as a result, methane destruction credits are
routinely traded on all of the markets listed above. The CCX recently approved protocols for
verifying credits for composting, and the CCR is expected to follow suit. To date, verification
protocols have not been developed for recycling, but once protocols are in place, they can be used
to capture carbon offset revenue for the recycler through the trading of credits. Ideally, that
revenue could be used to finance infrastructure and other investments in recycling and organics
recovery.
Price variability and volatility limit the application of carbon offset credits as a reliable financing
mechanism for the investments necessary to move Beyond Waste. Reliability is also diminished by
the fact that, in time, national legislation regulating carbon emissions could either preempt or
support credits for waste‐related activities. Reliability aside, carbon credits can still provide a
valuable incentive to improve solid waste management performance by monetizing the
environmental benefits of actions like recycling and composting.


6.3.3 (b) Feed‐In Tariffs
Some states and many European countries use Feed‐In tariffs to incentivize renewable energy
production, such as the capture of bio‐gas for energy production in anaerobic digestion systems. In
these systems, the government sets a rate that utilities must pay for renewable electricity sources.
The rate is well beyond market rate to create a financial incentive for renewable energy production.

6.3.3 (c) Tax Incentives
According to the EPA, 25 states use tax incentives to foster recycling. Most of these states provide
tax credits for investments in recycling equipment; some also exempt recycling equipment or
recycled content products from state sales tax or provide a property tax reduction for recycling
companies. 41
Allowing for accelerated depreciation of the value of recycling equipment is another way of offering
a tax incentive for recycling companies. Using a modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS)
to depreciate capital expenses on a faster timeline allows companies to deduct the value of
depreciation sooner, thus providing a direct financial incentive for recycling‐related investments.
6.4 FINDINGS
• To achieve the state’s goals and move Beyond Waste—reducing waste, increasing recycling
and composting, and reducing disposal—will require:
o More significant investment of state resources
o Greater flexibility in how those resources are disbursed to respond to emerging
issues and critical needs
o A mechanism to provide general support to planning units to implement integrated
LSWMPs
• Building market‐driven recycling capacity, industrial pollution prevention and the
development of new green products and process technologies requires:
o Keen understanding of evolving market and regulatory conditions that shape new
business obstacles and opportunities for sustainable production and economic
growth
o Assistance to New York State firms to help them compete in a sustainable global
market place and to ensure that economic growth is coupled with enhanced
environmental quality at home
• There are many options for funding the implementation of this Plan, enhancing local
programs and moving Beyond Waste.
• Properly structured financing programs can provide incentives to reduce waste and increase
recycling.

41
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/rrr/rmd/bizasst/rec‐tax.htm

6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS

• Continue to allocate state resources to ESD and DEC investment programs and ensure
adequate staff capacity to process and disburse funds
• Support monetization of the GHG benefits of materials management strategies through
carbon offset credit trading or other methods of carbon valuation

• Target EPF Solid Waste Program funding: To complement the new program described
below, EPF funds could be targeted through a request for proposals or similar process to
address critical priorities identified annually, such as education, outreach, reuse,
composting, etc. Possible priorities, identified in other sections of this Plan, include:
o Increased enforcement of source separation requirements throughout all
generating sectors, with special focus on improving recovery of materials from the
commercial and institutional sectors
o Infrastructure development in focused areas such as enhanced organic materials
recovery, glass recovery, plastics recovery, and the updating and upgrading of the
current materials recovery facility processing network
o Increased development and stabilization of local secondary materials markets
o Volume‐based pricing (PAYT/SMART) program evaluation and implementation
across the state

• Develop a package of preferred funding mechanisms and develop legislation to advance the
package
• Create a new grant program, with a new funding source, to provide consistent, annual
funding to planning units to implement waste prevention, reuse, recycling and organics
recovery programs. This program would: address the long‐standing need for enhanced
resources for planning unit program implementation; be easily implementable; deliver
funding in a timely manner; provide an equitable distribution of funds to municipalities, and
foster consistent implementation of sound LSWMPs.
• Establish Product and Packaging Stewardship Programs: Such programs either generate
revenue directly or relieve government from the obligation to finance collection and end‐of‐
life management of the products and packaging targeted, thus releasing resources for other
priorities. (For more information, see Section 5.)

• Authorize ESD to support organic materials recycling technologies that provide the dual
benefits of capturing energy and creating a valuable product
• Require municipalities to finance recycling and waste management programs through
PAYT/SMART or other mechanisms that provide incentives to reduce waste and increase
recycling


7. MATERIALS COMPOSITION AND CHARACTERIZATION

This section evaluates the composition of the materials in New York State’s MSW stream and
provides a description of the characteristics of the key streams it includes. It also describes the
other waste streams managed in the state, including industrial waste, construction and demolition
debris and biosolids. This section is intended to be background information to aid communities in
evaluating appropriate materials management strategies and implementing the state’s solid waste
management hierarchy. The data summarized in this section is provided in Appendix 1. Because
this section is analytical in nature, it does not include a discussion of findings or recommendations.
In 2008, facilities in New York State managed a total of more than 36 million tons of materials and
waste, as depicted in Table 7.1.
TABLE 7.1 MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NYS, 2008

MSW Industrial C&D Biosolids Total
Million Million Million Million Million
Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons %
Recycle/ 3.7 20 1.4 39 7.2 55 0.9 47 13.1 36
Compost
Landfill 6.0 33 2.1 60 4.1 32 0.3 17 12.5 34
Combustion 2.5 14 <0.1 1 <0.1 0 0.4 24 3.0 8
Export for 22
Disposal 6.1 33 <0.1 0 1.7 13 0.2 12 8.0
Total 18.3 100 3.5 100 13.0 100 1.8 100 36.6 100


7.1 MATERIALS COMPOSITION
FIGURE 7.1 ESTIMATED MSW GENERATED IN NYS
7.1.1 Methodology
DEC has developed estimates of the
composition of the materials present in the
MSW stream using data inputs that include
field‐based waste composition studies
performed within New York State, in other
major US cities, and in other states that have
similar demographic characteristics to some
of New York’s regions. In developing these
estimates, DEC aimed to characterize the
MSW that is discarded or recycled by the residential and commercial/institutional (CI) generators.
The MSW composition estimate does not include the separately managed construction and
demolition debris (C&D) stream; C&D is addressed in section 7.2.5. It does not include several
organics streams (biosolids, septage, agricultural materials, etc.), industrial waste, or medical and
biohazardous materials either. It contains data on tires and scrap metal that are generated as part
of the MSW stream but not the full range of those materials managed outside of the MSW
management structures. More detail on each of these streams is provided in Section 7.2.
DEC’s analysis looks at the variations in the materials stream based on urban, rural and suburban
generators, as well as residential and commercial/institutional generators. Because no one study
provides directly transferable data by these divisions, data from multiple sources were compiled and
aggregated to create the DEC composition estimate. After a careful review of dozens of
composition analyses, the data from the following sources were used:
• Municipalities within New York State: New York City and Onondaga County Resource
Recovery Authority (OCRRA)
• Municipalities in other states: Seattle, WA and San Francisco, CA
• Other States: Vermont, Wisconsin, Missouri, Georgia, Oregon, Ohio, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, and California


FIGURE 7.2: ESTIMATED MSW COMPOSITION IN NEW YORK STATE AS COMPARED TO EPA ESTIMATES

7.1.2 MSW Generation Estimates
The estimated composition of materials generated by the residential and commercial/institutional
sector is presented in Figure 7.1. A comparison of the results of DEC’s analysis with the US EPA’s
Characterization of MSW in the United States, which is commonly used as a baseline by states and
local governments, is presented in Figure 7.2. The notable differences—rates of generation of yard
trimmings, food scraps, some containers and paper products—are likely related to differences in
methodology or the demographic characteristics of New York State, such as the substantial urban
population.
As noted, DEC’s estimates are based on field studies. The EPA study estimates for most materials
are based on a materials flow approach which relies on production data (adjusted for imports and
exports) and certain assumptions about patterns and length of use for various products. However,
for food scraps and yard trimmings, EPA uses data reported from states as well as materials
composition studies. The substantial differences between EPA and DEC estimates of food scrap
generation are likely due to New York City’s high rate of generation of this material as compared to
other urban, suburban and rural areas. The yard trimmings differences are likely attributable to the
low rate of generation of this material in NYC as well as the fact that rural communities mostly
handle this material onsite.


7.1.3 Materials Discard Estimates FIGURE 7.3 ESTIMATED MSW DISPOSED OF
IN NEW YORK STATE
Figure 7.3 depicts DEC’s
estimate of the composition
of the materials discarded in
New York State. These
estimates are particularly
useful in developing
programmatic, legislative, and
regulatory priorities to
minimize disposal and move
Beyond Waste. Disposal data
can inform program managers
regarding how well their
programs are capturing
targeted materials and can help identify targets to maximize diversion.
For example, approximately 20 percent of the material disposed of in New York State is paper that is
commonly recycled in many of the state’s municipal programs. Clearly, those programs are not
achieving their optimal capture rates. More than 30 percent of the materials currently discarded
are organics (food scraps and yard trimmings) and compostable paper. So, strengthening the
organics recycling infrastructure must be a priority to move Beyond Waste. For a more detailed
composition of MSW disposed of in New York State, see Figure 7.6.

7.1.4 Materials Composition in Urban, Suburban and Rural Areas
The population density of a community can have an impact on the composition of its waste stream.
As illustrated in Figure 7.4, DEC estimates that the materials generation differences in New York
State’s urban, suburban and rural areas can be significant, particularly with regard to food scraps,
yard trimmings, wood and certain grades of paper. Urban areas account for 54 percent of the
state’s population, while suburban areas account for 30 percent and rural 16 percent.
For the purposes of this analysis, DEC defined rural areas as communities in the state with a
population density of less than 325 people per square mile; suburban areas as communities with a
population density between 325 and 5,000 people per square mile, and urban areas as communities
with population density greater than 5,000 people per square mile. A higher population density for
suburban and urban areas was used compared to most other states, primarily due to the greater
population density of the suburban areas of Long Island and New York City. These distinctions are
important to note when using this data for local planning purposes or comparison with other states
and national data.


FIGURE 7.4 ESTIMATED MSW GENERATED IN RURAL, SUBURBAN, AND URBAN AREAS OF NYS

7.1.5 Materials Composition in the Residential vs. the Commercial/Institutional Sectors
DEC estimates that 54 percent of the MSW generated statewide is residential, and 46 percent is
commercial/institutional. In designing waste prevention and recycling programs for specific sectors,
it is important to understand the details of the materials generation patterns in those sectors. As
Figures 7.5 and 7.6 indicate, there are some important differences between sectors that are useful
to know in determining which materials to target for aggressive recycling programs. For example,
the generation of food scraps and corrugated cardboard in the commercial/institutional sector is
substantially higher than in the residential sector, as is the generation of other recyclable paper and
glass.

FIGURE 7.5 ESTIMATED MSW GENERATED IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND CI SECTORS IN NYS

FIGURE 7.6 ESTIMATED MSW DISPOSED OF IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND CI SECTORS IN NYS


7.2 MSW MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION
This section will further characterize the components of the MSW stream generated by residential,
commercial and institutional sources to provide more specific information to aid in local and state
planning and in programmatic efforts. The analysis includes materials streams that are addressed in
the composition analysis above and those that are not included in the discussion in section 7.1 but
are considered MSW. All should be managed in accordance with the state’s solid waste
management hierarchy favoring waste prevention, reuse and recycling instead of disposal. All
percentages and figures provided are based on weight.

7.2.1 Paper
Paper comprises approximately 33 percent of the MSW generated in New York State and 28
percent of MSW sent for disposal. The paper stream is technically completely recyclable or
compostable and, as generated, includes:
• Newspaper (4 percent)
• Corrugated cardboard (10 percent)
• Other recyclable paper, such as printing paper, office paper, magazines, books, telephone
directories, junk mail and boxboard or paperboard (e.g., cereal boxes) (12 percent)
• Other compostable paper, such as paper towels, food‐contaminated paper and cardboard,
tissues, and napkins (7 percent)
According to the NERC’s 2009 Recycling Economic Information Study (REI), 25 mills recycle paper in
New York State.

7.2.2 Food Scraps FIGURE 7.7 USEPA’S FOOD RECOVERY HIERARCHY
Food scraps include uneaten food and food
preparation materials from residences,
commercial establishments (such as restaurants
and supermarkets), and institutions (such as
colleges, hospitals and prisons). About 96 billion
pounds of food are wasted each year in the US,
costing one billion dollars to manage.42 In New
York State, DEC estimates that food scraps
represent nearly 18 percent of the MSW
generated every year.
There are many ways to divert excess food and/or
food grade material from disposal. Aggregating
unused food to provide meals for the hungry is

42
USEPA website, “Basic Information about Food Scraps”

the highest priority use for excess food management, and there is a strong, established network of
food banks and other charitable organizations in New York State that actively seek food for the
needy. Food scraps as animal feed is another way to cost effectively manage food scraps while also
reducing feed costs for farmers. Historically, rendering has been a well‐established and available
industry for processing select organic wastes, primarily animal tissue and fats from the food
processing industry, to make multiple products used in industry.
Composting converts food scraps into soil products and is the most common management option at
this time. Anaerobic digestion has the potential to extract energy from food scraps and also
generate materials that can be further composted into fertilizers and soil amendments.

7.2.3 Yard Trimmings
Yard trimmings (yard waste or yard debris) include leaves, grass clippings, and garden debris, and
comprise, on average, approximately five percent of the MSW stream. Quantities of yard trimmings
vary significantly depending on the type of community (urban, suburban or rural) and the character
of the properties in the area (mature trees, etc.). DEC estimates that just under three percent of
MSW generated in urban areas are yard trimmings compared to more than ten percent in suburban
areas and approximately two percent in the state’s rural areas.
Yard trimmings, especially leaves, are relatively easy to compost because they are often collected
separately from other residential wastes, providing a clean stream of material that can be
composted using relatively simple methods, windrow composting (i.e., using long rows of material)
being the predominant method.

7.2.4 Plastic
Plastics make up more than 14 percent of the MSW generated and nearly 17 percent of the MSW
disposed of in New York State. This stream includes plastic bottles, rigid containers and film plastics.
While all plastics are technically recyclable, most community programs collect PET (#1) and HDPE
(#2) bottles; together, these comprise less than two percent of the overall MSW stream. The largest
plastic component in the waste stream, nearly six percent, is film plastic, made up of soft, pliable
bags and wraps, such as grocery bags, shrink wrap and garbage bags. To address film plastics,
legislation was passed in 2008 requiring most retailers who use plastic bags to provide film plastic
collection to the public. (For more on the plastic bag recycling law,
see http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/50034.html). According to the NERC REI study, there are 20
plastics reclaimers in New York State.

7.2.5 Wood
More than three percent of the MSW generated by residences, businesses and institutions is made
up of wood. While this stream generally does not include materials handled by a contractor as C&D
debris, it can include materials generated through small‐scale or do‐it‐yourself projects and

discarded items such as furniture and pallets. Most communities in New York State do not have
programs in place to recycle residentially generated wood waste.

7.2.6 Textiles
Textiles in the MSW stream generally include used clothing, carpets, towels, sheets and draperies.
These materials make up approximately five percent of the materials stream. Many textiles are
readily technically recyclable, such as through the rag trade. Although textiles are sometimes
recycled through charitable organizations that receive as donations clothing and other textile
products that cannot be reused, there are few community textile recycling collection programs in
New York State.

7.2.7 Metals
Metals make up nearly seven percent of the waste stream in New York State and include consumer
packaging such as steel and aluminum cans, aluminum foil, appliances, and other municipally
generated scrap metal (e.g., bicycles, toys, pots and pans, etc.). All metals are technically recyclable,
though many communities collect only metal containers in their source separation programs. Some
communities provide drop‐off locations for larger scrap metals and appliances or provide special
collection days/procedures.

7.2.8 Glass
Glass makes up a four percent of the materials generated in New York State. It includes glass
packaging and other items, such as window glass, ceramics, etc. Most communities in New York
State collect glass containers, though few provide collection of other types of glass.

7.2.9 Other
This category includes elements of the waste stream that collectively comprise nearly 11 percent of
the state’s generation. It includes residentially generated C&D materials, diapers, electronics, HHW,
and tires, among other items. Electronics and HHW are fully discussed in Product Stewardship,
Section 5.


7.3 NON‐MSW MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION

7.3.1 Organic Materials
While composting and organics recycling is generally comparable to recycling of other materials in
terms of priority on the state solid waste management hierarchy, DEC supports the EPA hierarchy
specifically for organics (see graphic), which mirrors the broader solid waste management hierarchy
and combines principals of waste reduction and reuse as well as recycling. Additional information on
organic materials management is provided in Appendix 7.1.

7.3.1 (a) Biosolids
Biosolids, also referred to as sewage sludge, are the solid or semi‐solid organic materials generated
as a result of the treatment of wastewater. Biosolids’ characteristics vary depending on the sources
of wastewater to the treatment plant and the treatment methods used at the plant. Biosolids may
contain contaminants (heavy metals, pathogens, etc.) that would be detrimental to the environment
if not properly controlled. DEC has regulations in place (see Part 360‐4 and 360‐5
at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/2491.html) that require routine testing of biosolids to be recycled or
beneficially used and set standards for pollutants of concern.
In New York State, 584 publiclyowned treatment works (POTWs) generate biosolids. The combined
design capacity of the POTWs is about 3.7 billion gallons of wastewater per day, with an actual flow
to these facilities of about 2.55 billion gallons per day (representing 70 percent of available
treatment capacity). More than half of the POTWs have design capacities of less than one million
gallons per day. In total, POTWs in New York State generate 353,000 dry tons, which is equivalent to
1.8 million wet tons per year (about 1,000 dry tons or 5,000 wet tons per day) of biosolids requiring
further management.
Approved beneficial uses of heat dried or composted biosolids have become the most common
management strategy in New York State. On a dry weight basis, 48 percent of the biosolids
generated are beneficially used while 26 percent are landfilled and 25 percent incinerated.
Beneficial use processes include heat drying (37 percent of beneficial use or 18 percent of total
biosolids), composting (24 percent of beneficial use or 11 percent of total), land application as an
agricultural fertilizer (20 percent of beneficial use or 10 percent of total), and chemical stabilization
with a neutralizing agent to produce a liming material, (19 percent of beneficial use or 9 percent of
total). Some very small treatment plants have the ability to store biosolids for many years before
they must remove and recycle or dispose the material. This practice accounts for the remaining one
percent. Nearly half of the biosolids generated in New York State are managed outofstate, either in
landfills or through beneficial use.
More data on the generation and use of biosolids are provided in Appendix 7.1.


7.3.1 (b) Septage
In many areas of New York State, residents and businesses rely on septic systems for sewage
treatment. Septage contained in system tanks must be pumped periodically and properly managed
at a wastewater treatment plant, or it can be land applied to supply nutrients on agricultural
property. However, for land application, septage must be mixed with lime and meet other criteria
defined in the state’s solid waste management regulations (see Part 360‐4). More than 90 percent
of the septage generated in New York State goes to municipal POTWs. In 2006, about 16.4 million
gallons of septage were land applied, while nearly 190 million gallons were transported to POTWs
and, therefore, ultimately managed as biosolids.

7.3.1 (c) Paper Mill Residuals
The production of paper products, either from virgin wood or recycled paper, results in the
production of residuals, sometimes termed paper mill sludge. These residuals are primarily organic
in nature, consisting of short fibers, lignin, and other constituents of wood that are undesirable in
paper production because they could degrade the ultimate product. Depending on the
manufacturing process employed, there is also the potential for chemicals used in the process, like
bleaching agents or coloring inks, to end up in the residuals stream. Paper mill sludge can be a
challenge to compost because paper fibers decompose slowly; however, it can be composted
effectively with the appropriate type and quantity of amendment. Currently, there is one paper mill
residual composting facility in New York State, located in Washington County, composting about
70,000 tons annually.

7.3.1 (d) Carcasses, Manure, and Other Agricultural Waste
Animal carcass sources include mortalities at farms, roadkill, and butcher residuals. More than
25,000 animals, primarily deer, are killed each year on the roads of New York State. An estimated
14,000 cow carcasses are generated by dairy farms in New York State each year. 43 Poultry and
swine farms in New York State also generate carcasses through normal animal mortality. In
addition, about 400 butchers in the state must properly manage the byproducts of their operations,
estimated at 58,000 tons per year.
Besides carcasses, farming and raising animals result in other organic wastes that must be managed,
including manure and crop residues. Crop residues are typically turned into the soil on the field
where they are generated. With an average generation rate of 100 pounds of manure per cow, per
day, dairy cows in New York State produce 12 million tons of manure each year. In the past, land
application on farm fields was the standard method for handling animal manure. However, as the
typical farm has increased the number of animals it manages, and with more regulatory restrictions
on land application, farms have turned from land application to other methods for manure
management, including anaerobic digestion, composting, and reuse of the dried manure as animal
bedding.

43
In 2001, there were 670,000 milk cows and 80,000 beef cows in New York State. The typical mortality loss is
2 percent for dairy herds and 0.5 percent for beef cows, resulting in 14,000 cow carcasses each year.

7.3.2 Scrap Metal
Scrap metal includes a wide variety of materials generated by CARCASS
many different entities. It includes end‐of‐life vehicles, prompt
COMPOSTING
scrap from metal manufacturers, appliances and metal from

construction and demolition (e.g., copper pipe, aluminum
siding, radiators, obsolete machinery, structural beams, bridges
structures), among other things. According to the Institute for In the past, these carcasses
Scrap Recycling Industries, scrap recycling (which includes other were either taken to
recyclable materials, in addition to metals), is a $65 billion landfills or dragged into the
industry that employs more than 50,000 people and processes woods along the side of the
more than 150 million tons of material each year. road. Today, landfill
The economics of scrap metal recycling differs from that of operators prefer not to
most recyclable materials. Scrap metal values, although handle large animals, and
volatile, are always positive and almost always higher than the the practice of dragging
cost of processing. This means that scrap metal recyclers carcasses into wooded
almost always pay for material that is received at their facility. areas is no longer an option
This payment has allowed the scrap metal business to be in many communities.
vibrant for many years, without governmental mandates or
Instead, a number of New
incentives. The value of the scrap metal to the generatorsor
York State Department of
their intermediaries has provided enough incentive for
Transportation (DOT) sites
recycling rates to remain high. As a result of differing
economics, the scrap metal recycling infrastructure was
have established compost
developed long before the recycling infrastructure for most piles specifically designed to
other commodities, and these two recycling infrastructures handle road‐killed animals.
remain largely separate to this day. The carcass composting
procedures they employ,
While DEC believes that scrap metal comprises a substantial
portion of the total waste stream by weight and enjoys a developed by Cornell
significant recycling rate, most of the facilities that process University, are also being
these materials are exempt from state reporting requirements. used at many farms for
The State of New Jersey requires scrap metal recyclers to normal mortalities that
report recycling tonnages to the state through an annual occur in a herd and for
reporting program. Based on these data over recent years, disease incidents.
scrap metal recycling represents five to ten percent of the total
tonnage recycled in New Jersey. While some New York State
planning units report significant quantities of scrap metal recycling, DEC suspects this represents
non‐MSW materials reported by scrap metal dealers to the planning unit. On a broad scale, there is
little data available at this time to enable DEC to evaluate the extent of this waste stream in New
York State or its contribution to the state’s recycling success.


Recently DEC has begun collecting data on end‐of‐life vehicles. Pursuant to legislation passed in
2006, vehicle dismantling facilities (VDFs) are now required to submit annual reports to DEC. In the
first reporting year, 548 of the 993 VDFs identified by DEC, or 55 percent, submitted reports
documenting the recycling of nearly 400,000 vehicles in 2007. A full description of DEC’s VDF
program is provided in Appendix 7.2. The data submitted in the required VDF annual reports for
2007 have been summarized in the DEC report available
at http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/58165.html

7.3.3 Tires
New York State has a substantial scrap tire management program that was created with the 2003
Waste Tire Management and Recycling Act. As part of that program, ESD commissions an annual
market analysis, the latest of which found that in 2006, New York State generated more than
200,000 tons of waste tires or the equivalent of 20.3 million passenger tires. In that year, more than
80 percent of the used tires flowed to in‐state end‐use markets, with the remainder going to other
states and Canada. In general, use of New York State tires in tire‐derived fuel and ground rubber
applications steadily grew, while use in aggregate applications and, to a lesser degree, other
recycling steadily declined. Ground rubber, used in a variety of applications from road paving to
athletic fields, grew from the fourth largest use in 2003 to the second largest use in 2006. A full
description of the program, including more full market data, is provided in Appendix 7.3.

7.3.4 Construction & Demolition (C&D) Debris
Similar to the analysis described in section 7.1.1 for the MSW stream, DEC has developed estimates
of the materials present in the C&D debris waste stream using data inputs that include field‐based
waste composition studies and research‐based evaluations performed both within New York State
and within states and cities that have demographic characteristics similar to some of New York
State’s regions.
In broad terms, C&D debris is defined as uncontaminated solid waste resulting from the
construction, remodeling, repair and demolition of utilities, structures and roads and includes land‐
clearing debris. In developing these estimates, DEC’s analysis aimed to characterize the C&D debris
that is discarded by both the building and infrastructure‐generating sectors. Additionally, DEC’s
analysis looks at variations in the materials discarded from the building sector from new
construction, renovation and demolition activities from both the residential and non‐residential
sectors, as well as differences between rural/suburban and urban generation.
Because no single study provides directly transferable data by these divisions, data from multiple
sources were compiled and aggregated to create the DEC composition estimates. After careful
review of a number of compositional analyses and research evaluations, data from the following
sources were used:


• Municipalities within NYS: Town of Babylon and New York City
• Municipalities in other states: Seattle, WA and Des Moines, IA
• Other states: Vermont, Wisconsin, Oregon, Delaware, Minnesota, Florida, and California
• US EPA

FIGURE 7.8 ESTIMATED C & D DEBRIS GENERATED IN NYS

The estimated composition of C&D debris generated statewide before recycling or other diversion is
presented in Figure 7.8. The concrete/asphalt/rock/brick (CARB) and the soil/gravel material
categories are by far the greatest material segments at approximately 35 percent and 27 percent
respectively, with wood a distant third at 15 percent.
Differences among residential buildings, non‐residential buildings and the infrastructure/other
generating sectors are presented in Figure 7.9. While the differences are most significant between
the building and infrastructure segments, interesting differences can be seen between the
residential and non‐residential building sectors. The greatest differences appear to be in the CARB,
wood and metal material categories.


FIGURE 7.9 STATEWIDE C&D DEBRIS GENERATION BY MATERIAL (%)

C&D debris tends to be generated in larger quantities in areas of the state with a greater population,
as evidenced by the fact that nearly 90 percent of the C&D debris processing capacity is located in
New York City and Long Island. While there is limited data and information available on the origin,
destination and flow of C&D debris in New York State, DEC understands that these materials tend to
flow through transfer stations and or C&D debris processing facilities on their way to ultimate
disposition (For a discussion of these, see Section 9.1).
DEC estimates that a significant amount of both the soil/gravel and CARB materials are often used
on or near the construction site, especially in the infrastructure generating sector. There are a
number of exemptions within the regulations for this use, and, therefore, it is likely that a significant
portion of C&D debris is not included in the reporting of this material. Based on the available data
within the compositional analyses and DEC’s evaluation in this analysis in conjunction with data
reported, DEC estimates this to be between 3.5 and 9 million tons per year, which equates to
between 20 and 40 percent of the amount of C&D debris generated.


FIGURE 7.10 ESTIMATED C&D DEBRIS DISPOSED IN NYS

DEC also estimates that much of the C&D material is ultimately recycled or beneficially used as
aggregate or fill, while only a portion of either is disposed in dedicated C&D debris landfills or in
MSW landfills or combustors. Table 7.10 presents the amounts and percentages of the various
management practices for the reported C&D debris in New York State.
The estimated composition of C&D debris disposed on a statewide basis after recycling or other
diversion, is presented in Figure 7.10. The CARB and the wood material categories are the greatest
material segments disposed at approximately 36 percent and 20 percent respectively.
Differences among residential buildings, non‐residential buildings and the infrastructure/other
generating sectors are presented in Figure 7.10. As was the case with C&D debris generation, the
differences are most significant between the building and infrastructure segments, with the
differences between residential and non‐residential buildings less pronounced.
Because much of the infrastructure generating sector material is likely handled onsite as part of
many projects, additional analysis was directed toward identifying differences within the building
generating sector. Most C&D debris waste composition analyses performed have primarily focused
on this generating sector. Figure 7.11 presents the differences of materials disposed from three
general building activities: new construction, renovation, and demolition. There are some
significant differences in the materials discarded among these activities. The most significant
differences are in the roofing wood, drywall, CARB and corrugated/paper material categories.


FIGURE 7.11 STATEWIDE C&D DEBRIS BY BUILDING ACTIVITY (%)

A comparison of the discards from the rural/suburban areas and urban areas of the state is
presented in Figure 7.12 for each of the three general building activities. The greatest differences
are in the demolition and renovation work areas. Urban areas account for 54 percent of the state’s
population. This has a significant effect on both the quantity and composition of the C&D debris
waste stream. It is important to note this when using this estimated C&D debris waste composition
data for planning purposes and to use the data that is most applicable to each individual
circumstance.


FIGURE 7.12 STATEWIDE C&D DEBRIS DISCARDS BY BUILDING ACTIVITY VS. POPULATION DENSITY

7.4 (a) C&D Debris Volumes
Overall, about 10.2 million tons of C&D debris was managed by permitted and registered C&D debris
processors in 2008, with about 60 percent of the C&D debris processing in NYC and another 26
percent on Long Island. Approximately 250 registered C&D debris processing facilities managed
more than 6 million tons of registration material in 2008. (For a distribution of C&D processing
facilities, see figure 9.2.) Based on the limited data available, DEC estimates that 55 percent of C&D
materials processed are reused as fill, aggregate or alternative daily cover at landfills, and 50
percent was directly landfilled. (See figure 7.8.)

7.3.4 (b) Processed Concrete, Asphalt, Rock, Bricks & Soil (CARBS)
A particular challenge in and around New York City, Long Island, the counties immediately north of
New York City, and other major urban areas in the state is managing the large amount of concrete,
asphalt, rock, brick and soil (CARBS) that is generated from the construction and demolition
industry. These materials generally are processed at registered C&D debris processing facilities
where, typically, the materials are reduced in size so that they may be used as a substitute for

crushed rock or gravel in a variety of construction related applications. The residues and soil‐like
products resulting from the size reduction process is often marketed as general fill, the movement
and use of which is difficult to track or monitor, posing regulatory challenges.

7.3.4 (c) Historic Fill
Historic fill refers to C&D debris, non putrescible waste, ash or “inert” industrial waste used to fill
selected urban locations in the early and middle 20th century for creation of land for development.
Using data compiled by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, DEC estimates that
approximately 20 percent of the land in New York City is historic fill. 44
The push for urban development in the last two decades has coincided with a better understanding
of the breadth of historic and industrial contamination that marks our urban centers. Non‐soil,
deleterious components of historic fill, such as coal ash and demolition debris, render it
inappropriate for general distribution as construction fill. Comparison of the chemical analysis of
historic fill with recentlypromulgated 6 NYCRR Part 375 soil cleanup objectives (see further
discussion in section 8.5.4) highlights the need for careful consideration of the off‐site reuse of
historic fill, particularly on residential developments, parks, preserves, and other locations with a
high potential of human or biota exposure to contamination.
Despite DEC enforcement efforts and regulations, historic fill has been processed at registered C&D
debris facilities that are only authorized to handle recognizable, uncontaminated soil, and
distributed without restriction. DEC has responded to historic fill reuse in the short term by allowing
developers of historic fill sites to reuse the historic fill on the same site or sites with similar
contaminants, under pavement or with an appropriate clean soil cover to protect the public and the
environment. The 2010 proposed amendments to Part 360 will address management of historic fill
sites and the movement of historic fill.

7.3.4 (d) Unrecognizable C&D Debris Materials
DEC has investigated numerous sites, primarily in the downstate area, where C&D debris has been
placed as fill in a manner which violates the exempt disposal site criteria in Part 360. Most of these
violations have involved sites where otherwise acceptable C&D debris includes waste materials not
allowed at exempt sites or includes material which was pulverized at the job site or illegally at a
registered C&D processing facility and is no longer recognizable. Such unrecognizable material is
likely to be unsuitable for use in residential settings as it could contain processed historic fill or other
problematic materials. Many nearby states have developed regulated fill policies to address these
issues. DEC will follow suit as it develops the 2010 amendments to Part 360.

44
Personal Communication, New York City Soil and Water Conservation District Staff. 2005. New York City
Reconnaissance Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, New York City Soil and Water Conservation District, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment
Station.


7.3.4 (e) Asbestos Containing Materials
Asbestos containing material (ACM) is a particularly challenging type of waste to manage. Although
not prohibited by DEC regulations, many solid waste management facilities choose not to handle
ACM due to perception, liability, and permitting issues. These issues are complicated by the fact
that several state and federal agencies regulate different aspects of the material, and oversight
sometimes overlaps. Better guidance on the removal, handling, and disposal of ACM is needed from
all involved agencies, particularly for homeowners.

7.3.4 (f) Creosote‐Treated Wood
Creosote includes a variety of products: wood creosote, coal tar creosote, coal tar, coal tar pitch and
coal tar pitch volatiles. These products are mixtures of many chemicals created by burning beech
and other woods or coal, or from the resin of creosote bushes. Effective January 1, 2008, ECL Article
27, Title 25, (27‐2501 through 27‐2513) banned the manufacture, sale, and use of creosote or
products containing creosote by anyone other than utilities, railroads, or marinas. Creosote‐treated
wood products can be brought to most waste disposal facilities that accept C&D debris. However,
because of the ban on its sale and use, certain treated materials such as used railroad ties have
reportedly started to stockpile at locations where these materials may have previously been sold or
given away to landscapers or homeowners. Also, the statutory definitions of the terms
“manufacture” and “sale” have created some ambiguity, making enforcement problematic.

7.3.4 (g) Disaster Debris
Both natural and human‐caused disasters have the potential to produce volumes and types of debris
that require special procedures and policies. Recent events have stressed the challenge of handling
debris from large‐scale disasters and the need for clear guidance. For example, debris is often co‐
mingled with various types of waste, including hazardous materials. DEC has issued guidance that
can be used in times of emergency when quick waste management decisions must be made to
protect public health and the environment. DEC will also track the activities of the state’s Sea Level
Rise Task Force and include guidance anticipating associated coastline emergencies, such as
guidelines for protecting hazardous and non‐hazardous debris storage from floodwaters.

7.3.5 Regulated Medical Waste and Biohazardous Waste
The awareness and concern about regulated medical waste (RMW) has evolved into a broader
category of biohazardous waste issues that encompasses: RMW; biohazard incident waste, and
contaminated or infected animal and food supply waste.


7.3.5 (a) Regulated Medical Waste(RMW)
This subcategory includes discarded cultures and stocks, sharps, human pathological waste, human
blood or blood products, animal waste, and waste generated in the production and testing of
biologicals. There are approximately 36,000 generators of 250,000 tons of RMW each year in New
York State. One‐third of this volume is attributed to healthcare facilities such as nursing homes,
hospitals, and clinical laboratories, while the other two‐thirds is generated by physician offices,
blood establishments (those that collect, manufacture, store, or process blood and blood products),
colleges and universities, veterinarian and dental offices, funeral homes, research laboratories, and
pharmaceutical and biotechnology facilities.
New York State has provided regulatory oversight of the RMW stream since the early 1980s and has
adopted a comprehensive regulatory framework covering all aspects of handling, storage, treatment
and disposal of RMW. In accordance with state laws and regulations, both the New York State
Department of Health (DOH) and DEC jointly administer New York State’s RMW Program.
DOH has jurisdiction of hospitals, freestanding diagnostic and treatment centers, residential health
care facilities and clinical laboratories, and their onsite waste management procedures. DOH is also
responsible for developing treatment standards and approving alternative waste treatment
technologies. RMW treatment categories include thermal, chemical, irradiation and
thermal/electrical. DEC staff collaborates with the DOH to evaluate an alternative treatment
system’s capacity to process RMW and on the classification of present and emerging RMW
treatment technologies.
DEC has oversight authority for: all storage, treatment and destruction processes located on site of
facilities not under DOH jurisdiction; off‐site transport of RMW; all generators; tracking of waste;
response to illegal disposal incidents, and all off‐site storage, transfer, treatment and disposal
facilities.
In New York State, most RMW is disposed of away from the site of generation, with 94 hospitals and
eight research facilities treating their own waste onsite. In accordance with both federal and state
requirements and to ensure containment, untreated RMW (except medical waste sharps) must be
placed in plastic bags and then packaged in single‐use (e.g., corrugated boxes) or reusable rigid (e.g.,
plastic) or semi‐rigid, leak‐proof containers before transport. Once packaged, RMW is either
transferred to a designated secure storage or collection area within the facility for third‐party pickup
or to a generator’s on‐site treatment facility. Treated waste may be disposed at a landfill or
combustor authorized to accept the waste.
In 2008, 11 commercial RMW transfer facilities, 5 treatment facilities and approximately 112
transporters were permitted by DEC to handle RMW. Fourteen radiopharmacies were also
permitted to store low‐level radio pharmaceuticals that are also considered RMW. Once the waste
decays to background levels at the storage facility, it may be safely managed as an RMW.


7.3.5 (b) Biohazard Incident Waste
This subcategory includes the waste generated from a cleanup response to an accidental spill or
other unintended release, from a naturally occurring source, or from any intentional release of
infectious agents (e.g., an act of bioterrorism). The waste may comprise large volumes of building
decontamination residue and may require special packaging and additional decontamination to
ensure that infectious agents are contained or have been destroyed. Once disinfected at the site of
the incident, due to heightened public concerns, the debris may still need to be handled as if it were
still contaminated.
New York State has experienced two biohazard emergencies in recent history: the 2001 anthrax
incidents that impacted several buildings in New York City and the 2006 contamination in Brooklyn,
NY from naturally occurring anthrax associated with imported animal hides. In both cases, large
volumes of contaminated building materials required special waste management strategies. Such
wastes have similar contamination concerns as those associated with RMW (i.e., infectious agents),
and, consequently, most of the waste was treated at RMW treatment facilities prior to disposal.
7.3.5 (c) Contaminated or Infected Animal and Food Supply Waste
This subcategory includes animal waste from naturally occurring diseases that may have a significant
impact on human society (e.g., transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, foot and mouth
disease, exotic Newcastle disease, etc.) and include those that are indigenous to other countries but
not found in domestic animals or poultry, wildlife, or the environment within the US. Contaminated
food supply waste is the waste from the human and animal food supply known to be contaminated
with infectious agents or their toxins. It can include large volumes of food waste that require special
handling and management strategies such as the animal feed tainted with melamine that was
recalled in 2007 and canned goods contaminated with clostridium botulinum.
No formal handling and management standards or federal and state rules and regulations exist for
addressing the handling and disposal or environmental impacts associated with these wastes. In
New York State, these have been managed on a case‐by‐case basis, depending on the unique
characteristics of the materials and circumstances.
FIGURE 7.13 INDUSTRIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT IN

NYS
7.3.6 Industrial Waste
Industrial waste includes discarded materials Recycled/
Composted
generated by manufacturing or industrial 30%
processes and include materials such as paper
mill residuals, food processing waste, coal ash,
liquid wastes (acids, leachate, etc.), and foundry Combustion Landfill 59%
sands but do not include materials resulting 1%
Fill/
from mining, oil or gas drilling. DEC estimates Aggregate
that approximately 3.5 million tons of industrial 10%
waste was generated in New York State in 2008 and managed as shown in Figure 7.13. The
industrial waste landfills in New York State are described in section 9.4.5.


8. MATERIALS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

This section describes the various materials management strategies employed by communities in
New York State and around the country. DEC understands that the range of strategies and facilities
used to implement integrated materials management programs will differ from one community to
the next. Therefore, this Plan does not aim to dictate the particular application of any combination
of approaches. Rather, DEC will evaluate local solid waste management plans (LSWMPs) and solid
waste management facility permit applications against regulatory standards and for conformance
with the state policy that places a clear preference for waste prevention, reuse and recycling above
disposal.
8.1 WASTE PREVENTION
Waste prevention, also known as source reduction or waste reduction, refers to changes in the
design, manufacture, purchase or use of materials or products to reduce their volume or toxicity
before they become waste. The original 1987 State Plan (1987 Plan) and later, the NYS Solid Waste
Management Act (Act) placed waste prevention at the top of the state’s solid waste management
hierarchy.
As its priority standing in the hierarchy indicates, the state values the reduction of volume and
toxicity of materials that ultimately become waste as the strategy with the greatest overall
environmental benefit. By not producing waste to begin with, we don’t have to manage it—
whether by reuse, recycling, combustion or landfilling—and we save money and natural resources
besides.
Waste prevention is not in the state’s purview alone—individuals, businesses, institutions and
governments all share responsibility for preventing waste. To make greater use of this strategy,
manufacturers must make better and more informed choices in the materials they use, the
amounts they produce, and the packaging they design, and consumers must make better choices in
products they purchase. Avoiding the creation and use of products and packaging that are
unnecessary and are destined to become waste can also avoid the consumption of energy, raw
materials and fuel required to produce and distribute the material, in addition to savings related to
its collection and end‐of‐life management.
Progress in waste prevention requires behavioral change, and behavioral change requires education.
DEC’s outreach and education program to promote waste prevention, reuse and recycling was born
in 1989 when the Bureau of Waste Reduction and Recycling was created subsequent to the 1988
Solid Waste Management Act (Act). The Bureau developed one of the nation’s best collections of
web‐based and published waste prevention resources. Unfortunately, DEC’s ability to execute this
important program has eroded as the staff dedicated to education and outreach has been reduced
dramatically. A renewed emphasis on outreach and education is critical to progress.
The 1987 Plan made several recommendations to achieve waste prevention; some have been
implemented while others have not. Notably, New York State developed a strong program to
reduce waste in agency operations and improve the state procurement process by purchasing less

wasteful products. Through this program, the state developed an impressive, environmentally
preferable products purchasing program that resulted in the specification of more than 100 distinct
energy‐efficient, recycled and less toxic products for use by New York State agencies.
More recently, in April 2008, Governor Paterson signed Executive Order 4 (EO4) which establishes
an Inter‐Agency Committee on Sustainability and Green Procurement (Committee) co‐chaired by the
commissioners of DEC and OGS to implement its many provisions, including the establishment of
waste prevention and paper use‐reduction goals for agencies and authorities. In addition, EO 4
requires that the Committee establish lists of and specifications for green products each year. The
criteria for “green products” includes recycled content, prevented waste, reduced toxicity,
recyclability, compostability and extended producer responsibility. EO4 also requires that state
agencies designate a sustainability coordinator and develop and implement a sustainability and
environmental stewardship program. The order specifically requires that state agencies implement
waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting programs. (For more information,
see http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/ExecutiveOrder4.html or Appendix 8.1.)
Among the still worthy, yet unimplemented waste prevention recommendations of the 1987 Plan
are:
• Setting packaging reduction requirements
• Mandating product and packaging take backs
These recommendations fall under what we now refer to as product stewardship or extended
producer responsibility. Stewardship will be a key waste prevention strategy for New York State.
(See discussion below and Section 5.)

8.1.1 Reducing Volume
Volume‐based pricing programs for waste, known as Pay as You Throw or Save Money and Reduce
Trash (PAYT/SMART), have taken hold in thousands of communities throughout the country,
including many in New York State. These programs create a financial incentive for consumers to
waste less and reduce and recycle more. In fact, according to USEPA, communities with
PAYT/SMART programs reduce the amount of waste destined for disposal by 40 percent, with one‐
third of that reduction attributable to waste prevention. (For more on the benefits of PAYT/SMART
programs, see http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/payt/ and Appendix 8.2.)


While New York State has not developed an estimate of waste prevented, USEPA estimates for 1996
indicate that 23 million tons or about 11 percent of the waste generated was prevented, which is an
increase from 630,000 tons in 1992. 45 Nonetheless, waste prevention efforts, undertaken by
government, the private sector, and citizens, have yielded some improvements. For example:
• Light weighting of packaging (making the same package using less material) for almost all
packaging types
• Typical aluminum beverage containers and 10‐ounce steel cans are now one‐quarter of their
1987 weight.
• Product or packaging design changes that deliver the same product or service using less or
alternative material (e.g., concentrated cleaning supplies)
• Target Stores eliminated 1.5 million pounds of waste by changing the specifications for
vendor packaging to have products delivered “floor ready” instead of individually packaged.
• Packaging elimination through design changes and supply chain management
• Sears now offers small tools and items in bins or directly on hooks, eliminating the need for
plastic blister packs.
While there are many examples that illustrate the reduction of materials used to deliver products
and/or services to the American consumer, these changes have been driven primarily by
economics—fewer or lighter materials cost less to produce and are also cheaper to transport and
deliver to market. The waste prevention gains experienced in New York State and around the
country have not been the direct result of government policy or environmental stewardship
constructs though, undoubtedly, public and government pressure helped highlight the waste
reduction aspects of these actions. As transportation and material costs continue to escalate, the
economic drivers for reduced materials use will remain strong.
Despite the progress noted above, other economic and social trends have yielded an increase in the
waste stream in gross terms. According to USEPA, the amount of MSW generated on a per capita
basis has remained relatively constant between 4.5 and 4.65 pounds per person per day since 1990.
Therefore, as the population has increased, the total amount of waste generation has increased
accordingly. As a result, even though waste prevention and recycling have increased, the volume of
waste going to disposal has not decreased since 1990. EPA estimates per capita generation of MSW
at 4.6 pounds per day. By comparison, DEC estimates that waste generation in New York State in
2008 was 5.15 pounds per person per day.
The drive for “convenience” products has resulted in ever greater numbers of single‐use, disposable
products and packaging. A notable case in point is the advent of bottled water. In the past decade,
the number of water bottles sold nationally has increased 10‐fold, from 3 billion in 1997 to 31 billion
in 2006. Convenience foods, such as packaged lunches and cleaning products like disposable
cleaning wipes are examples of newer market entrants that yield a great deal of additional waste.

45
National Source Reduction Characterization Report for Municipal Solid Waste in the United States; EPA 530‐
R‐99‐034; US EPA, November 1999

Furthermore, the combination of “planned obsolescence” and the rapid commercial introduction of
new technologies have created waste streams that were not anticipated two decades ago. Products
like computers, cell phones, other electronics and appliances are constantly upgraded and designed
with shorter and shorter useful lives. This is compounded by the fact that related components such
as batteries and chargers are not standardized and, like the electronics they augment, rapidly
become obsolete. The result is more waste generated and generated more quickly, with volumes
expanding as the products increase in popularity and affordability.
TRAYLESS DINING REDUCES CAFETERIA WASTE
Many colleges within and outside of New York State are looking for ways to reduce waste
and cut spending. For example, the University of Buffalo reduced its impact on the
environment and saved money by implementing trayless dining at its four residential
dining halls. Lacking trays, students must take only the food they can carry.
Implementing this change:
• Reduced food scraps by 40 percent
• Saved 700 gallons of water per day
• Eliminated a full‐time dishwashing position
• Reduced food costs by 4 percent

8.1.2 Reducing Toxicity
The hierarchy emphasizes reduction in the toxicity as well as volume of waste. New York State has
made strides to reduce the toxicity of products and packaging through two key initiatives:
8.1.2 (a) Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse (TPCH)
In 1990, New York State enacted the Hazardous Packaging Act (ECL Article 37 Title II Section 37‐
0201), which requires the reduction of lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavalent chromium used in
packaging. The legislation was based on a model developed under the direction of the Coalition of
Northeastern Governors (CONEG) in the late 1980s with the help of a broad array of stakeholder
perspectives, including government, advocates and industry. The model legislation has since been
adopted by 19 states and several countries. New York State is a charter member and 2009 chair of
the TPCH, a consortium of 10 states that aim to reduce the toxicity of packaging by cooperatively
implementing the model legislation. The TPCH provides a forum for industry to advise the states
about technology changes and trends to help in decision ‐making and to help ensure a consistent

approach across the country. The TPCH website contains a significant amount of additional
information: http://www.toxicsinpackaging.org/index.html

8.1.2 (b) Mercury‐Added Consumer Products
In 2005, New York State enacted legislation (Chapter 145, Laws of 2004, and Chapter 676, Laws of
2005) placing requirements and restrictions on the sale and distribution of most mercury ‐containing
products, based on model legislation developed by the Northeast Waste Management Officials
Association (NEWMOA). While not all the provisions of the model were included in New York State’s
version, New York’s law contains product stewardship concepts that require manufacturers and
distributors to take on some end‐of‐life management responsibilities of mercury‐containing
products they sell and trade. The legislation authorizes New York State’s participation in an
interstate clearinghouse which, similar to the TPCH, helps states implement their mercury product
laws in a consistent manner. More information about this program can be found on the Interstate
Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC)
website: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc.cfm

8.1.3 Waste Prevention Education and Outreach
DEC has had an outreach and education program to promote waste prevention, reuse and recycling
since 1989 when the Bureau of Waste Reduction and Recycling was created subsequent to passage
of the 1988 Solid Waste Management Act (Act). DEC now boasts one of the nation’s best collections
of consumer resources on these issues, mainly in the form of web‐pages and printed publications.
(See http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8502.html.) Many New York State communities have taken
advantage of this information to educate their citizens, as have other states and municipalities
across the country.
Typical waste prevention strategies promoted in DEC outreach programs and materials include:
buying items in bulk to reduce packaging; leaving grass clippings on the lawn; printing on both sides
of paper; reducing junk mail by refusing catalogues and other unwanted circulars; using e‐mail and
the Internet instead of print copies of documents, etc.
Unfortunately, DEC’s ability to execute this important program has eroded as the staff dedicated to
education and outreach has been reduced dramatically. In the early 1990s, DEC had one waste
prevention/recycling specialist assigned in every DEC region of the state. By 2009, DEC had only
three regional staff who still dedicated some of their time to providing this information to the tens
of thousands of businesses, institutions, and municipalities across the state. Altogether, there is
probably less than one FTE dedicated to waste prevention.
Despite this, DEC has been able to continue funding municipalities to develop, promote, and expand
waste prevention, reuse and recycling programs through several funding sources, most currently the
Environmental Protection Fund (EPF). (For more information, see Section 6.)


8.1.4 The Stewardship Solution
responsibility of the manufacturer of a product or package to include the entire life cycle, including
ultimate disposition of that product or package at the end of its useful life. In stewardship
programs, manufacturers (or producers) must take either physical or financial responsibility for the
recycling or proper disposal of products and/or packages.
placing responsibility for end‐of‐life management on the producer, these programs ensure that
manufacturers consider the end‐of‐life impacts of their product or package during the earliest
stages of design. As such, stewardship programs create incentives for manufacturers to redesign
products and packaging to be less toxic, less bulky and lighter, as well as more recyclable. For more
information and examples of stewardship at work, see section 5.
Given the importance of stewardship as a policy tool, DEC intends to pursue expansion of this
approach in New York State by:
• Working with the New York State Product Stewardship Council to build support and
momentum for product and packaging stewardship
• Seeking legislative authority to implement stewardship/producer responsibility programs
and exploring regional or national approaches to product stewardship through the national
Product Stewardship Institute and other regional and multi‐state organizations
• Working with other stakeholders in New York State to develop consensus and support to
move a product stewardship/producer responsibility agenda
• Working with the New York State Pollution Prevention Institute46 to develop stewardship
initiatives

8.1.5 Preventing Medical Waste
Waste reduction is practiced by many of New York State’s generators of RMW. For example, many
healthcare institutions have switched from using disposable, single‐use rigid sharps containers to
reusable sharps containers, are reprocessing unused supplies, are evaluating options such as
reusable dishware instead of single‐use polystyrene or paper, and collecting batteries and
electronics for recycling.

46

8.1.6 Findings
• Waste prevention gains have been driven primarily by economics, not public policy.
• Waste prevention successes have been offset by negative trends, such as planned
obsolescence and the growth of convenience products, to yield no substantial reduction in
the amount of waste going to disposal in the last two decades.
• Product and packaging stewardship offers an opportunity to create an incentive to reduce
waste in product and package design.
• PAYT/SMART programs create an incentive for consumers to waste less.
• Public education is critical to preventing waste.

8.1.7 Recommendations
implement the wide range of actions listed below. Fully realizing these recommendations will
require additional resources—both financial and human—at the state and local level.

8.1.7 (a) Programmatic Recommendations
• Demonstrate waste prevention in state operations by implementing EO 4’s waste
prevention and paper use reduction goals
• Maximize current education programs to organize workshops, meetings and otherwise
communicate with key constituencies to:

o Encourage, promote and demand longer‐life products
o Encourage leave‐it‐on‐the‐lawn/grasscycling and other organic waste prevention
strategies
o Promote junk mail and phone book reduction/opt‐out lists

• Expand the DEC Waste Prevention Education Program to reach a broader audience
• Allocate funding for community‐based education through the EPF and other sources
• Work with the Pollution Prevention Institute (P2I) to evaluate products and packages on the
market, identify priorities for reduction and redesign, target outreach to New York State
companies manufacturing priority products or packages, and solicit research and
development projects for packaging and product design models
• Require planning units to evaluate and implement waste prevention programs, such as
outreach, education, and subsidized backyard composting bins Develop written guidance on
organic waste prevention for specific sectors (e.g., grocery stores) based on similar
documents available from Cornell University’s Waste Management Institute and successful

strategies being employed by other states and organizations (e.g., Massachusetts
Supermarket Composting Handbook and several documents by NERC); distribute the
guidance to all known facilities in that industry in the state and other interested parties
(e.g., local recycling coordinators, etc.)

8.1.7 (b) Legislative Recommendations
• Establish product and packaging stewardship programs (See section 10.1.2.)
• Require communities in New York State to implement PAYT/SMART programs unless they
can demonstrate other methods to achieve the state’s waste reduction and recycling goals
• Expand mercury‐containing product sale restrictions to be consistent with the model
legislation developed by NEWMOA and implemented in other states, with very limited
exemptions

8.2 REUSE
Reuse is the recovery of materials and products for the same or a similar use for which they were
originally produced. It involves the collection and distribution of useful products, such as household
and office furniture, food, building materials, books, sporting equipment and appliances, from those
who no longer want or need them to those who can put them to use. Reuse includes
remanufacturing and refurbishing products for their original intended use.
Practicing reuse helps to build a materials conservation ethic and illustrates, in a hands‐on way, the
benefits of moving Beyond Waste. Like waste prevention, effective implementation of reuse
strategies often requires behavioral change and is aided, therefore, by education and outreach
efforts to motivate new actions and activities.
The solid waste management hierarchy does not distinguish between reuse and recycling in the
second position on the hierarchy, and prior state plans have considered these two strategies
together. However, reuse typically offers greater environmental, economic, and social benefits than
recycling, and the actions required to maximize reuse are distinct from those that increase recycling.
Therefore, this Plan addresses them independently.
Reuse offers New York State triple bottom‐line benefits. Because reuse maintains the integrity of
the original product, it retains the embedded energy and value of the materials used, with obvious
and significant environmental benefits. Reusing, remanufacturing and refurbishing products can
also have significant economic benefit. For example, the labor intensity of computer repair makes it
a potential job creator. According to the Institute for Local Self‐Reliance, refurbishing 10,000 tons of
used electronics for reuse creates 296 jobs as compared to only one job to landfill it. 47 Because
reuse operations generally capture and retain the value of higher‐end products, such as refurbished

47
Institute for Local Self‐Reliance, Washington DC,
1997; http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/recyclingmeansbusiness.html

computers and building supplies, the jobs created generally require more skilled labor than simple
sorting and processing.
Perhaps most important, reuse also offers tremendous social value. For example, reuse offers high‐
quality office furniture to startups and nonprofits operating on tight budgets; provides computers
and supplies to school children and arts organizations; provides furnishings for the homes of people
transitioning out of shelters; creates a source of more affordable building materials for homeowners
and contractors, and feeds the hungry.
Across New York State and the nation, there is a significant and growing infrastructure for reuse,
particularly through nonprofit organizations. Thrift shops, such as Salvation Army and Goodwill, and
consignment stores redistribute clothing and furniture to the frugal and those in need; the proceeds
of sales also often support people in need. Food banks in the state and other nonprofits (e.g., City
Harvest, Long Island Harvest, etc.) redistribute surplus food to the hungry. Retail centers that
specialize in building materials (e.g., Build It Green, Buffalo Reuses, Habitat for Humanity’s ReStores)
sell used or surplus building materials to the public at reduced prices. While other reuse centers
(e.g., Materials for the Arts, Hudson Valley Materials Exchange, Material Resource Center) provide
supplies for school children and arts organizations. And, of course, community tag sales and
individual yard sales create a vibrant market for reuse. With regard to commercial and industrial
reusables, several materials exchanges operate in the state today, serving much of the population.
(See Appendix 8.3 for a directory of reuse organizations in New York State.)
Nonetheless, reuse opportunities are not fully used or consistently available to all regions of the
state, and quantities of readily reusable material still go to waste in New York State. Work remains
to promote the full use of the state’s existing reuse infrastructure through education and outreach,
and to fill infrastructure gaps.
On the community level, reuse can be a low‐cost, low‐effort
waste management strategy that provides great
environmental gains. Because local transfer stations often
already serve as drop‐off sites for recyclables and waste,
many communities have added structures at these facilities
to allow residents to drop off products and materials they
no longer need and take, at no cost, items they can use.
On a commercial scale, New York State is fortunate to be
home to the Rochester Institute of Technology’s National
Reuse shed at a rural transfer station
Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery
(Center). The Center fosters reuse of components and equipment through applied research and
development of tools and technologies for efficient remanufacturing and environmentally benign
product design. With funding from ESD, the center has done valuable work to advance reuse (e.g.,
rebuilding of small engines, remanufacturing of toner cartridges, etc.).
New York State also hosts a statewide chapter of the Reuse Alliance—a professional association that
connects, supports, and promotes reuse sector organizations. Reuse Alliance hosts a variety of
programs and services to sector members, including a web‐based certificate program, online
resources, and annual conferences and meetings.

It is important to note that quality control and data collection are critical elements of any reuse
program. Many organizations engaged in reuse are confronted with donated materials that are
damaged, dirty or otherwise undesirable. Reuse education programs must emphasize the
importance of reuse but also specify what items are suitable for reuse and in what condition (i.e.,
“readily reusable”). Likewise there is currently no sector‐backed standard for collecting and
distributing data (e.g., tons diverted from the waste stream, value of materials donated, etc.).
Standards for quality control and data management would make the sector even more effective and
could aid in public outreach efforts.

8.2.1 Building Deconstruction and Materials Reuse
A new but rapidly growing trend to maximize reuse in the construction and demolition industry,
called deconstruction, is taking hold in New York State and nationally. This technique involves taking
apart a building or structure in a manner that allows higher value components to be separated as
they are removed and then directed for reuse.
Deconstruction has the potential to: create training and job opportunities; foster the creation and
expansion of reuse retailers to distribute the salvaged material from deconstruction projects, and
benefit the environment by diverting valuable resources into productive use. Deconstruction can be
cost competitive by generating materials sales revenues and by reducing waste disposal costs.
Deconstruction initiatives often market their materials through or to building materials reuse
outlets. In the last decade, a number of building materials reuse stores have been launched across
the state. ESD’s Environmental Services Unit has provided funding for building material reuse,
recycling and deconstruction via its Environmental Investment Program. (See Section 6 and
Appendix 6.2 for more on ESD efforts.)

8.2.2 Reuse of Consumable Food
8.2.2 (a) Food Banks
DEC estimates that in 2008, more than 1 million tons of usable food were disposed of by New
Yorkers. Recovering unused food to feed hungry people is an important component of any food
management process. In 1998, about 36 million Americans, including 14 million children, lived in
households that suffered either from hunger (about 10 million) or food insecurity. An estimated 21
million Americans depend on food donations. New York State has a comprehensive food bank
system in place that covers every county in the state, but these programs frequently run out of
supplies. Meanwhile, about 27 percent of the food supply in the US is disposed of each year,
representing more than 300 pounds of food for every person in the country. For each 5 percent of
those discards recovered, 4 million people could be fed each day. 48

48
Waste Not, Want Not: Feeding the Hungry and Reducing Solid Waste Through Food Recovery, USEPA.

Although not all discarded food is suitable for human consumption—NYS’s Department of Health
regulates the conditions under which food can be redistributed—there are significant sources of
excess food that can be redirected to feed people, and there are many well‐established
organizations to assist with its redistribution. Generators of excess food that currently participate in
these efforts include colleges, restaurants, and grocery stores. These sectors work with food banks
and local food providers, such as soup kitchens, to deliver leftovers in a timely manner. To
encourage food donations, the federal “Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act” protects
businesses, organizations, and individuals that donate food in good faith from legal liabilities that
might arise from their donations. However, to continue to increase supplies to those who need
them, it is critical that more and improved connections are made between generators and food
providers. Such connections are now being facilitated by outreach from food banks, DEC’s regional
food scrap forums and supplemental actions, and a statewide food residuals listserve to help match
generators and users of excess food.

8.2.2 (b) Animal Feed
Farms and zoos can also use food scraps as feed for their animals. While reuse of food scraps for
animal feed is somewhat limited by the specific dietary needs and restrictions of certain animal
populations, animal feed represents a high‐value end‐use for food scraps that should be facilitated.
The acceptable types of food scraps will depend on a number of factors:
• Nutrient density – energy, protein, minerals, roughage, etc.
• Target animals – the type and age of the animals
• Quality and variability of the food scraps – variability in nutrient content and contamination
with non‐food material
• Moisture content – moisture levels must be compatible with the feed system (dry or slurry)
at the farm or zoo
• Handling – the food residual production schedule, delivery schedule, use schedule, and
ability to store food must be coordinated to meet the needs of all parties
• Regulations – the New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets (Ag & Markets) has
restrictions on acceptable food for some animals

8.2.3 Reuse of Medical Devices
Advances in medical science and, in particular, minimally invasive surgical and diagnostic procedures
have stimulated the development of new and improved medical devices. The design of devices for
reusability is particularly important in an effort to provide cost‐effective healthcare. Collection and
reprocessing of reusable medical devices is growing in New York State, with commercial RMW
processing facilities often offering this service to healthcare facilities. However, there are US Food
and Drug Administration requirements for reprocessing reusable medical devices that require
cleaning, disinfection or sterilization prior to reuse.

8.2.4 Findings
• Reuse provides multiple environmental, economic and social benefits.
• Significant infrastructure exists, particularly through charities, but reuse options are not
consistently available or convenient across the state.
• Potential exists to expand reuse, particularly in the key sectors of building deconstruction
and food redistribution.

implement the range of actions listed below. Fully realizing these recommendations will require
additional resources—both financial and human—at the state and local level.
• Support and promote reuse centers and material exchanges: DEC will continue its support of
existing materials exchanges and will seek additional resources to fund or otherwise support
commercial and residential online exchanges (e.g., NY WasteMatch, NY Biomass Trader, NY
FoodTrader, NY C&D Material Trader, Pencil Box, ReSwap, FreeCycle), reuse centers,
technical assistance, networking forums, quality control, data management, and other
means to foster the reuse sector
• Maintain and expand outreach and education efforts on reuse: strengthen the reuse
component of the DEC website; develop a broad education campaign on the importance of
reuse
• Support and promote food and clothing donation programs: food banks and charitable
organizations play an important role in providing necessary support for the state’s indigent
population; DEC will support these programs and encourage other relevant state agencies to
do so.
• Encourage designing for disassembly and reuse: Through the New York State Pollution
Prevention Institute 49 and other outreach efforts, the state will educate manufacturers on
the feasibility and benefits of designing for reuse and remanufacturing.
• Encourage and incentivize building deconstruction and building material reuse: The state
will encourage deconstruction and building materials reuse by removing disincentives in
state policy and funding programs and, with additional resources, foster the growth of
deconstruction through funding, incentives, and support.

49

• Incorporate reuse into government procurement and asset management programs: State
agencies will be authorized and required to ensure that gently used furniture, equipment
and supplies are directed to reuse, and that government buildings are deconstructed
instead of demolished. To the extent that barriers to the purchasing of used products exist,
they will be reexamined and, if not serving a valid public pupose, be removed.
• Require planning units to plan for reuse: Planning units must address and, where possible,
create infrastructure and implement outreach and education programs to foster reuse.
• Encourage the use of the Food Bank Network: DEC will work with municipalities and
planning units to organize meetings in each food bank region of the state, inviting
representatives of relevant state and local agencies, local recycling coordinators, and
institutional and commercial sources of excess food. The meetings should focus on
identifying potential new suppliers to food banks, raising funds to expand food bank
activities, creating education programs for commercial and institutional generators about
food donation options, and addressing regulatory, economic and other barriers to increased
food redistribution.
• Work with appropriate state agencies (e.g., OGS, the Dormitory Authority) to incorporate
“design for deconstruction” concepts into the many other aspects of sustainable building
design and construction and to create incentives for deconstruction in state projects.

8.2.5 (b) Legislative Recommendations
• Amend the Creosote Ban to allow the sale of used railroad ties for non‐residential
landscaping purposes.

8.3 RECYCLING
“MORE PEOPLE RECYCLE THAN VOTE... RECYCLING IS MORE POPULAR THAN DEMOCRACY.”
Jerry Powell, Editor, Resource Recycling Magazine
Recycling involves the recovery, processing, sale and use of materials that otherwise would be
destined for disposal. While waste prevention provides more significant environmental benefits,
recycling shares the second tier of New York State’s solid waste management hierarchy with reuse
because it conserves natural resources and energy, reduces air and water pollution, and can save
money. Reuse offers greater overall environmental benefit because it generally retains the
embedded energy and material value with minimal processing. Recycling, on the other hand,
generally consumes more energy and fuel in the processing and transportation of materials than
reuse.
For materials that have already been produced and are not readily reusable, recycling is the best
strategy from an environmental perspective, because it conserves natural resources by keeping
valuable materials in circulation and, in turn, reduces the volume of waste destined for disposal. By
offsetting the use of virgin materials, recycling avoids the environmental impacts of mining,
extracting, transporting and using those materials in production and provides significant GHG
reductions.
Industries that replace virgin feedstocks with recycled materials pay less for the raw materials and
energy consumed to make their products, helping them to remain competitive in today’s global
market.


Recycling Saves Energy, Reduces Pollution and Combats Climate Change
Using recycled aluminum in place of virgin bauxite:
• reduces the energy used in production by greater than 90 percent
• decreases air pollution by 95 percent
• decreases water pollution by 97 percent
Substituting recycled paper for pulp from trees:
• reduces energy use by 23 to 74 percent (depending on the paper grade)
• reduces air pollution by 74 percent
• reduces water pollution by 35 percent (source: Wasting and Recycling in the US,
2000” Grassroots Recycling Network, 2000; p. 25.)
Recycling one ton of:
• aluminum reduces GHG emissions by 13.7 tons
• office paper reduces GHG by 4.3 tons
• newspaper reduces GHG by 2.5 tons
• steel cans reduces GHG by 1.7 tons (source: “Solid Waste Management and GHG,
3rd Edition” USEPA, 2006.
Recycling offers other economic benefits as well. It creates jobs in collection and processing in
addition to the manufacturing jobs associated with creating the new products. According to the
Recycling Economic Information Study Update: Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and
Pennsylvania released in February 2009 by NERC, more than 2,300 New York State businesses are
directly engaged in recycling, with another 250 in businesses related to or dependent on recycling
(e.g., glass container manufacturing using recycled content). The recycling businesses support more
than 13,000 jobs, while businesses related to or dependent on recycling support another 14,000
jobs in the state.
Today, there are more than 250 recyclables handling and recovery facilities (RHRFs) in New York
State, including material recovery facilities (MRFs) and convenience and transfer stations that
aggregate recyclables for further processing at MRFs. Half of these facilities are privately owned and
half are in public ownership, though some of the publicly owned facilities are privately operated.


ALUMINUM RECYCLING COMBATS CLIMATE CHANGE AND
CONSERVES RESOURCES LOCALLY AND GLOBALLY
International aluminum manufacturer Alcoa’s use of scrap aluminum in place of
virgin reduces GHG emissions and reduces the need to mine bauxite. Alcoa’s annual
operations globally have:
‐Recycled 772,000 metric tons of aluminum
‐Replaced 4,000,000 metric tons of bauxite that would have been mined
‐Reduced 7,000,000 metric tons of CO2E produced

In the Massena, NY facility alone, the company’s annual operations have:
‐Recycled 127,000 metric tons of aluminum
‐Replaced 658,000 metric tons of bauxite that would have been mined
‐Reduced 1,152,000 metric tons of CO2E produced

8.3.1 Reporting, Data and Recycling Rate Calculations
Data collection and subsequent reporting on recycling rates and program performance has been a
constant challenge in New York State and nationally. In New York State, the 1987 Plan and each
subsequent update has identified data and reporting as an area of concern, as has the Legislative
Commission on Solid Waste Management in its series of Where Will the Garbage Go reports.
Nationally, the EPA, BioCycle Magazine and others have identified data and reporting as critical to
gauging progress toward recycling goals but fraught with data collection, reporting, measurement
and analytic difficulty. As a result, reported disposal and recycling numbers tend to be imprecise at
best, with their unreliability compounded when used to compare data across jurisdictions and
across time.
Since 1988, DEC has relied almost entirely on planning units 50 to aggregate, analyze and report
recycling and composting data for all generating sectors within their geographic areas, while
additional data was gathered from facilities (composting facilities, landfills, MWCs, etc.) that
manage materials and waste. However, collecting reliable data has been challenging for the
planning units as well, especially with respect to commercial and institutionally generated materials.

50
Planning units contain two or more local jurisdictions that jointly plan and implement solid waste
management programs. For a full discussion of planning units, see Section 3.2.2.

For the most part, the strongest and most consistent data collected has been municipally collected
residential materials; the weakest is from regions or planning units dominated by private collection.
DEC regularly collects data from municipal recycling programs through an annual survey of the
state’s 64 planning units (For a profile of each planning unit, see Appendix 3.3). During the last
decade, DEC has typically only received annual recycling reports from approximately 80 percent of
the state’s planning units, representing about 90 percent of the state’s population. The data was
not independently verified and is not uniform; some planning units report only residential materials
recycled, while others report only materials that the municipalities handle, and still others include
all commercial and industrial materials recycled or processed within the planning unit.
Even so, the data provided by planning units was considered the best available and was used for
both state and local planning and reporting purposes. To avoid double counting materials already
reported by planning units, DEC did not include recycling and composting facility report data in the
state’s recovery rate calculations.
From 1987 to 2002, DEC calculated and reported the total recovery rate based on materials
reported by planning units supplemented with data from other sources, including the Bottle Bill,
beneficial use determination (BUD) data (not including fuel and landfill related uses); the Port
Authority of New York/New Jersey (PANY/NJ) and the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA)
for non‐municipally generated materials, and facility reports for waste disposal and export data. In
2003, DEC discontinued use of the PANY/NJ and AFPA data and the facility reports for disposal to
avoid double counting because it was expected that by 2003, most of that material was included in
planning unit reports.
Based on the best information available at the time, DEC estimated that in 1997, 42 percent of the
solid waste generated in the state was diverted through a combination of reuse and recycling. Using
the data received from the sources described above, DEC reported that the total state recycling rate
rose from three percent in 1987 to 50 percent by 2002.
In September 1997, the United EPA published Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and Local
Governments (EPA 30‐R‐97‐011), intended to provide a consistent methodology to compare
recycling achievements of states and localities. The EPA methodology examines only the recovery of
MSW‐generated by households, commercial or institutional sources, not C&D debris, industrial
waste or biosolids. New York State, on the other hand, had since 1987 reported total recovery,
which includes all recyclables and yard trimmings plus other recyclable materials, such as Bottle Bill
material, C&D debris, non‐hazardous industrial materials, and some beneficially used materials.
In 2000, DEC also began calculating the state’s recycling rate using USEPA’s methodology and
planning unit reported data. With the considerable variability of the reporting methodologies of the
planning units, this separate MSW recycling rate calculation was considered less reliable. Using this
method, New York State’s MSW recycling rate remained relatively stable between 26 and 30
percent between 2000 and 2005.
For development of this plan, DEC undertook additional analysis of the data reported by planning
units as compared to facility data. This intensive analysis revealed that a significant amount of
material that is handled in private sector recycling, transfer and disposal facilities has not routinely
been included in most planning unit reports. Also, closer scrutiny of the reports revealed errors in

units of measure, terminology, and other areas that substantially alter the amount of materials
recycled and waste disposed. Therefore, DEC’s reliance on planning unit reports has likely resulted
in data gaps. The greatest differences appear to be related to planning units underreporting waste
disposal, both at in‐state facilities and exported and, to a lesser extent, the underreporting of
recyclables. This difference is more apparent in recent years because DEC has been improving data
collection and reporting by those facilities.
Given this effort, DEC now believes that the actual facility‐reported data is the best available and is
more representative of the reality of materials management in New York State. It is important to
note that some recyclables are sent directly out of state, and many recycling facilities (e.g., scrap
metal yards, recycled paper manufacturers, etc.) are not required to report to DEC, so the recycling
figures may be understated. However, much of this material is likely to be reported by either
transfer stations or recycling facilities.
Beginning with data for 2006, DEC is using facility report data as the basis for estimating both the
total recovery rate and the MSW recycling rate, using the EPA methodology, supplemented with
data from other sources, including BUD reports and, where available, export data collected by the
states that import New York State’s waste. Using these data sources, the state’s MSW recycling rate
was 20 percent in 2008, and the total recycling rate was 36 percent. The 20 percent MSW recycling
rate is well below both the EPA’s estimated national recycling rate of 33.4 percent and the Biocycle
Magazine “State of Garbage In America Survey” estimate of 28.6 percent, despite the significant
efforts of the state, local planning units, industry and individual New Yorkers.
While the calculations for 2008 as compared to 2005 and earlier create an apparent drop in the level
of recycling in New York State, these differences can be attributed most directly to the different
methodology used to calculate the rate, not an actual reduction in recycling activity. In addition, as
described more completely in section 7.1.2, New York State’s waste stream is somewhat different
from the EPA’s national estimate, which effectively lowers the anticipated recovery rate for the
state using EPA protocols. Applying the EPA’s recovery rate percentages to the materials
composition estimates in New York would yield an expected recycling rate of 26 percent.
As such, the analysis undertaken to prepare this Plan also underscores the need for a new metric
based on more reliable, available and accurate data and supports the use of a percapita disposal
metric to be the key measure of progress in implementing this Plan. Disposal weights are perhaps
the most accurate metric DEC can acquire because disposal facilities are under direct state
regulatory control. Normalizing data to a per capita basis reduces the data anomalies inherent in a
state with substantial demographic and geographic disparities.
The analysis also supports greater focus at the state, regional and national levels to improve the
consistency of reporting mechanisms and platforms. Better and more uniformly managed data will
improve performance nationwide and allow for more fair and true comparisons across jurisdictional
lines. Nonetheless, this analysis confirms that New York State must refocus and redouble efforts to
improve recycling and reduce waste.


8.3.2 Local Responsibility
The Act required municipalities to adopt laws or ordinances that require waste generators in all
sectors (e.g., residential, commercial, institutional and industrial) to separate their recyclable
materials from waste at the point of generation (i.e., source separation) by no later than September
1, 1992. Thus, state law placed the responsibility for designing, implementing and enforcing
recycling programs on local governments and the planning units they created. The Act specifically
directs “[a] state‐local partnership, in which the basic responsibility for the planning and operation
of solid waste management facilities remains with local governments and the state provides
necessary guidance and assistance…”
Under the Act, the state was directed to regulate solid waste management facilities, develop state
solid waste management plans, develop programs to promote waste reduction and recycling market
development, provide technical assistance to local governments, approve LSWMPs, and fund
various recycling‐related activities at the local level. (For more on state and local roles in materials
management, see Section 3; for more on state investments in recycling, see Section 6.)
As described in Section 3, subsequent to the Act, 64 planning units were formed to manage solid
waste within their borders. A significant number of planning units are organized on the county
level, while several encompass local governments from multiple counties, others are subsumed
within solid waste authorities created by the State Legislature, and still others are town and city
based, such as those in Long Island and New York City.
Although most municipalities did adopt the requisite local source separation laws or ordinances
before the statutory deadline of September 1992, in some cases, local laws still lack fundamental
and important provisions, such as requiring source separation in all generating sectors and providing
for enforcement. In many cases where the laws adopted include enforcement provisions,
municipalities have not effectively used them, particularly for commercial and institutional
generators.
The programs and infrastructure developed, and, by extension, the progress in recycling has varied
dramatically by planning unit and municipality, as evidenced by the data presented in Figure 8.1.
While some of this variation may be related to reporting anomalies, there are clearly significant
differences in recycling performance. Recovery rates for MSW paper and containers range from a
low of 17 pounds per person to a high of 764 pounds per person per year. While there is no single
explanation for why some communities have performed better than others, data and anecdotal
information suggest that success in recycling is related to the municipalities’ commitment of both
staff and financial resources to education, enforcement and infrastructure, and the level of
dedication and drive behind the program as well as financial incentives in place, such as
PAYT/SMART, to drive participation.

The challenge is to inspire the
highest‐performing communities
MEASURING SUCCESS to continue to strive for even
lower levels of waste disposal,
Recycling diversion rates are a fair barometer of
while working with lower‐
progress on a statewide basis or in areas where
performing communities to
closed systems (e.g., flow control) are in place. bring them to the level of the
However, there are many variables that arise in more successful efforts.
calculating a recycling rate. Issues like how to
Instead of diversion rates, then,
account for yard trimmings or food scraps that
DEC is using per capita recycling
are composted at home, how light weighting
weight, broken out by major
(e.g., reduction in the weight of containers) and material category, and per capita
overall materials‐use reduction (e.g., fewer disposal rates to better measure
newspapers being read) affect recycling rates, local programs. Even these
etc., have been debated at length. It is often metrics may not support
difficult to derive an accurate diversion comparisons from one
percentage in part because some planning units community to the next if, for
under or over report the full volumes of waste example, one community enjoys
sent for disposal or recycling, when, for a sizable seasonal population.
However, the per capita metrics
example, some local waste is transported for
will help to gauge each
management outside of the planning unit or the
community’s progress Beyond
reverse. In addition, some planning units report
Waste by determining whether
significant amounts of scrap metal, presumably their recycling tonnages are
processed by private companies and reported to increasing and disposal tonnages
the planning units, while most do not. are decreasing with time. (See
figure 8.1 for illustration and

sidebar for more information.)
To better understand the status
of waste reduction and recycling,
we must go beyond the
calculation of a recycling rate and look for new metrics that more accurately evaluate efforts. As it
implements this Plan, DEC will transition to a metric primarily based on per capita tonnages recycled
and wasted. In 2008, New Yorkers recycled and composted about 382 pounds of MSW per person
per year and disposed of 1,497 pounds of MSW per capita annually. Nationally, the average
American recycles and composts 562 pounds of MSW per person per year and disposes 1,336
pounds of MSW.
Using this measure to gauge the state’s progress in implementing the 1988 Act, the per capita MSW
disposal rate has dropped by nearly 25 percent, from 5.4 pounds per person per day in 1988 to 4.1
pounds per person per day in 2008. Using this metric, DEC will measure achievements under this
Plan; as disposal numbers go down, we will know we are progressing toward our goal of moving
Beyond Waste.

FIGURE 8.1 2008 PER CAPITA MSW RECYCLING AS DETERMINED FROM PLANNING UNIT & FACILITY REPORTS

Co.—County SWMA‐‐Solid Waste Management Authority SWMB‐‐Solid Waste Management Board
SWMC‐‐Solid Waste Management Committee SWDD‐‐Solid Waste Disposal District SWMP‐‐Solid Waste Management
Partnership WMD‐‐Waste Management District

8.3.3 New York State’s Bottle Bill
The Returnable Container Law (also known as the Bottle Bill) remains the most effective recycling
program in the state, capturing, on average, 73 percent of the targeted cans and bottles sold
annually. In the 25 years since it was enacted, the Bottle Bill program has reclaimed more than six
million tons of material. By promoting recycling and discouraging the wasting of that material, the
program helped conserve 285 billion BTUs of energy and avoid the release of 4.8 million metric tons
of GHGs. Notably, states with a $.10 deposit achieve even higher recycling rates, averaging more
than 90 percent.
Unfortunately, the drafters of the original Bottle Bill, in addressing the popular soda and beer
market, could not have contemplated the significant expansion of the beverage industry to include
bottled water, sport drinks, fruit juices, tea and other non‐carbonated beverages, none of which are
covered by the law. In 2009, thanks to the leadership of Governor Paterson, the New York State
budget included an expansion of the state’s Bottle Bill to capture water bottles and redirect 80
percent of unclaimed deposits into the state’s general fund.

8.3.4 Engaging All Sectors
While many municipalities and planning units have established strong residential collection
programs, DEC suspects that recycling in the commercial and institutional sectors has been much
less aggressive and much less successful in many areas of the state. Many municipalities and
planning units continue to view commercial and institutional waste as a private sector responsibility
outside their control or influence.
It is important to note that much recycling does happen in the commercial and industrial sectors
that is not regularly reported to or by the planning units and is not tracked, therefore, by the
planning unit. Nonetheless, there are countless office buildings, including government offices,
apartment buildings, schools, and other businesses and institutions that do not have effective
recycling programs or, often enough, any recycling at all.
The commercial and institutional waste stream often contains significant quantities of valuable
material. However, many companies do not have the time or expertise to identify the value in their
materials or to design programs and systems to source separate those materials. Many recycling
companies and consulting services specialize in auditing a company’s waste stream and designing
recycling programs with an eye toward maximizing disposal cost savings and secondary materials
revenues. These types of technical assistance efforts are critical to ensuring program
implementation and capturing the economic and environmental value of recycling for the
commercial and institutional sectors.
Notably, as of 2007, many public and private schools in New York State still did not have recycling
programs in place. After years of confusion, in 2007, DEC partnered with the State Education
Department to inform all schools in New York State that they are required to recycle and launched a
School Recycling Challenge. Nonetheless, New York State is fortunate to be home to some
outstanding school recycling programs. For example, New York City supports its collection program
with curricula that enable teachers to integrate recycling into lesson plans, and many school districts

have developed robust recycling programs either on their own (e.g., Goff Middle School in East
Greenbush) or through programs like the Go Green Initiative (e.g., Syracuse Central Schools). 51
To increase recycling rates, municipalities, planning units and companies must step up their efforts
to ensure that recycling programs are in place in the commercial and institutional sector. For its
part, DEC will seek legislative authority to increase the state’s enforcement capacity in this area to
assist municipalities in their efforts. (See section 9.1.)

8.3.5 Improving Recycling Rates and Participation
Part of the reason that recycling rates have not increased appreciably in the last decade is that in
most municipalities, the “low hanging fruit” has been harvested—most, if not all, New Yorkers have
access to recycling programs at home, and most people who are inclined to recycle are able to do so
at least to some degree. To achieve increases, communities need to expand participation and seek
other methods to improve materials capture rates, identify additional materials to recycle and
expand markets for recovered materials.
To improve the recycling rate of materials that are already targeted by municipalities for source
separation, there is a need to engage those who do not already participate and to encourage those
who do recycle to capture all that is recyclable wherever they live, work or play. Recycling programs
must be designed or modified to provide opportunities to recycle wherever waste is generated,
whether in residences, in public spaces, in offices, in schools, etc. Improving participation on a
broad scale will require a combination of the following tools:
• Education: With or without incentive programs, communities that have dedicated resources
for outreach and education experience greater recycling success. The public must be
continually made aware of the many reasons why recycling is important: to reduce both the
environmental and financial costs of waste disposal, combat global warming, reduce
pollution from the extraction and manufacture of virgin materials and to comply with the
law. They also must be reminded regularly about what materials are collected and how, and
they must believe that their materials are actually recycled, not mixed with garbage and
disposed of. It is not possible to overstate the importance of employing dedicated recycling
coordinators for this type of effort. As evidence, regions in which DEC has a strong recycling
outreach presence or, more important, in which planning units have recycling outreach
staff, experience better recycling performance than those without dedicated staff.
• Incentives: The most common incentive program is volume‐based pricing, also referred to as
“quantity‐based user fees,” like PAYT or SMART. In PAYT/SMART systems, generators are
charged for disposal based on the amount of waste picked up or dropped off, with recycling
and composting programs provided for free. PAYT/SMART programs in communities as
diverse as Seoul Korea and Worchester, MA have consistently reduced waste going to

51
For more information on school recycling,
see http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8803.html, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/localgov/sect
ors/school.htm, and http://www.gogreeninitiative.org/

disposal by 40 percent, with one‐third of that reduction attributable to increases in
recycling, one‐third to composting and one‐third to waste prevention and reuse.
PAYT/SMART programs can be implemented in a variety of ways, depending on the needs
and goals of the community. For example, some PAYT/SMART programs rely on the sale to
the consumer of bags, stickers or tags to measure, segregate and label waste to be
disposed, while other programs use specifically designed collection containers as a core
element of their measurement strategy. (For more on PAYT/SMART, see Appendix 8.2.) The
EPA and DEC have encouraged these programs since the mid 1990s and, according to
USEPA, volume‐based pricing systems are currently in place in more than 7,000
communities in North America, including more than 400 in New York State.
A second type of incentive program rewards households with “points,” redeemable as coupons and
credits at retailers who volunteer to support the program, based on the amount of material set out
for recycling. This strategy requires a capital investment in carts with imbedded computer chips to
track volumes and calculate “points.” That investment has proven very successful. For example, in
one pilot program, Philadelphia, PA increased recycling participation from 7 percent to 90 percent of
households. In Wilmington, DE, a similar program helped the city increase its recycling rate from 3
percent to 32 percent in the first year.
Special incentive events can also be run from time to time to spur additional interest in recycling.
For example, the Town of Yorktown, NY celebrated the tenth anniversary of its recycling program by
sending out educational materials. Included in the items sent to residents was an entry form for the
“best blue bin” contest. Entries were drawn at random, boxes inspected unannounced, and
participants with impeccably sorted recyclables were awarded prizes, such as gift cards to local
businesses. This event succeeded in increasing recycling rates for the town by several percentage
points. The educational materials were partially funded through DEC’s MWR&R grant program.
Planning units can also provide incentives for their member municipalities to increase recycling
participation. Westchester County tabulates the materials sent for recycling by municipalities and
calculates the amount of money saved by recycling rather than disposal. “Recycling Report Cards”
are then issued to each municipality to publicize the economic benefits realized by taxpayers
through recycling and to help communities gauge their own progress. The report cards for the 2008
reporting data reflect increased recycling volumes during the prior year in each municipality that
sent material to the county MRF.
• Access to recycling collections: Many public events and public spaces do not provide
recycling for participants or visitors. Increasing the presence of recycling collection bins at
concerts, street festivals, parks, NYC subways, transit stations, and other public spaces will
enable greater levels of recycling and reinforce the recycling message. Many communities
around the country have vibrant public space recycling programs. New York City’s recent
public space recycling pilot project demonstrated that recycling in parks, transit stations,
and other public spaces can be efficient and effective. (For more information,
see http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/recycling/public_space_recycling.shtml)
• Enforcement: When all else fails, citizens, businesses and local governments can be
motivated to source separate their recyclables by the possibility of a fine or other

enforcement action. Enforcement is a logical extension of the education program—the
backstop in the case where other means of education do not achieve the necessary change.
In most cases, DEC lacks the authority to enforce local recycling requirements, and there is a
wide disparity in the approaches to enforcement taken by New York State’s municipalities
and planning units. Several municipalities in New York State have active recycling
enforcement programs that both improve participation and raise revenue, but many
planning units do not have dedicated staff, resources, or clear authority to enforce recycling
requirements. It also appears that some elected officials oppose enforcement and,
therefore, block programmatic efforts fearing potential voter backlash. Even in
communities that have strong programs, enforcement in the commercial and institutional
sector is the exception rather than the rule. This must be resolved to achieve increases in
recycling.
INCREASING PARTICIPATION RATES
Many communities in New York State have improved participation in recycling
programs through well‐promoted campaigns. For example, as a part of its
commitment to combat climate change, in 2008 Westchester County stepped up its
recycling enforcement efforts. In January of that year, the county informed residents
and businesses that it would begin to enforce recycling requirements. For the first
month, waste and recyclables that were improperly sorted were left on the curb and
tagged with a yellow sticker. Starting in February, both municipal and private haulers
licensed to operate within the county did not collect materials that were improperly
sorted, and violators were fined. The program was extremely successful, with the
volume of materials collected for recycling increasing by 25 percent before the full
enforcement program was underway in February.


8.3.6 Collection Strategies
As they seek to improve performance of their source‐separation programs, communities have
multiple collection options, including curbside and drop‐off programs, and single, dual or three‐
stream collection. To control costs and minimize GHG emissions related to collections, it is
important that communities develop collection strategies and routes that maximize efficiency and
ensure that recycling trucks are operating at full capacity.
Much of the state’s population is served by curbside recycling collection, although the more rural
communities tend to rely on drop‐off sites and transfer stations. Since the passage of the 1988 Act,
DEC has consistently advised that the same level of service for waste collection must be offered for
the collection of recyclables (i.e., In locations where curbside waste collection is offered, curbside
recycling collection must also be offered, and where waste drop‐off programs are used, access to
recycling is also required).
As communities evaluate their collection and processing options to maximize the volume and value
of materials recovered, with guidance and assistance from the state, they should consider which
system would work best in their local circumstances and would make the best use of existing
infrastructure. Whatever choice is made, it is imperative that municipalities, planning units and
private companies make the investment necessary to ensure that recycling collection and processing
systems generate high‐quality materials that meet market specifications and minimize residue.

8.3.6 (a) Dual‐Stream Collection
Currently, a majority of the communities in New York State operate traditional dual stream
collection programs which segregate recyclables into two streams—one for paper (newspapers,
cardboard, junk mail, paperboard, etc.) and one for containers (metal, glass, and plastic). The
separation of these two recycling streams is maintained through collection and transportation to an
MRF or paper processor for further separation into marketable commodities. While there is a
substantial network of dual‐stream MRFs in the state, many were developed in the late 1980s and
early 1990s and have not updated the technology and equipment to facilitate optimal levels of
recovery. Many will require capital upgrades to improve performance and allow for added
materials.
The major advantages of dual‐stream collection programs are:
• They are well established; most New Yorkers are comfortable with this type of separation
and understand the reasons for keeping paper and containers separate.
• There is an existing processing infrastructure; many communities already have access to an
MRF or other processing facility for dual‐stream materials.
• They produce quality materials using simple processing technologies: keeping containers
separate from paper generally simplifies processing and avoids contamination, such as
shards of glass imbedded in newsprint, that can create problems for endusers and limit
recycling market options.


8.3.6 (b) Single‐Stream Collection
A number of communities in the state have moved to single‐stream collection, an emerging trend in
recycling collection that combines all recyclables (paper and containers) in one collection stream,
while collecting waste separately. This system has emerged as a way to control costs and improve
participation by allowing residents to place all recyclables in one container. The experience with
single‐stream collection in New York State to date has been positive, with four “state‐of‐the‐art”
single‐stream processing facilities serving several community recycling programs, and others in the
planning stage. New York State’s single‐stream communities report high participation, increased
diversion and low residue rates.

The major advantages of single‐stream recycling include:
• Greater participation: Because sorting is easier for residents and large recycling containers
are usually provided, single‐stream programs have greater participation rates. Some single‐
stream system operators report that recovery rates increase by 20 to 40 percent above
prior dual or multiple‐stream performance when these programs are launched.
• Reduced collection costs: Because the systems usually involve semi‐automated collection,
larger volumes of materials and only one recycling truck (with one compartment), collection
costs—one of the most expensive steps in the recycling process—are reduced.
• Compatibility with other program changes: Many communities around the country have
implemented single‐stream collection of recyclables along with other program changes,
such as the addition of source‐separated food scraps collection, additional recyclables
collection, or PAYT/SMART pricing, yielding strong overall results.
While newer single‐stream facilities have proven to function well, any conversion of existing dual‐
stream facilities to single stream must be carefully planned and designed and sufficiently capitalized
to maximize the benefits. While some single‐stream processes in other jurisdictions have generated
poor quality materials and high‐residue rates, experience in New York State and elsewhere indicates
that when appropriate technology is employed, contamination problems can be avoided.52

8.3.6 (c) Multi‐Material Collection
Some communities, many of which are smaller and rely primarily on drop‐off programs, have more
than two recycling streams; instead of requiring that only paper and containers be separated, some
programs require residents to separate several types of material (plastic, metal, glass, newspapers,
cardboard, etc.) from one another at the drop‐off location or the curb. These programs often yield
very high‐quality materials that are more readily marketable for higher‐value uses which,
presumably, allow for higher prices. On the other hand, in the case of multi‐material curbside
collection, there may be greater labor costs and greater consumer participation challenges.

52
Single Stream Recycling Best Practices Implementation Guide, pp. 17, 19 & 73

8.3.6 (d) Recycling and Food Scrap Collections
Dozens of communities nationwide have launched what is commonly referred to as “three‐stream”
collection programs—single‐stream recyclables, an organics stream with food scraps and other
compostables, and a waste stream. By combining organics collection, including food scraps for
composting, with single‐stream recycling and PAYT/SMART, these communities are achieving very
high recovery rates. In New York State, at least two planning units (Tompkins and Onondaga
counties) are developing such programs for the commercial sector.
Through three‐stream collection, municipalities have achieved organics collection without increasing
overall program collection costs by implementing source‐separated organics collection along with
other program changes instead of as an “add on” to existing systems.
This can be accomplished by:
• Adjusting collection schedules: Once recyclables, food scraps and other putrescible organics
are removed from the waste stream, the remaining waste can be collected less frequently.
For example, in Toronto, organics are collected weekly, while recyclables and remaining
waste are collected on alternate weeks.
• Converting to semi‐automated collection: Using toters and semi‐automated collection can
reduce the number of workers per truck, thereby reducing labor costs as well as worker
injuries, resulting in significant savings.53

8.3.7 Post‐Collection Separation
As has been noted, anecdotal information suggests that many commercial and institutional
generators and their haulers have generally not met their source‐separation obligations under state
and local law, and there has been little effort on the part of local planning units to bring these
sectors into compliance. However, in some areas of the state, particularly in New York City, some
commercial carters have developed extensive post‐collection separation systems to supplement
minimal source‐separated recycling. In these systems, “pantry waste,” including most food scraps
and other putrescibles, is separated and collected in black bags for disposal, while all other materials
are collected in clear bags and separated for recycling. Commercial carters report that between 70
and 95 percent of the material collected in clear bags is recyclable. 54
State law does not support post‐collection separation as an alternative to source separation, but it
can be used as a supplemental management method. DEC’s Part 360 regulations require post‐
collection separation facilities to obtain a permit subject to the requirements for both recyclables
handling and recovery facilities and transfer stations. Unless the percentage of putrescibles is
extremely low, post‐collection separation facilities can have all of the same environmental impacts
and concerns as waste transfer stations.

53
Making Recycling Work: A Roundtable on the Future of Recycling Proceedings Report, Center for
Environmental and Economic Partnership, page 4.
54
Communications with Sprint Recycling and Metropolitan Recycling.

While these systems require minimal workforce education or effort, they can also undermine the
educational messages to source separate at home and elsewhere. Nonetheless, given the high
levels of recovery achieved in some commercial post‐collection separation facilities, and the
efficiencies gained and emissions reduced through consolidating collections, stakeholders have
argued that supplemental post‐collection separation should be explicitly supported in New York
State. In the absence of a change in the law, DEC will continue to require communities to
implement source‐separation programs in all generating sectors.

8.3.8 Glass
Many communities around the state and the nation are struggling with how to manage glass
collected curbside with other recyclables. Because haulers often use compaction for more efficient
collection and eject their loads directly onto concrete surfaces, much of the glass breaks during the
process. The broken glass often becomes contaminated with other waste and ends up color mixed
in a pile that includes small bits of paper, plastic and other materials. Broken glass can also become
embedded in other material, thereby contaminating other recyclables.
ESD has invested significant resources in identifying value‐added opportunities for the management
of mixed‐color glass collected curbside. As the material is typically too contaminated to be used in
traditional markets for recovered glass, such as container or insulation manufacture, research
supported by ESD has shown that with minimal processing, glass can be an effective substitute for
aggregates used in a variety of engineering applications, such as sub‐base for road construction,
embankment construction, drainage and as a component of asphalt. As a result, specifications are
in place for the use of recycled glass in these applications. Indeed, many of these categories qualify
as “green specifications” through the implementation of Governor Paterson’s EO4. Although these
end uses do not typically earn revenues for an MRF, if the glass can be used locally for any of these
purposes, the community can avoid the cost of purchased aggregate and can significantly reduce or
eliminate transportation costs.
ESD has also invested in the development and implementation of technologies that allow for the
cost‐effective cleaning and color‐sorting of MRF‐generated glass. As a result, some businesses in
central and western New York State are successfully converting mixed‐color, contaminated glass
into feedstock for container and insulation manufacture, as well as for sale as alternative sandblast
medium, landscape and drainage media. With additional refinement, the glass could even replace a
portion of the cement needed for making concrete products. Two manufacturers, one in New York
City and another in the Finger Lakes region, have successfully developed building products made
with significant amounts of recycled glass.
While strong markets do exist for clean, color‐sorted glass, primarily material generated through the
Bottle Bill, preparing municipally collected glass to access those markets can still be difficult and
costly. To clean, sort and dry the material requires a significant initial investment in equipment that
cannot usually be recouped in the absence of substantial economies of scale. Accordingly, the state
needs to continue to assist with the development of markets or enhanced collection, transportation
and processing systems that maximize the productive recycling of glass and reduce contamination of

other recyclables, especially paper. With a continued trend toward single‐stream collection of
recyclables, this becomes increasingly important.

8.3.9 Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Recycling
While nearly half of C&D debris in New York State is recovered today, much of it is used for low‐
value applications, such as chipped clean wood mulch. In many areas of the state, opportunities
exist to increase the amount of C&D material recycled and to improve the value of C&D materials
recovered through enhanced source separation and processing of materials.
Many materials from the C&D debris stream, such as metals and cardboard, are commonly recycled,
with established markets supported by supply‐and‐demand economics. A growing consensus exists
among government and industry researchers that the C&D stream holds other materials that are
inherently valuable and highly recyclable. It makes both environmental and economic sense to
remove many of these materials prior to disposal.
Materials such as asphalt shingles, carpet and ceiling tiles, are potentially recyclable and generally
easier to separate at the point of demolition. Recycling these materials can provide a significant
benefit in terms of reduced GHG. Recycling materials such as unadulterated gypsum wallboard can
also avoid other problematic emissions, such as the odorous hydrogen sulfide released when
crushed gypsum is landfilled in an anaerobic environment.
However, inexpensive disposal tip fees for C&D materials have limited growth in recycling, and
incentive programs have, in some cases, missed the mark. For example, the LEED Green Building
Program allows “points” for recycling C&D materials, even if they are used as alternative daily cover,
providing “green” credit for C&D materials that are ultimately used in a landfill, albeit through a
more beneficial use than disposal. Instead, incentives should be driving higher uses of recycled C&D
materials and avoiding the energy and raw material costs of producing new building products.
While it takes time for markets to develop, this time could be well spent by regulatory agencies
developing and enhancing clear regulatory structure and support that will foster new markets. State
government can support or encourage markets through careful management of its own
construction projects to ensure the recycling of C&D debris and the optimal use of recycled
construction materials.

8.3.10 Recycling Markets
Recyclables are commodities and, like other commodities, values fluctuate based on overall market
conditions. In response to a need to ensure value‐added uses for recovered materials and try to
capture the economic returns associated with a strong recycling industry, the 1988 Act created an
office in the State Department of Economic Development (now ESD) that would work to expand and
strengthen New York State’s recycling marketplace and serve as a repository for recycling market
information. That office, currently known as the Environmental Services Unit, continues to improve
recycling opportunities for collectors, processors and endusers of recovered materials. Personnel
and resources at ESD assist businesses that want to build new recycling capacity. In addition, ESD
maintains an on‐line recycling markets database that enables generators to search for regional

markets for the materials they handle or, in the case of manufacturers in need of raw materials, to
locate adequate supplies. Access to the database is free, and recyclers are encouraged to be listed
on the database, located at www.empire.state.ny.us/recycle. For more on ESD’s programs, see
Appendix 6.2.
New York State has been a leader in supporting markets for recyclables by channeling the state’s
purchasing power toward the products that contain recycled content. Beginning with passage of the
1988 Act and bolstered first by Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order 142 and, more recently,
Governor Paterson’s EO4, the OGS developed a comprehensive green purchasing program. In fiscal
year 2007‐08, OGS issued more than 30 contracts for products that reduce waste, are
remanufactured or contain recycled content.
In more general terms, during the past decade, the recycling industry has experienced some of the
strongest market conditions in history as demand for secondary materials in China, India and other
developing nations exploded. The economic events of 2008 illustrate the volatility of the markets,
though they represent only a snapshot in time. In the early part of that year, recyclers enjoyed
record high market values for their materials. However, due to the general economic decline felt in
the fall of 2008 and the related downturn in purchasing of consumer goods and related packaging
and products made from recycled materials, many secondary materials end users, particularly in
Asia, slowed down or stopped their intake of secondary materials. As a result, the economic
downturn late in the year brought dramatic drops in secondary materials prices. Corrugated
cardboard in the Northeast dropped from $120 per ton to $30 per ton in one week in October 2008.
Residential mixed paper dropped from $50 per ton to $5 per ton.55 Similar reductions in secondary
material value were experienced in the plastic and metal markets. These drops were dramatic and
largely unanticipated.
This example represents a temporary downturn in what has otherwise been demonstrated as a
positive trend in recycled materials market value in the last decade. Nonetheless, to weather these
temporary storms, the state must continue to encourage local programs to maintain access to more
than one market and to remain flexible in terms of sorting, processing and storage capacity. It is
challenging for local or regional secondary materials end users to compete with foreign markets
during upswings in market value like those experienced in early 2008, but, ultimately, stabilizing
collection programs and recycling markets will require both the development of local and regional
endusers for recycled materials and the commitment of recycling program managers and MRF
operators to long‐term supply contracts.
Communities that weathered the 2008 recycling markets collapse most successfully were the ones
that had long‐term contracts with market outlets. Communities that choose to sell material on the
spot instead of making long‐term commitments have likely seen short‐term gains, but those gains
may have come at the expense of long‐term stability.
Long‐term contracting for recyclables processing provides stability to the municipality, its
contractors and materials markets generally. The value of recyclables’ can vary greatly year to year
and sometimes even month to month, but responsible government budgeting requires the ability to

55
“Recycling Market Woes,” BioCycle, November 2008.

reasonably project expenditures and revenue. To maintain a consistency of service, processors need
to protect themselves from market volatility as well. Long‐term (10‐20 year) contracts protect both
parties from this volatility. In return, though, both parties must sacrifice—municipalities sacrifice
some portion of the market value of their commodities during upswings, while processors accept
some added risk by guaranteeing a modest floor price regardless of market conditions.
Long‐term supply contracts usually have provisions for a floor price with a mechanism for revenue
sharing when market values go up. In most cases, revenue sharing arrangements are valued based
on a mutually acceptable market index. For example, New York City’s contracts with paper
processors include a floor price of $10 or more per ton, with provisions to increase revenues to the
city when markets improve. The city has experienced revenues of up to $70 per ton under these
contracts.
Because markets for most grades of paper and metals are well developed notwithstanding periodic
downturns in market value, the state’s market development efforts should focus on secondary
materials that are challenged by troubled or less mature markets. Examples include:
• Glass: As noted above, while markets for clean, color‐sorted glass are stable, most
communities generate a mixed‐color broken glass that is usually contaminated with small
bits of paper, plastic and other unwanted materials. There are facilities in New York State
that can clean and process glass to meet market specifications. A network of glass‐
processing facilities would help to provide communities with outlets for this troublesome
material. Creative local uses of mixed glass in construction and civil engineering projects
can also help address this problem.
• Plastics: Markets for plastic bottles, particularly PET (#1) and HDPE (#2), are relatively stable.
However, markets for other plastic containers, such as tubs, jars, and film are less robust
and require development assistance.
• Organics: As discussed in Section 8.4, capturing more organic materials such as food scraps,
food‐processing waste, non‐recyclable paper and yard trimmings, will be critical to
increasing recovery and reducing waste disposal in New York State. It will be necessary to
develop infrastructure for organics recovery and endmarkets for compost and other organic
products to support increased recovery.
• Construction and Demolition Materials: Much of the concrete, brick, asphalt and metal
generated on construction sites is routinely recovered; however, other potentially valuable
materials like gypsum wallboard, asphalt shingles, and wood are often sent for disposal.
Local end‐use markets for these materials would encourage greater sorting and recovery.

8.3.11 Responsible Recycling of Electronics
Electronic waste placed or disposed of in landfills can potentially release lead, mercury and/or other
hazardous substances into the environment. Given the hazardous nature of many components in
electronic equipment, it is imperative that these materials be handled safely and appropriately. It is
also true that all of the materials from used electronic equipment (metals, plastics, and glass) are
potentially recyclable, reducing the need to produce these materials from raw materials and

diverting waste from disposal. For these reasons, in 2007, DEC initiated a rulemaking to streamline
the management of used electronic equipment, whether regulated as hazardous waste or solid
waste, so that collection and recycling will become more efficient and safer, and manufacturer take‐
back programs will not be discouraged by regulatory impediments. The proposed rulemaking
includes:
• Adopting provisions of the federal Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Rule, which will remove barriers
to recycling CRT glass
• Adopting management standards for collectors, dismantlers, and recyclers of used
electronic equipment that will better protect human health and the environment
• Adopting provisions of the New York State Wireless Telephone Recycling Act
• Amending the requirements of New York State's current generator "c7" notification, which
would improve the ability to ensure that used electronics are properly recycled.
The export of electronic waste also constitutes a significant environmental, public health and public
policy issue in that the waste goes to developing nations with minimal oversight or standards for its
handing. As documented by the Basel Action Network 56 and reported in the major media, much
electronic waste is exported under the guise of reuse or recycling, only to be managed in abysmal
conditions that threaten workers and the communities that host these activities. New York State
does not have the constitutional authority to regulate the export of electronic waste, and, to date,
the federal government has not taken action to restrict these exports.

8.3.12 Product and Packaging Stewardship
responsibility of the manufacturer of a product or package to include its entire life cycle, including
ultimate disposition of that product or package at the end of its useful life. In these programs,
manufacturers (or producers) must take either physical or financial responsibility for the recycling or
proper disposal of products or packages. As described more fully in section 5, these programs are
an important driver to both prevent waste and increase recycling.
Stewardship programs reduce the financial burden on local communities. Local governments are
required to manage and pay for whatever winds up on the curb, with little or no ability to influence
the design of the products or packaging to reduce management costs or improve recovery options.
The costs are borne locally for production decisions made remotely, usually without consideration of
waste‐management implications.
Instead of requiring local governments to fund collection and recovery programs for discarded
products, stewardship programs incorporate the cost of disposal or recovery into the cost of the
product, so those costs are borne jointly by the manufacturer/producer and the consumer, not by
local government and taxpayers. This reduces the financial burden on communities and internalizes

56
Exporting Harm, Basel Action Network.

disposal costs into the cost of the product, so materials that are easier to recycle or dispose of at the
end of life should be cheaper.
To stem the rising tide of packaging and printed material waste and help finance local recycling
programs, the European Union and many Canadian provinces have turned to stewardship programs.
While the programs differ in many ways, most packaging stewardship systems have the following
components:
• Fees: Producers/manufacturers pay into a fund based on the amount of packaging they use
or the volume of printed materials they distribute and the cost to recycle those materials or
otherwise manage them at the end of their useful life.
• Funding: Most packaging stewardship programs use proceeds to cover the costs of
collection and recycling or disposal of the packages/materials by paying either municipalities
or private companies to provide these services. Many also allocate funds for market
development, infrastructure improvements, education or other methods to improve
materials recovery and efficiency in the system.
• Third‐party Organization or Authority: Packaging stewardship programs tend to be run by
independent or quasi‐governmental organizations or authorities that assign fees, collect and
redistribute funds, and identify and fund system improvements and market development
projects.
Packaging stewardship achieves several critical ends. First, it provides an incentive for waste
prevention. When manufacturers must pay for the amount of packaging they use, they have a
financial incentive to use less. Programs with more substantial fees have experienced greater levels
of materials‐use reduction. Second, it generates much needed revenue for community recycling
programs. Third, it improves recycling by allocating resources for critical education programs,
infrastructure improvements and market development; in Ontario, Canada, the packaging
stewardship program has yielded a 10 percent increase in the recycling rate in just its first three
years. And fourth, it incorporates the cost of recycling or disposal into the cost of the product.

8.3.13 Findings
• While New York State and its communities have made progress in establishing successful
recycling programs, as evidenced by the rise in recycling rates between 1987 and 1999,
progress in the last decade has stalled.
• There is a wide variation in municipal recycling reporting and program performance
statewide, with reported amounts of MSW paper and containers collected for recycling
ranging from 17 to 764 pounds per capita per year.
• Data collection and analysis of program and industry performance needs to be refined; new
statewide performance metrics are needed to better gauge progress toward this Plan’s
goals.

• The implementation of source‐separated recycling programs has been inconsistent from one
community to the next and in different settings such as schools, businesses, and public
spaces; engaging all sectors is critical to success.
• Like any commodity, recycling markets vary; however, on average, market values have been
consistently strong for the past decade.
• Local or regional markets and long‐term supply‐and‐demand agreements provide stability to
community programs.
• Market development initiatives must expand to address organics, plastics, glass and C&D
debris.
• C&D debris recycling has been inhibited by competition with inexpensive disposal, in part
due to a lack of markets for valueable materials.
• Planning units either lack resources or have not consistently dedicated them to outreach,
education and enforcement of recycling programs, particularly in the commercial and
institutional sector.
• Some municipal recycling processing infrastructure is aging and in need of upgrading to
capture more materials or access higher‐value markets.

As New York State seeks to improve recycling and move Beyond Waste, the state and its solid waste
management planning units must implement the wide range of actions listed below. Fully realizing
these recommendations will require additional resources—both financial and human—at the state
and local level.
• Launch an aggressive public education campaign to promote waste prevention, reuse,
composting and recycling. DEC will seek funding to develop an aggressive marketing and
public education campaign aimed at motivating New Yorkers to make changes to reduce
waste, recycle and properly manage hazardous components of the waste stream. A key
element of this campaign will be material, such as templates for informational
presentations, brochures and posters specifically designed for local governments to use in
their own outreach efforts.
• Require planning units and local governments to implement incentive, education, and
enforcement programs. As planning units develop new LSWMPs or modifications and
otherwise plan for and implement programs, DEC will require them to evaluate options for
incentive, education and enforcement programs and put them into action where possible.
(For more on LSWMP requirements, see Section 3.)
• Build recycling markets by increasing the state’s purchases of recycled‐content products
through implementation of Governor Paterson’s EO4.

• Improve data collection. DEC will develop an on‐line reporting system to collect moretimely
recycling and disposal data and will work with industry to develop uniform methods for
more accurate data gathering and reporting, using the new performance metrics based on
pounds per capita collected for recycling and disposal.
• Encourage regional or national collaboration to develop consistent data collection and
reporting protocols and systems. DEC will encourage NERC, NEWMOA, the EPA and others
as appropriate to promote the development of a consistent regional or national reporting
platform to better compare data among states.
• Evaluate, and implement where appropriate strategies to promote the establishment of
recycling facilities in the context of environmental quality review and regulatory processes
for other solid waste management facilities.
• Encourage public space, event, institutional and commercial recycling. Through the
implementation of EO 4, DEC will work with state agencies and authorities to ensure that
recycling is implemented at all state facilities and spaces. DEC will also require planning
units to address these critical issues as they update LSWMPs. (EO 4 is provided in Appendix
8.1).
• Encourage long‐term recycling agreements. As planning units develop new LSWMPs or
modifications, DEC will encourage long‐term recycling market contracts to ensure the
stability and viability of recycling programs.
• Ensure that appropriate staffing and resources are made available to ESD for recycling
market development assistance and to encourage the use of recycled feedstocks by New
York State‐based manufacturers.
• Expand market development initiatives for glass, plastic film, plastics #3‐7, organics, C&D
materials, etc., to further advance recycling and as a means to create green jobs and
encourage local use of secondary materials. The state needs to increase its investment in
this effort to ensure that sufficient attention is placed on developing local markets for key
materials and, in doing so, creating economic opportunity.
• Provide assistance to local governments to help determine the need for MRF upgrades.
Many municipal MRFs in the state were developed more than a decade ago. To maximize
efficiency and collect additional materials, these facilities must be upgraded. DEC will seek
funding to aid planning units and municipalities in analyzing their infrastructure to
determine the capital improvements necessary to bring the state’s recycling infrastructure
up to modern standards and capabilities and to help finance those improvements.
• Develop regional processing facilities for specific materials, most particularly glass, plastics,
organics, and C&D debris.
• Encourage local use of processed, mixed glass, chipped tires and other appropriate recycled
materials in engineering applications.
• Continue to make EPF funds available for the development and expansion of recycling
capacity throughout the state. EPF funds for the ESD have been effective for spurring

private investment in recycling infrastructure and helping manufacturers convert to recycled
feedstock.
• Facilitate the development of forums to bring government and private entities together to
identify strategies for overcoming barriers to increased material recovery, including market
development, and address C&D debris management issues.
• Track and evaluate trends in the C&D management industry and technologies available to
foster greater materials recovery.
• Establish a New York State center for C&D debris recycling through the ESD to: research
issues and solutions relative to C&D debris; act as a central information access point;
promote deconstruction and building materials reuse; provide C&D job site training
programs, and identify potential investments for ESD’s ESU.
• Work with the state OGS to require recycling of materials generated on state‐funded
construction sites.

8.3.14 (b) Regulatory Recommendations
• Enact Part 374‐5 regulations to improve the safe and appropriate collection, handling and
recycling of electronic waste
• Restrict the disposal of source‐separated recyclables in solid waste management facilities
• Prohibit the commingling of source‐separated recyclables and waste in collection vehicles

8.3.14 (c) Legislative Recommendations
• Increase state appropriations for municipal recycling. Municipal recycling grants provide
critical funding for recycling education and infrastructure. To achieve the goals of this Plan
and move Beyond Waste, the state will need to increase the resources allocated to public
education and recycling infrastructure and link resource distribution to local solid waste
management planning. (For more on investment programs and funding needs, see section
6.)
• Create a packaging stewardship program. (See Section 5.)
• Create product stewardship programs. (See Section 5.)
• Create a statewide electronics product stewardship program that requires manufacturers to
establish convenient collection systems that achieve designated waste‐reduction
performance objectives.
• Update the Solid Waste Management Act (see Section 9.1.1) to acknowledge the new state
plan and allow for its implementation by, among other things:
o Setting per capita waste disposal reduction goals

o Increasing DEC’s enforcement authority, particularly with regard to commercial and
institutional recycling requirements
o Allocating additional resources for planning, education, enforcement, and other
critical activities
o Updating procurement and recycling requirements for state agencies and
authorities
o Requiring the implementation of PAYT/SMART programs
o Explicitly mandating the basic materials that must be recycled throughout the state
(which provide for expansion of the list and hardship waivers) and where recycling
opportunities must be available (e.g., residences, businesses, schools, MTA transit
stations, public spaces, etc.)

8.4 COMPOSTING AND ORGANIC MATERIALS RECYCLING
“THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ORGANIC WASTE–ONLY WASTED ORGANICS.”
City of Christchurch, New Zealand Solid Waste Plan (2006)
Organic residuals are of plant or animal origin and are a common and ubiquitous byproduct of
modern life. From animal manure and crop residue, to the uneaten food generated daily in
cafeterias, restaurants and homes, to massive quantities of food‐processing waste, organic residuals
constitute a large component of today’s waste stream. As described more fully in Section 7, organic
materials, including yard trimmings, food scraps, and non‐recyclable papers, typically make up 30
percent of New York State’s MSW. The biodegradable portion of the waste stream is in fact much
higher–a full 60 percent—but the additional 30 percent comprises nonputresible materials that can
be recycled into cardboard and other paper products, a higher and better end use from both an
economic and environmental perspective.
As New York State moves to further reduce the amount of waste going to disposal, organics
diversion offers an enormous opportunity toward that end. As more fully discussed in the sections
on waste prevention and reuse, preventing organic waste through the redistribution of usable food,
changing processes and practices to reduce residual organics, and other means provide greater
social and environmental benefits than organics recycling. DEC has long considered composting,
anaerobic digestion and other organic material recycling technologies to be equivalent to recycling
of other materials and, therefore, in the second tier of the state’s solid waste management
hierarchy.
Composting involves the aerobic biological decomposition of organic materials to produce a stable,
humus‐like material. While it is the most prevalent method of recovering organic materials for
value‐added end use, it is not the only method of organics recycling. Technologies such as
anaerobic digestion, long used in sewage treatment plants, are now being applied to convert food
residuals, manure and other materials into a biogas that can be recovered for energy and a
digestate that can be composted and used as a soil amendment.

Organic materials in the state’s waste stream contain rich nutrients that, when captured through
composting or other recovery methods, can play an important role in rebuilding the state’s soil
structures. According to the US Composting Council, compost’s useful properties lead to healthier
soil and plants, better nutrient cycling and greater fertility and also aid in erosion control and storm
water management. 57 However, the very characteristic that makes organics valuable as potential
soil amendments—degradability—creates challenges in effective collection, handling and recycling.
Organics recycling also plays an important role in combating climate change. Once in a landfill,
organic residuals degrade and generate methane—a potent GHG. Because these materials start to
create methane within days of disposal, some of the methane escapes before it can be captured by
a landfill gas destruction system. Research compiled by the University of Washington’s Dr. Sally
Brown confirms that every ton of food waste generates an average of 6 tons of carbon equivalent,
and that generation happens in the first 28 to 100 days—well before large landfills are required by
federal regulations to begin capturing gas. By contrast, a well‐operated composting system will
generate little if any methane. 58
When used to enrich soil, the application of compost increases soil’s carbon storage capacity by
increasing the formation of stable carbon compounds that remain bound in the soil for long periods.
This storage also provides a GHG benefit; according to the European Commission’s Working Group
on Organic Matter,:
“Applying composted EOM [exogeneous organic matter] to soils should be recommended
because it is one of the effective ways to divert carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert
it to organic carbon in soils, contributing to combating greenhouse gas effect.”
The positive impact of composting on GHG emissions from waste management systems can be
significant; just how significant depends on the waste disposal method being avoided when
materials are diverted for composting. Using the NERC EBC and waste composition and quantity
data from New York’s Capital District, DEC estimates that a community can reduce its GHG emissions
related to waste management by 10 percent if it diverts half its food scraps from an MWC to a
composting facility. If a community achieves the same 50 percent diversion of food scraps from a
landfill, the reduction is 129 percent. It is important to note that neither the NERC or WARM
models account for the additional GHG benefits of using compost (e.g, offsetting the use of other
soil amendments and reducing the need for fertilizers) which would further increase the projected
benefits. The EPA is expected to update the WARM model to account for these factors in 2010.
These findings are consistent with research being undertaken around the country and the world. In
the first full lifecycle study on the environmental impacts of composting, the Australian Department
of Environment and Conservation found that commercial composting of organic materials and the
application of compost to agricultural soils resulted in net GHG reductions, even if the recycled
materials have to be transported more than 370 miles for agricultural applications. This analysis was
on the composting process itself, so it did not include the GHG emissions avoided by not disposing

57
US Composting Council, Keeping Organics Out of Landfills.
58
US Composting Council, Keeping Organics Out of Landfills.

the organic materials in a landfill or through MWC. The study also determined that commercial
composting and agricultural application resulted in other benefits, including “reduction in use of
fertilizers, herbicides, water, and electricity resulting from compost applications and, therefore,
reducing release of GHGs, nutrients and toxic chemicals to environment (air, water, and soil) during
production and use of these avoided inputs.”
Since there are many different types of organic materials and methods for recycling them, the best
approach for any particular organic waste stream will depend on a number of factors, including the
volume and makeup of the material, the space available for aggregation and management,
flexibility, cost, GHG emissions, transportation distances, etc.
In New York State and nationally, the recycling of organics has grown phenomenally since the 1987
Plan. The USEPA estimates that yard trimmings composting has grown from diverting 12 percent of
it in 1990 to 64 percent in 2007. Few composting operations existed in New York State in the late
1980s, while more than 300 facilities exist today. The facilities vary in size, with smaller ones
handling a few hundred cubic yards per year and larger facilities handling more than 100,000 cubic
yards per year. In total, DEC estimates that more than 600,000 tons of yard trimmings are
composted annually in New York State, which represents 67 percent of the total estimated
generation.
One significant factor that helped promote the development of yard trimmings composting sites
was the inclusion of special conditions in solid waste disposal facility permits prohibiting the
acceptance of yard trimmings. Four of the five largest landfills in the state and all MWCs have
special permit conditions that include this prohibition.
However, large quantities of organics, especially food scraps and soiled paper, still end up in landfills
instead of being used to improve the physical, chemical and biological properties of New York
State’s soils.

8.4.1 Organic Recycling Technologies and Methods
This section briefly describes organic waste diversion methods and biological recycling technologies
currently used in New York State, without attempting to provide an exhaustive list of all
technologies and methods available or on the horizon. As this is a dynamic area of waste
management, new technologies for organics recycling will likely surface in the coming years, each
posing environmental concerns that must be properly addressed prior to planning for their use.
Their resultant products must also be fully understood. For example, depending on the waste that is
being processed, pathogens, heavy metals, or pesticide/herbicide residues may be present and
would need to be managed. The state’s solid waste management regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 360,
contain specific design and operational criteria governing these facilities.
8.4.1 (a) Composting
As previously described, composting involves the aerobic biological decomposition of organic
materials to produce a stable, humus‐like material. Composting happens naturally in the
environment when organic material falls to the soil surface. There are many compost technology
options for managing most organic materials in the waste stream, each striving to optimize the

biological conditions in the mass of material to achieve the most uniform, mature compost in the
least amount of time.
The composting process is somewhat forgiving in practice, so it is not always necessary to meet ideal
conditions for making good compost, but, the closer the system can get to the ideal, the better and
more consistent the product will be. The resultant compost product makes a valuable soil
amendment due to its high organic matter content. Because compost contains high levels of organic
carbon, which can fuel key ecosystem functions like nutrient cycling, water retention, and erosion
control, it can also help rebuild soils.
One distinct advantage that composting has compared to other organic treatment systems is its
ability to work at a wide range of scales with both low technology and sophisticated systems. A
homeowner’s backyard compost bin or pile can be an effective method for recycling household food
scraps and yard trimmings. On a larger scale, municipal and private facilities operating in New York
State recycle from as little as a few hundred cubic yards of organics to more than 200,000 cubic
yards each year and handle a variety of materials, including yard trimmings, food scraps, manure,
biosolids, and mixed solid waste. When evaluating alternative processing methods, key criteria
include available land and labor—passive composting systems with limited management
requirements will use more land area and take more time. More active composting systems with
greater management requirements can process the materials more quickly using less land. While it
is important to be aware of odor concerns, a well‐run composting system will not create
problematic odors.
As discussed above, expanding composting to capture the substantial volume of food scraps and
non‐recyclable paper that are still being thrown away would significantly increase the overall
recycling rate in New York State. The cost for a composting facility for food scraps varies depending
on the technology employed, the size of the facility, and the revenue received for the product. As
demonstrated in the table below, typically the processing cost will be $40‫־‬$60 per ton of food scraps
received. Food scrap composting programs may also incur additional costs, including collection.
However, collection costs can be avoided or minimized through the development of on‐site systems,
such as backyard composting for residences and small‐scale composting operations at the location
of large generators, such as colleges, institutions and food processing facilities.


TABLE 8.1
Operating Costs for Food Scraps Composting Facilities

NYS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS $ 34/TON
TERRA FIRMA ORGANICS, WYOMING 50/TON
BARNES NURSERY, OHIO 26/TON

CEDAR GROVE, WASHINGTON 55/TON
MACKINAC ISLAND, MICHIGAN 37/TON
CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 52/TON

Large‐scale composting systems for mixed solid waste streams have been available in the US for 25
years. While some facilities built in the last two decades have closed due to odor or product quality
issues, 13 still exist today.59 One of the newest and most successful systems is located in Delaware
County, NY. The Delaware County MSW Co‐composting Facility is a sophisticated system designed
to accept mixed solid waste, biosolids, and dairy waste. The Delaware County facility was designed
to manage 33,400 tons of MSW annually (after source separation of recyclables), 2,300 tons of
whey, and 9,900 tons of biosolids. The facility, which is fully enclosed (with three months of product
curing/storage capacity), consists of a large rotating drum that accomplishes the initial biological
degradation, a primary separation system to remove non‐organics, a multi‐bay composting system,
a secondary removal system, and a long‐term aerated curing and storage area. The result is a
product that meets the state’s strict quality standards for sale as Class A compost and generates
revenue to offset operating costs.

8.4.1 (b) Anaerobic Digestion (Biogas)
Anaerobic digestion is a biochemical degradation process that converts complex organic materials
into biogas in the absence of oxygen. Biogas is composed of methane, carbon dioxide, and small
amounts of hydrogen sulfide. Once the biogas has been extracted, the remaining slurry must be
separated into liquids and solids, usually using a screw press or similar device.
After testing, the liquid portion generally can be used as fertilizer, and the solids can be directly
applied to the soil or be further processed through composting.
Some of the potential advantages of using anaerobic digestion include:
• Reduction in odor
• Reduction in pathogen content
• Reduction in solid mass
• Biogas production for heat or electrical power
• Space efficiency

59
BioCycle, November 2008.

NYS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES LEADS IN FOOD
COMPOSTING
The NYS Department of Corrections (DOC) diverts more compostable material from the
waste stream than any other entity in the state. The DOC’s 29 composting facilities divert
more than 50 tons per day of food scraps and wood chips from 52 correctional facilities.
Since the inception of DOC’s resource management program, the agency has diverted
more than 270,000 tons of food scraps and recyclables and saved the state more than $37
million.
DOC also leads the way on food waste reduction and the redistribution of usable food. By
operating a cook/chill facility that prepares bulk quantities of food at a food production
plant, DOC significantly reduced the amount of food waste it produces. Meals are sealed
in bulk in multi‐portion bags, chilled and then distributed to facilities around the state. In
addition, DOC donates consumable food to families in need through the ComLinks

For decades, anaerobic digestion has been used as an accepted way to stabilize biosolids from
wastewater treatment. Use of the technology for other organic material streams has grown in
popularity in New York State, and today there are 15 digestion facilities in the state that process
manure. Some of these facilities also incorporate food scraps. Experience has shown that food
scraps, fats, oils and grease can increase biogas production in these systems, as well as help
generate income through tipping fees.
Although experience with digesters in New York State and elsewhere in the US—aside from
wastewater treatment—has been largely limited to manure and some food processing waste, more
technically sophisticated anaerobic digestion has the potential to process source‐separated food
scraps and other organic waste. In Europe, nearly 90 anaerobic digestion facilities process MSW,
managing a total of 2.75 million tons per year. While most of those facilities accept source‐
separated organic waste, some European plants accept mixed waste and process it to remove
contaminants prior to digestion. 60 In Canada, the City of Toronto operates an anaerobic digester for
residential food scraps so successfully that it is expanding its system to include a second digester.
Anaerobic digesters are getting additional consideration in the US for treatment of food scraps due
to the potential for energy generation.
A study prepared by the Tellus Institute for the State of Massachusetts estimates the energy
generation potential of anaerobic digestion at 250 kWh per ton of materials, as compared to 105
kWh per ton in landfills and 585 kWh per ton in MWC. Capital costs for these facilities vary
depending on the waste stream handled and the pre‐processing required.

60
Assessment of Materials Management Options for MA Solid Waste Master Plan Review, Tellus Institute.

8.4.1 (c) Direct Land Application
Sometimes organic wastes can be applied directly to agricultural land with little or no prior
treatment, as long as the materials meet regulatory requirements for controlling potential
contaminants. DEC regulations are intended to address and control problems related to land
application, such as odors and runoff, particularly the spread of pathogens that can damage waste
supplies or crops.
New York State is a prolific dairy producer, and dairy farmers have historically managed animal
manure as organic waste. Traditionally, manure was directly applied to the soil as a nutrient source.
Similarly, harvesting crops results in leaves, stalks, or other plant waste remaining on the field,
which often gets turned into the soil to be used as a source of nutrients and organic matter for the
subsequent growing season.
Although these organic residuals can also be composted or processed using other means, direct land
application is still a common and acceptable practice and in many cases, serves as a direct source of
nutrients for farms. However, this is changing as farms grow and cannot effectively apply the large
amount of materials they generate. Limitations on the amount of organics that can be applied per
acre continue to support the increased use of anaerobic digesters and composting on dairy farms.
There are also non‐farm organic waste streams that can be directly applied to agricultural lands,
including biosolids, food processing waste, leaves, grass clippings, and more. These can serve as
good sources of nutrients for farms that don’t generate enough organic waste on their own and
offer cost savings better than most commercially available fertilizers. For any land application
program, a number of factors must be considered, such as the length of the growing season,
weather, storage, transportation, and the nutrient needs of the crops grown.

8.4.1 (d) Vermicomposting
Vermicomposting is a method of degrading organic waste using worms. The worms, which are
earthworms commonly known as red worms, red wigglers or manure worms, consume any edible
waste and excrete castings or worm manure that are considered to be excellent nutrient‐rich, soil
amendments. Worms will eat a wide variety of organic materials, such as paper, manure, fruit and
vegetable waste, grains, yard trimmings, and biosolids. For the worms to effectively process organic
material, it must be moist but not water logged and in small enough component units for the worms
to swallow. The wastes cannot contain materials toxic to the worms, which can survive a wide range
of temperatures but are most efficient between 55° and 77°F.
Once the worms have consumed the organics, their castings are separated so that they can be
applied as a soil amendment and the worms reused to consume the next batch of organic waste.
Vermicomposting can work on a small scale (a 12‐20 gallon bin is often suitable for a residence) or
on a large scale (worm beds can be hundreds of feet in length and handle hundreds of tons of
organic waste). An example of a large‐scale vermicomposting system in New York State is Organix
Green Industries in Ontario County, which accepts up to 10,000 cubic yards of leaves, grass, and
food processing waste each year. The incoming organics are shredded and placed in trenches with
the worms for six months. The trenches are two‐feet deep, four‐feet wide and 100‐feet long.
Organix is currently using only four acres but has sufficient area on site to build 50 worm beds.

8.4.1 (e) In‐Sink Food Scrap Disposers
Many communities manage some food scraps in combination with biosolids by allowing or
encouraging the use of kitchen sink food disposers or “garbage disposals” in both commercial and
residential settings—essentially, sending it to the local treatment facility along with other
wastewater. Encouraging or requiring these “garbage disposals” in certain circumstances can
further recycling goals. Critical considerations include:
• Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity: Service areas of facilities that regularly overflow
to combined sewer outfalls would not be ideal locations for the addition of food scraps to
the wastewater stream. Areas served by septic systems are also inappropriate for food
waste disposers because they can lead to system failure that impacts surface and
groundwater quality.
• Recycling of wastewater treatment plant biosolids: Using food scrap disposers in service
areas of the wastewater treatment plants that process biosolids through composting could
be costeffective and environmentally beneficial. On the other hand, incentivizing or
requiring disposers serviced by a wastewater treatment plant that incinerates (without
energy recovery) or landfills its biosolids can actually be environmentally counterproductive

8.4.1 (f) Rendering
Rendering is a process that converts waste animal tissue into stable, value‐added materials.
Rendering simultaneously dries the waste and separates the fat from the bone and protein, yielding
a fat product (possibly including yellow grease, white grease, tallow) and a protein meal (meat and
bone meal, poultry byproduct meal, etc.). The protein is then dried and ground prior to storage. The
fat product is further refined prior to distribution.
Because one‐third to one‐half of each animal produced for meat, milk, eggs, and fiber is not
consumed by humans, a majority of animal waste comes from slaughterhouses. However,
restaurant grease, butcher shop trimmings, expired meat from grocery stores, and carcasses of
euthanized and dead animals from shelters, zoos, farms, and veterinary offices can all be suitable
feedstock for rendering. Rendering has become more expensive and less available for these
materials, so there has been a substantial increase in their composting. Restrictions on the animal
parts that can be used for production of feed for ruminant animals, due to fears of mad cow disease,
have also resulted in the decrease of rendering capacity in New York State and elsewhere.
8.4.1 (g) Heat Drying
Heat drying is a treatment process that removes almost all of the water from biosolids. Although the
chemical composition of treated biosolids remains essentially the same following heat drying, the
percent of solids left is 90 percent or greater. Depending on the system employed, the end product
will either be a powder‐like material or grain‐sized pellets. These heat‐dried products are typically
used directly as a fertilizer or blended with other nutrients to produce highergrade fertilizers. There
are two heat‐drying facilities in the state. The largest is a private facility in New York City with the
capacity to make 300 dry tons per day.

8.4.1 (h) Chemical Stabilization
Chemical stabilization facilities mix commercial lime and/or lime equivalents with biosolids to
achieve pathogen destruction. Alkaline materials like lime or cement kiln dust are mixed with
dewatered biosolids, where the combined materials react to generate heat while also raising the pH
of the mass. The resultant product is used primarily as a lime substitute in agriculture. Chemical
stabilization facilities consist of a mixing device, a bunker where the material is allowed to react, and
a curing area to allow the material to stabilize. Chemical stabilization is used by three facilities that
treat biosolids in New York State. The largest chemical stabilization facility is located in Syracuse and
processes 10,800 dry tons per year.

8.4.2 Developing sufficient organics recycling capacity
While substantial yard trimmings composting infrastructure exists in New York State, to recover
additional organics such as food scraps and non‐recyclable paper, additional infrastructure will be
needed. In 2008, DEC held a number of forums across the state to bring together food scrap
generators and potential users, including food banks and composting facilities. A consistent theme
that emerged from the forums is the need of organic waste generators to find beneficial uses for
their unused food. It is clear that the lack of capacity for handling food scraps at composting
facilities or anaerobic digesters inhibits expansion of food scrap recycling. Using information learned
from the forums, DEC is developing a plan to facilitate greater diversion and recycling of food scraps
through education, networking and assistance with new infrastructure development.

8.4.3 Organics Collection
Since the technology is effective and can be cost competitive with alternative management options,
the true roadblocks to increased composting of food scraps are aggregation and transportation.
There is currently no standard method for collection of these organics. The specifics of each
program must depend on the type and quantity of organics being collected, how frequently it would
need to be picked up, the type of generator, spatial considerations at the points of generation and
management, the distance to the recycling facility, and the cost of collection vehicles. 61
Municipalities have achieved organics collection without increasing overall program collection costs
by implementing source‐separated organics collection along with other program changes, instead of
as an “add on” to existing systems. Most often, this is accomplished by:
• Adjusting collection schedules: Once recyclables, food scraps and other putrescible organics
are removed from the waste stream, the remaining waste can be collected less frequently.

61
A comprehensive summary of the various techniques and types of equipment currently being used to collect
and transport food scraps, “Source Separated Organics Collection” by Craig Coker, was published in the
January, 2009 edition of BioCycle magazine (see www.biocycle.net). Additional information is available at
the “Compostable Organics Out of Landfills by 2012”
website, http://www.cool2012.com/community/collection/.

For example, in Toronto, organics are collected weekly, while recyclables and the remaining
waste are collected on alternate weeks.
• Converting to semi‐automated collection: Using toters and semi‐automated collection can
reduce the number of workers per truck, thereby reducing labor costs as well as worker
injuries and resulting in significant savings. 62

8.4.4 Competition for Biomass
Composting operations sometimes use wood chips or some other biomass as a bulking agent to
facilitate the composting process. With the growing imperative to develop renewable energy
sources, there is increased interest in using wood chips and other sources of biomass to generate
electricity or be converted into fuel. Already, these efforts are increasing demand for wood chips,
causing composting operations to compete for what was once a free and plentiful material. Further
demand for wood chips as a fuel could exacerbate this problem and create a significant market
dislocation for composting operations.

8.4.5 Findings
• Organics comprise 30 percent of the MSW in New York State.
• Recycling organics has multiple benefits, including reducing the generation of GHGs, creating
valuable soil amendments, creating jobs and reducing reliance on waste disposal.
• Organic materials are diverse, and there is a wide variety of technologies to recover them.
• Costs to compost or otherwise recycle organic materials vary widely, depending on the
technology applied, the feedstock recycled, the cost of land, and other factors.

This Plan seeks to progressively reduce the amount of materials disposed of in landfills or through
MWCs. Achieving that goal necessitates an increase in the recycling of organic materials for value‐
added end uses like soil amendments. To maximize the environmental and social benefits of the
recycling system, organic materials should be directed, where possible, to their highest and best
use. (See additional recommendations in Sections 8.1 and 8.2.)
As New York State seeks to improve recycling and move Beyond Waste, the state and its solid waste
management planning units must implement the wide range of actions listed below. Fully realizing
these recommendations will require additional resources—both financial and human—at the state
and local level.

62
Making Recycling Work: A Roundtable on the Future of Recycling Proceedings Report, Center for
Environmental and Economic Partnership, page 4

• Promote and demonstrate organics recycling systems and activities within state agencies:
o Work with DOT, OGS, DEC Operations staff, and the Office of Parks and Recreation
(OPR) to increase state use of locally available compost, mulch and soil amendments
as directed in EO 4.
o Continue to work with OGS in support of its efforts to implement organic recycling
programs at state agencies, with a goal of diverting all state‐generated organic
materials to recycling.
o Work with staff at DOC to assess any obstacles to accepting food scraps from other
state facilities at nearby correctional facilities with existing composting operations.
o Work with all state agencies, including the State University of New York (SUNY)
system of colleges and universities, to recycle food scraps through implementation
of EO 4; focus on on‐site systems where possible.
o Publicize organic recycling efforts ongoing in the state via the website, ESD’s
Recycling Markets Database, agency publications and other communications.
o Identify interested school systems and assist them in demonstrating the advantages
of on‐site composting systems. Work with New York State‐based Go Green Initiative
participants to implement new systems.
• Use information and contacts from food scrap forums across the state to identify new
opportunities for food waste generators (food processors, restaurants, and retailers) to
work with processors and endusers.
• Help existing facilities that compost yard trimmings, institutional organics, biosolids or on‐
farm organic residuals to determine the feasibility of accepting food scraps or food
processing waste at their facilities. Encourage and facilitate demonstration projects at
appropriate sites.
• Determine how the ESD, NYSERDA, Ag & Markets, and the EFC can work together to
promote and expand composting and organics recycling.
o Quantify the statewide available food scrap feedstock, and assess the current and
potential capacity for managing materials at their highest value (ESD, DEC and Ag &
Markets).
o Identify and develop a database of wood waste generators and, in particular, utility
supplies of waste wood, and coordinate with compost facility need (ESD, NYSERDA).
o Allocate existing or develop new funding sources for composting and organics
recycling infrastructure needs.
• Continue to provide technical and regulatory assistance for entities (private and public)
interested in developing small and large‐scale organic recycling systems and operators
interested in demonstrating the viability of incorporating food scraps into existing yard
trimmings or biosolids composting facilities.

• Require planning units to more closely evaluate the remaining organic portion of their waste
streams in LSWMPs and, where feasible, develop ways to recycle these materials.
• Complete a technology assessment of composting and organics recycling technologies,
including technology and financing options, to aid planning units in evaluating food waste
recovery systems.
• Evaluate the progress toward organics recycling in biennial state solid waste management
plans and recommend additional policy approaches, including phased‐in disposal
prohibitions where readily available alternatives would allow for the diversion of significant
amounts of food residuals from either specific sectors (institutional/commercial/industrial,
for example) or from all sources, including residential.
• Evaluate and implement, where appropriate, strategies to promote the establishment of
organics recycling facilities in the environmental quality review and regulatory process for
other solid waste management facilities.
• Generate additional revenue for composting and other organics recycling activities by
working with other regional greenhouse gas initiative (RGGI) states to include as an eligible
carbon offset category. (See section 6.3.3.)
• Provide funding to a non‐governmental organization to:
o Develop and distribute written guidance on the regulatory requirements governing
consumable food used for animal feed, including an outline of what food residuals
are amenable to animal feed and how they can best be used
o Work with Cooperative Extension agents to identify farms and local food sources
and facilitate relationships for the productive use of food scraps
o Hold forums across the state to disseminate information and facilitate relationships
between the sources and farmers
• Work with the NERC to take full advantage of its On‐Farm Compost Marketing Project,
including connecting farms with NERC’s technical assistance services and disseminating the
Compost Marketing Toolkit.

• Restrict the disposal of recognizable quantities of yard trimmings from solid waste disposal
facilities through special permit conditions or revision to the Part 360 regulations
• Review existing state regulations to remove or address contradictory regulatory
requirements that limit the creation or expansion of composting and other organics
recycling facilities


8.4.6 (c) Legislative Recommendations
• Amend state law to list categories of food scraps and residuals as a mandatory recyclable,
and phase in restrictions on the disposal of organics where sufficient infrastructure is readily
available to recycle these materials
• Expand the ESD’s investment authority to allow for support of anaerobic digesters and other
technologies that can cost effectively convert organic residuals to biogas and other energy
products in addition to generating a valuable end product.

8.5 BENEFICIAL USE DETERMINATIONS (BUDS)
A BUD is a jurisdictional designation made by DEC in regard to a material that has been used and is
no longer usable for its original purpose but can be directed to an alternative use considered to be
beneficial compared to disposal. Some BUDs, referred to as pre‐determined BUDs, are set forth in
Part 360, the state’s solid waste regulations, and others are designated by DEC on a case‐by‐case
basis. Once a material satisfies the conditions for a pre‐determined BUD or DEC grants a case‐
specific BUD, the material ceases to be considered a solid waste (for the purposes of Part 360).
Since the inception of the BUD program in 1993, DEC has reviewed more than 950 BUD petitions
and granted 533 BUDs.
While not specifically identified in the solid waste management hierarchy, DEC generally considers
BUDs to be preferable, by definition, to waste disposal from an overall environmental perspective
because the materials generally offset the use of virgin material. While deemed as “reuse” of
materials in the Part 360 regulations (i.e., The essential nature of the proposed use of the
material constitutes a reuse rather than disposal), not all BUD uses are counted as recycling,
particularly when they do not represent the highest and best use of a material. Some BUDs are
granted for fuel‐related uses or for low‐value end uses, such as landfill daily cover, and the GHG and
overall environmental benefits of these BUDs are not as significant as reuse or recycling a material
into a new product that can be recycled or reused for its original purpose.
A BUD is not subject to State Environmental Quality Review or State Administrative Procedure Act
requirements. However, DEC applies certain regulatory criteria in making these designations. The
criteria include:
• Is the material intended to function or serve as an effective substitute for an analogous raw
material or fuel? Is the proposal consistent with the solid waste management policy?
• Does the use of the material adversely affect human health and safety, the environment, or
natural resources?
• Does a market for the proposed product or use exist?
According to DEC’s annual survey, more than two‐million tons of material was beneficially used in
2008. This figure includes materials used under case‐specific BUDs and the pre‐determined coal
combustion ash BUDs; other pre‐determined BUDs are not tracked or reported. Landfills in the

state reported the beneficial use of an additional 2.1 million tons of materials as alternative daily
cover (ADC), a predetermined BUD.
Only 3 percent of the two‐million tons of BUD materials reported originated from MSW sources; the
vast majority were from industrial sources (58 percent) or construction, demolition, remediation, or
dredging projects (38 percent). Approximately 53 percent of the BUD materials reported were used
in some form of soil or soil‐like application, and 26 percent of BUD materials were used as
alternative fuel. Only 36 percent of BUD materials represent recycling‐related uses, while 8 percent
of BUD materials are used in a landfill setting. Figures 8.2 and 8.3 below show a breakdown for
case‐specific BUDs by major categories of waste and by beneficial use.
Only the BUDs that represent recycling‐related uses are included in the total statewide recycling
rate. However, BUDs for use as ADC or alternate grading material in landfills and for alternate fuels
are not. This distinction has caused confusion because BUDs have often been equated with
recycling.

8.5.1 Pre‐Determined BUDs
As of 2009, 16 pre‐determined BUDs have been designated in the solid waste regulations. Examples
of pre‐determined BUDs include: compost, newspapers when used as animal bedding, tire chips
when used as aggregate for road base or asphalt pavements, non‐hazardous contaminated soils
excavated as a part of construction and used onsite as backfill, and wastes that are approved by DEC
for use as alternative daily cover at landfills.
Pre‐determined BUDs provide a significant market for C&D debris materials. Current BUD
regulations allow for specific uses of: unadulterated wood, wood chips and bark; uncontaminated
glass; recognizable and uncontaminated soil; nonhazardous contaminated soil, and recognizable,
uncontaminated concrete and concrete products, asphalt pavement, brick, glass, and rock. 63
Processed mixed C&D debris (containing wood, plastic, insulation, wallboard, etc.) may also be used
as ADC at landfills if it meets certain performance criteria.
Some pre‐determined BUDs are self‐implementing in that the user needs no prior approval (e.g.,use
of newsprint as animal bedding), while others may require DEC authorization (e.g, use as ADC at a
landfill). The predetermined coal ash BUDs are the only pre‐determined BUDs with an annual
reporting requirement.
DEC periodically reviews the list of predetermined BUDs to re‐evaluate their suitability as
unregulated activities. For example, in a recent review, DEC concluded that the use of coal fly ash as
a feedstock for high‐temperature kilns for the manufacture of cement could significantly impact air
emissions, depending on the source and composition of the fly ash. Therefore, in 2009, DEC
initiated a rulemaking procedure to eliminate the pre‐determined BUD for this activity and instead
require a case‐specific BUD to ensure appropriate oversight and evaluation of individual sources of
fly ash in each petition as described below.

63
In the context of DEC’s C&D debris regulations, “recognizable” means readily identifiable by visual
observation and “uncontaminated” means not mixed or commingled with other solid wastes and not
having come into contact with spilled petroleum products, hazardous waste, or industrial waste.

8.5.2 Case‐specific BUDs
In situations where a particular proposed use is not specifically identified as a pre‐determined BUD,
generators and potential users can petition DEC for a case‐specific BUD. Unless otherwise directed
by DEC, a case‐specific BUD petition must include a physical and chemical characterization of the
solid waste and the proposed product, a demonstration that there is a known or probable use or
market, and a solid waste control plan. Following a review of the petition, DEC determines whether
the proposed use constitutes a beneficial use based on a showing that all regulatory criteria have
been met. For example, a petition that seeks a BUD for substitution of a waste material for a raw
material in a manufacturing process will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed use is a
legitimate substitution or whether the predominant nature of the use is comparable to disposal. If a
BUD involves the use of materials in place of soil, DEC may reference test results, where
appropriate, for consistency with the recently‐promulgated 6 NYCRR Part 375 soil cleanup
objectives.
Generally, case‐specific BUDs are for waste material used as:
• A substitute for a component material in the manufacture of a product
• A substitute for a commercial product
• An alternative fuel
Some examples of case‐specific BUDs that have been granted include the use of:
• Dried papermill sludge as animal bedding and poultry litter
• Foundry sand as an aggregate in the production of concrete and as construction fill material
• Tire chips in civil engineering applications such as construction fill
• Non‐recyclable waxed cardboard as an alternative fuel
Most case‐specific BUDs require the user to perform periodic tests to reaffirm the physical and
chemical characterization of the material and the product. DEC always reserves the right to revoke a
case‐specific BUD based on non‐compliance with conditions on which the BUD was based or if new
information points to the potential for an adverse effect. Facility inspections or followup with
generators or endusers may also reveal the need to revoke a BUD.


8.5.3 BUD Data and Trends

FIGURE 8.2

Note: “Other” includes miscellaneous byproducts from manufacturing or refining processes, such as
spent catalysts or dusts; asphalt shingles; ceramics; food scraps; yard trimmings, and non‐recyclable
paper and plastic. Individually, each of these miscellaneous materials constitute less than five
percent of the case‐specific BUDs total. Some solid wastes granted case‐specific BUDs prior to the
1993 version of Part 360 (e.g., certain uses of coal ash) have been subsequently addressed in
regulation as pre‐determined BUDs.


FIGURE 8.3

Note: “Other” includes various specific applications such as the construction of barnyard pads, track surfaces and tire walls and use as
abrasives.
8.5.4 Toxics Along for the Ride
“Toxics along for the ride” (TARs), as termed by the EPA, is one of four factors used by the EPA to
determine when recycling of hazardous secondary materials is legitimate. TARS refers to
concentrations of hazardous constituents, such as mercury, lead, or other materials that are present
in solid wastes proposed as effective substitutes for conventional raw materials or products but that
are not essential to, normally part of or positively contributing to the material’s beneficial use.
However, it is important to note that the mere detection of such constituents does not disqualify a
material from beneficial use.
The EPA provided guidance on this issue in the December 2008 regulation defining solid waste (40
CFR Parts 260, 261 and 270) for the hazardous waste program. This guidance is intended to avoid
“sham recycling” where users of secondary materials incorporate hazardous constituents into a
product to avoid proper hazardous waste disposal. DEC has adopted the “TARS factor” concept for
use in its solid waste BUD program. When evaluating a BUD, toxic constituents must be identified
and compared to those found in analogous products or feedstocks. If the BUD material contains
toxic constituents that are not present in analogous feedstocks or if the product contains toxics in
greater concentrations than analogous products, DEC will determine on a case‐by‐case basis
whether the difference in concentration is significant based on the facts of the activity. This is
consistent with the EPA’s approach, which considers the relevant principles and facts under which a
specific proposal is analyzed.

In most cases, if the level of hazardous constituents in the BUD product or feedstock is significantly
greater than the analogous product or feedstock, it should not be considered a legitimate
application. However, in certain circumstances, the BUD can be considered legitimate even if there
are “toxics along for the ride.” The factors that should be evaluated in this case include whether the
BUD materials are likely to be released into the environment or damage human health and the
environment, and whether the BUD material provides value or contributes to the effectiveness of
the material.
DEC follows EPA guidance to carefully evaluate BUDs to place limits on the concentration or mass
loading of hazardous constituents to deter sham recycling and to avoid adverse effects to human
health and safety and the environment.
The December 2006 revision to 6 NYCRR Part 375, “Environmental Remediation Programs,” contains
soil cleanup objectives (SCOs) which vary depending on the proposed use of the property being
remediated. These SCOs do not directly apply to the BUD program but can be used as benchmarks
where appropriate to measure the impact from chemical constituents in waste soils and dredged
material and have proven to be a helpful tool in evaluating BUD petitions. DEC is required by statute
to update the Part 375 soil cleanup objectives every five years.

8.5.5 Upland Management of Navigational Dredged Material
Dredging of harbors and waterways is necessary to provide the proper channel depth for navigation,
which allows transportation and commercial shipping on New York State waterways. Disposal of
dredged material in upland areas (i.e., areas that are not in water and are not considered part of the
riparian zone) is subject to the disposal requirements of Part 360, unless used beneficially (e.g., in
place of commercial fill, aggregate, or topsoil). The cost of properly managing dredge spoils is a
major impediment to dredging projects. Contaminants of concern in dredged material include a
variety of organic chemicals and heavy metals, petroleum compounds and lead and mercury.
Pesticide residues may persist from agricultural runoff into waterways, and industrial discharges
have contributed polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and furans in certain locations.
BUDs for dredged material are granted on a case‐specific basis, though efforts continue to develop
policies and regulations to streamline reviews. Sandy, gravelly sediments, for example, seldom
contain significant contamination. The 2010 proposed revisions to Part 360 will include pre‐
determined BUDs for use of dredged material comprising sand and gravel and specific procedures
for petitioning for case‐specific dredged material BUDs.
The most significant volumes of navigational dredged materials are generated in the New York/New
Jersey Harbor, where an estimated four‐million cubic yards of material must be dredged annually to
properly maintain channels. Currently, much of this material is not beneficially used locally and is
exported, instead, by rail for use or disposal elsewhere. Lakes Ontario and Erie also require
significant channel maintenance. Inland, major rivers and the New York State Barge Canal are
maintained through periodic dredging, and innumerable lakes, ponds, and private marinas are
dredged for commercial shipping, recreational boating or aesthetic purposes. In‐water disposal of
dredged material, including once‐common ocean disposal, has become severely restricted. Much

dredged material is placed in shoreline (riparian) disposal sites in accordance with state or federal
dredging permits.
More widespread beneficial use of dredged materials, where environmentally safe, would alleviate
the strain on disposal capacity in these riparian sites and landfills and, in many instances, foster
more timely maintenance of waterways. Careful planning of future shoreline development and
siting of new facilities such as marinas or structures such as seawalls and piers could anticipate the
natural movement and deposition of sediments and reduce the frequency and volume of
maintenance dredging.
DEC has participated in various interstate and international groups such as the New York Dredge
Team (with the US Army Corps of Engineers, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
USEPA) and the Great Lakes Dredge Team, affiliated with the Great Lakes Commission. Within DEC,
the Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials (DSHM) works with the divisions of Water (DOW),
Environmental Permits (DEP), Environmental Remediation (DER), and Fish, Wildlife & Marine
Resources (DFWMR) in reviewing significant projects and the ongoing development of guidelines
and procedures. Involvement with these entities, both inside and outside DEC, gives the
department access to progressing science with regard to sediment and dredged material, including
treatment technologies for contamination that could allow for more widespread beneficial use.

8.5.6 Fill
Use of excavated soil from one construction site as fill at another project site is a common beneficial
use and is addressed by several pre‐determined BUDs or, where appropriate, by case‐specific BUDs
for excavated soils from historic fill areas. For more on historic fill, see Section 7.3.4.

8.5.7 Crushed Container Glass
Municipal and private MRFs collect many tons annually of returnable and recyclable glass
containers. Traditionally, the crushed‐glass cullet has been sold for container re‐manufacture, but
glass containers are in decline and the markets that remain have strict specifications that many
MRFs cannot meet due to contamination. (For more on glass issues, see Section 8.3.8.) As a result,
more recyclers are turning to BUDs to market their mixed‐color glass.
ESD has invested in many glass BUD projects and is supporting higher‐value beneficial uses for glass,
including as stormwater runoff drainage material and as a sand blast medium.
One of the pre‐determined BUDs allows use of uncontaminated glass as a substitute for
conventional aggregate in asphalt or subgrade applications. Contaminants include metal rings,
paper labels, plastic caps, ceramics, non‐container glass or other solid wastes, soil, or excessive food
residues.


8.5.8 Biofuels
Interest in, and production of, biodiesel from waste cooking oils and grease has greatly increased
statewide. While handling and transfer of waste cooking oils and greases or other biomass may
require permitting under Part 360, some producers of these biofuels operate under the
“manufacturing exemption” definition of solid waste. NYSERDA has worked with DEC in advising
biofuel producers of approvals needed to ensure safe and environmentallyprotective operations.
As the practice grows in popularity and as other materials are proposed, solid waste regulation may
be needed for many biofuel producers to ensure the protection of environmental quality, though
other environmental regulations for chemical bulk storage or air quality may also apply. The 2010
proposed revisions to Part 360 would clarify the status of certain biofuel processes. For example, the
proposed regulations will clarify that gasification, plasma arc and pyrolysis facilities for the purpose
of producing fuels from MSW are regulated as MWCs and not considered exempt or BUD activities.

8.5.9 Agricultural Uses
DEC has experienced an increase in the last several years in BUD petitions to use alternatives to
traditional materials in agriculture, especially in upstate New York. Paper mill sludge, when
thermally dried or mixed with lime to absorb water, has proven a successful bedding material for
cattle in place of traditional sawdust. Spent paper mill sludge bedding can be landapplied, usually
onsite at the farm, contributing to soil nutrients. Wood products from furniture makers have also
been put to use as animal bedding on farms.
Soils in many areas of New York State may require regular application of lime to raise pH for
improved crop growth, and DEC has granted BUDs for alternatives such as coal ash or cement kiln
dust (CKD) on a case‐specific basis. An evaluation of background soil concentrations and careful
limits on trace heavy metals in ash or CKD are necessary to prevent the accumulation of heavy
metals in soils.

8.5.10 Access to Markets
The logistics of developing and accessing markets and generating marketable quantities of BUD
material continue to hamper beneficial use. Many approved uses never materialize due to a failure
to match the generator with end users. In addition to testing requirements that are intended to
protect public health and the environment, BUD petitioners are required to demonstrate a market.
However, unforeseen circumstances can prevent actual use of waste materials. Industry groups
continue to help in this area by sponsoring clearinghouses for available materials. Interstate groups
such as the NEWMOA sponsor databases concerning BUDs or equivalent approvals by member
states to facilitate beneficial use of various byproducts and wastes.


8.5.11 Relationship of BUDs to Recycling Rate
When DEC calculates New York State’s total recycling rate, it generally includes certain C&D and
industrial BUD materials based on a review of the applications and reports that are submitted.
Generally, uses that involve substitution for another material, such as mixed color glass or chipped
tires that are used in place of virgin aggregate or wood chips used in landscaping, are counted
toward the state’s total recycling rate. However, BUD materials that are used in fuel‐related
applications or as ADC, alternative grading material, or temporary roadways at landfills are not
included in the total recycling rate calculation. Virtually no BUD materials are counted toward the
MSW recycling rate.
This structure for gathering and aggregating data tends to create confusion and a lack of clarity as
to what the state does or does not count toward recycling.

8.5.12 Findings
A tremendous amount of solid waste–more than 4 million tons in 2008—is put to use through
implementation of DEC’s BUD program. However, DEC needs to update the regulations and develop
policy to divert even more material to productive use and provide transparency on how DEC views
the beneficial use of waste materials as a fuel, as fill, and in landfill‐related uses (e.g., ADC and
grading materials) in the context of proper solid waste management.

• Develop standardized cover sheets for case‐specific BUD applications addressing the basic
information necessary and criteria for beneficial use of priority solid waste streams,
including: papermill sludge in animal bedding; foundry sand and crushed glass in fill; water
treatment alum sludge to amend soil; and coal ash and cement kiln dust as liming agents.
• Develop a DSHM policy regarding appropriate use of 6 NYCRR Part 375 soil cleanup
objectives in the review of waste soils and soil‐like materials for beneficial use in topsoil and
fill.
• Develop memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with other divisions or agencies as needed
to streamline BUD procedures or establish standards for beneficially used materials.
• Expand beneficial use applications for mixed color recovered glass by conducting pilot
projects to demonstrate acceptability of glass as a filter medium under DEC’s DOW
Stormwater Design Manual’s Criteria for Acceptable Practices, and also acceptance by DOH
for use in residential septic systems. Funding for pilot projects will be sought from
development authorities, USEPA, or other sources.
• Encourage the use of BUD materials, particularly mixed‐color recovered glass and tire‐
derived rubber, through the implementation of the green procurement requirements of
EO4. (See appendix 8.1 and http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/ExecutiveOrder4.html.)

• Include the following changes in the 2010 proposed Part 360 revisions:
o Remove certain pre‐determined BUDs
o Establish additional pre‐determined BUDs, especially for use of cooking oil for
biodiesel, use of foundry by‐products in concrete, and use of clean dredged
materials as aggregate
o Authorize DEC to issue additional pre‐determined BUDs or rescind an existing
predetermined BUD without requiring an amendment to Part 360. This is intended
to transition case specific BUDs to predetermined BUDs without needing to change
Part 360. Eliminate those that are no longer appropriate.
o Create recordkeeping and recording categories for BUDs that provide clarity with
regard to those that are considered recycling and those that are not (e.g., fuel‐
related and landfill‐related uses).
o Include new regulations on historic fill and additional operational conditions in its
use that protect neighboring areas, particularly in communities of disproportionate
impact.


9. DISPOSAL

”WASTE NOT, WANT NOT.” Anonymous

While significant strides have been made by the state and its communities, businesses and residents
to increase recycling and reduce waste, the data indicate that there is still much room for
improvement. Twenty years after the state adopted a solid waste management hierarchy that
places waste prevention, reuse and recycling ahead of disposal, nearly 65 percent of waste managed
in the state and approximately 80 percent of MSW ends up in disposal facilities. (See Table 9.1; for a
description of each stream, see Section 7; for a discussion of the data that support these figures, see
Section 8.3.1.)

TABLE 9.1 WASTE DISPOSAL IN NYS
MSW Industrial C&D Biosolids Total

Million Million Million Million Million
Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons %
Landfill‐Waste 6.7 43 1.6 73 2.9 48 0.3 33 11.5 46
Landfill‐ ADC 0.2 0.1 0.5 23 1.6 26 <0.1 1.0 2.3 9
Combustion 2.8 18 0.1 4.0 <.01 0 0.4 44 3.3 13
Export for
Disposal 6.0 39 <0.1 0 1.6 26 0.2 22 7.9 32

Total 15.7 100 2.2 100 6.1 100 0.9 100 25 100
While this Plan details a set of strategies to achieve substantial reductions in waste disposal and
increase reuse and recycling, when these strategies are implemented, there will still be residual
wastes requiring disposal. This section describes the various disposal methods and facilities used by
New York State’s communities and the network of transfer stations that consolidate waste for
disposal. The analysis provided here is based on environmental characteristics alone and does not
address economic, contractual or planning issues that communities in New York must consider when
evaluating an appropriate disposal method for residual waste.
DEC estimates presented in this section are based on data provided in solid waste management
facility annual reports for amounts of waste handled by the following three primary management
methods—municipal waste combustion (MWC), landfilling and export.


These estimates include imported waste that is managed by facilities in New York State; the amount
exported for disposal in Table 9.1 includes the amounts reported by transfer stations that export
waste, as well as an adjustment of approximately 1.3 million tons based on importing states’ data.
Each of these waste management methods will be explored individually and in more detail later in
this section.
Although DEC includes MWC as a “disposal” method because it is a strategy to be employed after
waste prevention, reuse and recycling have been maximized, MWC is in fact one part of a treatment
and disposal process. After energy is recovered from waste through combustion, metals are
recovered and the residual ash is landfilled, either directly or as ADC. The Part 360 regulations
provide opportunities for facility operators to propose other, more productive uses of the ash.
Landfilling, as used in this section, refers to in‐state land disposal of solid waste regardless of
whether it was generated in or out of state, while export includes all out‐of‐state disposal (landfill or
MWC) of waste generated within New York State.

9.1 TRANSFER AND PROCESSING PRIOR TO DISPOSAL
Disposal facilities in the state receive waste from local collection and are also fed by a network of
transfer stations and C&D debris processing facilities that collect, consolidate, store, process and/or
transfer waste in preparation for transport to disposal. Solid waste transfer stations are subject to
either the permitting or registration requirements of Part 360. C&D debris processing facilities are
subject to either the permitting, registration or exemption provisions of Part 360, depending on the
size of the facility and other factors.
In 2008, there were approximately 165 permitted transfer stations in New York State that
collectively managed about 11.6 million tons of waste. About half of these facilities are located in
the downstate area (DEC regions 1, 2 and 3) as shown in Figure 9.1. Permitted transfer stations can
only receive residential, commercial and institutional waste unless otherwise approved by DEC.
Many transfer stations are located in densely populated areas and particularly in a few communities
of disproportionate impact, also known as environmental justice communities. The nature of their
operations often burdens the host community with noise, odors and truck traffic. Transfer station
location is primarily determined by local land use and environmental policy, with the Part 360
regulations prohibiting the siting of these facilities in certain environmentally sensitive areas.
For example, the clustering of transfer stations in New York City’s communities of disproportionate
impact resulted from two key factors—a policy decision by the city about its tipping fees and the
city’s existing zoning requirements. In the late 1980s, New York City raised the tipping fee for
commercial waste at its marine transfer stations and at the Fresh Kills Landfill in an effort to extend
the life of the landfill and encourage commercial waste carters to find other disposal outlets. The
private sector responded to this change by developing land‐based transfer stations to export
commercial waste. To comply with local zoning requirements, those transfer stations needed to be
in manufacturing zones which, in the city, either include or surround communities of
disproportionate impact.

Because land use is a local decision, DEC’s Part 360 regulations do not affect or supersede local
zoning requirements. DEC’s siting restrictions primarily focus on environmental concerns and
operational requirements rather than proximity to residences, although they are intended to
protect public health. Significant environmental impacts, including siting issues, are addressed in
the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process, with DEC’s Environmental Justice policy and
enforcement efforts also playing a role in avoiding environmental and public health impacts of
facility clusters.
In addition to the facilities required to obtain permits, in 2008 there were also approximately 370
registered transfer stations that collectively managed more than 310,000 tons of waste. Registered
transfer stations must be owned or operated by or on behalf of a municipality and receive less than
12,500 tons of solid waste annually. They are fairly evenly distributed throughout the state with the
exception of the New York City area where there are very few.
FIGURE 9.1 – SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATIONS IN NYS


Another 71 facilities had permits to process C&D debris in New York State in 2008. As depicted in Figure
9.2, nearly 75 percent of them were in DEC regions 1 and 2. Facilities clustered in a few New York City
communities managed 68 percent of the C&D processed in the state with another 25 percent processed
on Long Island. These permitted processors managed more than 4.1 million tons of C&D in 2008. There
were also about 250 registered C&D debris processing facilities which managed approximately 6.1
million tons of material. Registered C&D processors can receive only recognizable, uncontaminated
concrete and masonry waste, asphalt pavement, brick, soil, and rock or uncontaminated and
unadulterated wood. Facilities that receive and process only land‐clearing debris are exempt from DEC
regulation.
FIGURE 9.2 – C&D DEBRIS PROCESSING FACILITIES IN NYS


9.2 DISPOSAL CAPACITY OVERVIEW
DEC estimates that in 2008, approximately 11.5 million tons of solid waste were landfilled (an
additional 2.3 million tons were used as ADC), 3.3 million tons were combusted, and 8 million tons
were exported for disposal, for a total of about 22.7 million tons disposed. 64 The capacity of each of
the state’s disposal facilities is presented in Table 9.2.
If the state continues to dispose of waste at the same rates it did in 2008, and all MWC facilities
continue to accept waste at the same rate, the remaining disposal capacity in the state can be
equated—for illustrative and planning purposes—to an overall average of about 21 to 25 years of
remaining, approved landfill site life. However, three significant variables can impact disposal
capacity projections. They are:
1. Facilities dedicated to specific planning units or regions: About ten of the MSW landfills and
one MWC facility are operated by public agencies or authorities that essentially serve only
the constituents within their planning units. They provide some degree of integrated solid
waste management and some have flow control laws to support their self‐sufficient
systems. These facilities generally have ample capacity for the waste within their
jurisdictions (ranging from 1 to 106 years); however, they would not be expected to provide
disposal capacity for the rest of the state. Excluding those facilities from the state’s overall
available capacity and the amount of waste they have typically taken in from the total
amount of waste generated would cut the remaining 20 to 25 years of remained approved
site life to about 14‐18 years for the rest of the state’s communities. (See Table 9.10.)
2. Export restrictions: If policies are put in place or significant economic or market shifts occur
that restrict waste export, the remaining landfill site life at New York State’s facilities could
be reduced by as much as one‐third—to approximately 9‐12 years statewide. This could
increase to 15‐18 years if facilities dedicated to specific service areas lifted their restrictions.
3. Increased diversion: If the state is successful in moving Beyond Waste and achieving the
goals of this plan, the useful life of existing landfills could be extended significantly unless
waste imports also increased dramatically.

64
To eliminate double counting, DEC made the following adjustments to the disposal data reported in the
MWC, Landfill and Export sections: MSW ash is included in the amount landfilled and removed from the
amount combusted; combusted biosolids are included; imported waste is included, and ADC is not
included as waste disposed.


Table 9.2: Landfills and MWCs in New York State

Existing &
2008 Existing Entitled Proposed
Waste Annual Capacity Capacity
Quantity Permit Limits Under Not Under
Activity (tons per (tons per Permit Permit
Name Number County year) year) (tons) (tons)
Landfill ‐ municipal solid waste
Albany Rapp Road Landfill 01S02 Albany 239,785 275,100 478,351 4,214,552
Allegany County Landfill 02S15 Allegany 50,490 56,680 249,600
Allied Waste Niagara Falls Landfill 32S11 Niagara 508,759 800,000 9,242,609
Auburn Landfill No. 2 06S14 Cayuga 72,014 96,000 761,301
Bristol Hill Sanitary Landfill 38S14 Oswego 39,165 100,000 3,352,607
Broome County Landfill 04S07 Broome 187,000 232,000 10,554,066
Chaffee Landfill 15S14 Erie 385,570 600,000 6,084,000
Chautauqua Landfill 07S12 Chautauqua 262,877 408,000 2,243,724
Chemung County Sanitary Landfill 08S02 Chemung 118,356 120,000 1,243,383
Chenango County Landfill 09S16 Chenango 26,184 41,550 1,104,009
Clinton County Landfill 10S20 Clinton 170,237 175,000 7,644,201
Colonie (T) Sanitary Landfill 01S26 Albany 164,083 170,500 4,004,593
Cortland County Landfill Westside
Extension 12S10 Cortland 22,676 44,500 709,513
Delaware County SWM Facility 13S18 Delaware 19,337 52,800 508,111
DANC Landfill 23S13 Jefferson 272,591 346,320 3,505,060
Franklin County Regional Landfill 17S21 Franklin 51,509 125,000 574,861
Fulton County Landfill 18S20 Fulton 86,873 134,000 9,450,845
High Acres Western Expansion
Landfill 28S32 Monroe 765,157 1,074,500 44,400,000
Hyland Landfill 02S17 Allegany 279,739 312,000 7,708,367

Madison County WS Extension
Landfill 27S15 Madison 49,738 61,000 7,769,992
Mill Seat Sanitary Landfill 28S31 Monroe 554,322 598,650 6,893,846
Modern Landfill 32S30 Niagara 786,889 815,000 22,140,000
OHSWA Landfill 33S15 Oneida 253,261 312,000 21,388,497
Ontario County Sanitary Landfill 35S11 Ontario 673,483 1,200,000 7,349,795
1,750,0
Seneca Meadows Landfill 50S08 Seneca 79 1,866,000 37,611,560
Steuben Sanitary Landfill 51S21 Steuben 105,477 151,000 2,422,279
Sullivan County Landfill 53S03 Sullivan 62,795 226,000 140,130 4,988,032
Subtotals: 7,958,445 10,393,600 219,535,298 9,202,584
Waste Combustion ‐ MSW MWC
Babylon Resource Recovery Facility 52E13 Suffolk 219,899 273,750
Covanta Niagara; L.P. 32E01 Niagara 801,016 821,250
Dutchess County Resource
Recovery Facility 14E01 Dutchess 142,844 166,440
Hempstead Resource Recovery
Facility 30E06 Nassau 969,328 975,000
Huntington Resource Recovery
Facility 52E15 Suffolk 336,280 350,400
MacArthur Waste‐To‐Energy
Facility 52E10 Suffolk 172,361 177,025
Onondaga County RRF 34E01 Onondaga 348,613 361,350
Oswego County Energy Recovery
Facility 38E01 Oswego 62,424 61,000
Wheelabrator Hudson Falls 58E01 Washington 170,328 152,500
Wheelabrator Westchester 60E01 Westchester 692,923 674,730
Subtotals: 3,916,016 4,013,445
Totals: 11,874,462 14,407,045 219,535,298 9,202,584

9.3 MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS (MWCS)
The third order of preference in the solid waste management hierarchy is Ato recover, in an
environmentally acceptable manner, energy from solid waste that cannot be economically and
technically reused or recycled.@ Thus, the law states a preference for MWCs that generate energy,
also known as waste‐to‐energy (WTE) or energy‐from‐waste (EFW) facilities, rather than landfills for
the management of residual solid waste that still requires disposal after waste reduction, reuse, and
source separation of recyclable materials. In 2008, combustors managed approximately 14 percent
of New York State’s MSW and about 8 percent of all materials and waste (including MSW, C&D,
industrial waste, and biosolids).
Waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting are significantly better waste management
strategies than any type of disposal, including MWC, as they offer greater energy conservation, GHG
reduction and other environmental benefits. Recent research and analysis supports the hierarchy
that exists in statute, as discussed more fully in other sections of this Plan, in which waste
prevention and reuse/recycling maintain the top two positions. It also supports maintaining a
preference for MWC rather than landfill disposal, particularly when viewed from a GHG perspective.
(See Section 4.)
The 1987 State Plan anticipated a network of 37 MWC facilities across the state that, at the time,
were in the planning, construction, or operational stage. For a number of reasons described later in
this section, this projected development did not fully materialize, and only 10 MWCs are currently
operating in the state. However, the 1987 Plan goal of phasing out incineration of MSW without
energy recovery was accomplished. The four major MSW incinerators—one in Huntington and
three in New York City—as well as the estimated 4,300 smaller incinerators serving apartment
houses, schools, supermarkets, etc. have long been shut down.
Modern MWCs reduce the amount of waste requiring disposal and also produce energy (about 585
kWh per ton) using specially designed furnaces equipped with required air pollution control
equipment. The process reduces incoming, uncompacted solid waste volume and weight by 90
percent and 75 percent, respectively, with the ash residue disposed in lined landfills. In 2008, MWCs
supplied approximately 1.8 million megawatt hours of electricity to the state’s electrical grid— less
than 1.4 percent of the state’s electricity needs or enough electricity to provide power to more than
175,000 households for one year. In addition, two MWCs in the state also generated and sold nearly
three billion pounds of steam to local industry. In Europe, MWCs are reaching greater levels of
energy value by increased efficiency and incorporating existing district heating systems which
distribute excess steam or hot water to multiple buildings for space and hot water heating. Such
efficiency upgrades and district heating systems could be available in the US.
MWCs can also be designed to capture and recover metals that are not diverted by source
separation. In 2008, post‐combustion magnetic separation (processing ash using screens and
magnetic separators to remove any remaining metal) recovered more than 95,000 tons of ferrous
metals for recycling, or approximately 2.4 percent of the incoming waste stream. Two MWCs in the
state also separate and collect non‐ferrous metals using Eddy current technology.


Although the 1972 EQBA provided funding for several of the MWCs in New York State, the growth of
MWC was hampered in the late 1980s and into the 1990s in the state and nationally by a
combination of legal, economic, environmental, and environmental justice issues. The most
recently constructed MWC facility in New York State, in Onondaga County, received its permit to
construct in 1992. Strong environmental group and community opposition to MWCs created
significant political and practical barriers to further development. In the less populated areas of the
state, MWCs are more capital intensive to develop and operate than landfills and, therefore, have
difficulty competing with existing landfills that have ample capacity and low tip fees. Uncertainty on
the viability of flow control may have also curtailed development, making it difficult to guarantee
the necessary throughput to cover debt service and operating costs. That uncertainty was partially
resolved in a 2007 Supreme Court ruling on flow control. (See Appendix 3.2.)
More MWCs were developed in the higher population density areas of the state such as Long Island
and Westchester County than any other part of the state, in large part because of economic and
statutory differences. (For the location of MWCs in the state, see Figure 9.4.) The Long Island
Landfill Law restricted development of MSW landfills, leaving Long Island towns and cities to choose
between MWC (usually with local ash landfills) and longhaul to mostly out‐of‐state landfills for
disposal of the waste remaining after waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting. While four
MWCs are in operation on Long Island, many of the towns and cities still rely on long‐haul disposal,
with nearly 1.6 million tons of waste per year exported off Long Island (not including Brooklyn and
Queens) to MWCs and landfills.
Table 9.3 lists the operating MWC facilities in New York State and shows their statistics for 2008.
The 10 MWC facilities operating in the state received about 3.9 million tons of solid waste in 2008,
about 434,000 tons of which (or 11 percent of the total combusted) was imported. MSW
represented about 97 percent of the waste combusted at these facilities, with the remaining 3
percent made up primarily of industrial waste with a small amount of C&D debris. About 95,470
tons (about 2.4 percent) represented scrap metal that was recovered for recycling.
These facilities are regulated by Part 360 solid waste regulations, by DEC’s Division of Air Resources
and federal government regulations. In addition to the general requirements for all solid waste
management facilities, “solid waste incinerators or refuse‐derived processing facilities or solid
waste pyrolysis units” are subject to facility‐specific requirements, including: detailed plans and
specifications for construction, operation, maintenance and eventual closure of the facility;
personnel and staffing; emergency preparedness and prevention; staff training, and ash residue
testing and disposal.
In addition to the ten MWC facilities which recover energy from waste, a number of combustors in
the state burn a total of 443,000 tons of biosolids from wastewater treatment facilities without
recovering energy.


TABLE 9.3 2008 MWC SUMMARY REPORT
MSW
Ash Ferrous
By‐
MSW MSW Residue Electricity Metals Steam Sold Part 360
Facility Name Received Processed passed Produced (megawatt Recovered (thousand Permit
(DEC Permit) (tons) (tons)* (tons) (tons) hours) (tons) pounds) Expiration

Babylon
RRF*** 219,899 219,722 14,298 55,190 101,976 3,693 08/06/2014

Hempstead
RRF 969,328 964,727 291 230,375 566,701 19,676 06/30/2015

Huntington
RRF 336,280 331,505 33 87,306 189,082 4,559 04/04/2011

MacArthur RRF 12,177
11/04/2009
(Islip) 172,361 162,437 ** 60,213 53,215 6,598

Dutchess

County
RRA**** 142,844 143,618 162 44,010 44,201 5,704 09/13/2011

Wheelabrator
Westchester 692,923 690,184 179,298 378,340 18,049 04/11/2012

Wheelabrator
Hudson Falls 170,328 170,995 27 52,450 82,584 4,098 05/30/2010

Onondaga
County RRF 348,613 348,263 18 88,726 219,491 11,775 11/16/2011

Oswego

County
ERF***** 62,424 61,889 535 24,251 3,637 153,437 07/28/2014

Covanta
Niagara 801,016 797,609 8,173 197,537 217,345 21,318 2,829,362 03/31/2015
Total 3,916,016 3,890,949 35,713 1,019,357 1,856,572 95,470 2,982,799
Source: Data reported to DEC. * MSW processed can exceed MSW received because waste may have been received in
the prior year.
** MSW received exceeded the annual permit capacity; excess waste is exported.
***RRF: Resource Recovery Facility
****RRA: Resource Recovery Agency
*****ERF: Energy Recovery Facility


Strong public concern for environmental protection, expanded state and federal regulatory
programs, and improved MWC technologies have led to enhanced operational efficiencies and
significantly reduced emissions from MWCs during the past 20 years. While high costs and lack of
community support may limit the development of new MWCs and other thermal technologies,
MWC is recognized by the EPA and DEC as an acceptable method of management of the waste that
remains after waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting programs have been implemented.
These facilities also produce energy, which represents a small contribution to meet the demand for
electricity and efforts to reduce New York State’s dependence on fossil fuels.

9.3.1 Energy Generation
While more energy is conserved by reducing waste and reusing and recycling materials than is
generated by combusting them, an MWC will generate energy from the waste that remains after
maximizing reduction, reuse and recycling. An MWC can offer both electricity and steam for
consumer use, while also supplying electricity for its own operational needs. In fact, 1.4 percent of
the state’s electricity that MWCs provide is in addition to the electricity used for their own
operations. The efficiency of energy generation varies depending on the type of combustion
technology used at an MWC. Appendix 9.1 presents the combustion technologies used by the
state’s 10 MWCs. Based on the data presented in Table 9.3, MWCs using the mass burn water wall
technology generate more electricity and less ash per ton of waste than the other MWC
technologies in use in the state (mass burn rotary or modular combustion). In either case, long term
electric and/or steam revenues are critical to the financial viability of a MWC project.
In the context of the methods of electricity generation that produce emissions, as distinct from
methods that produce few or no emissions, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower
systems, MSW is not as efficient an energy source as are fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and coal65 . This
is because fossil fuels are more homogeneous and contain higher BTU values and because the sole
purpose of fossil fuel power plants is to extract energy. MWCs serve the dual purpose of generating
electricity and reducing waste volume. The energy value of MSW is approximately 4,500–6,000 BTU
per pound as compared to coal, which has an energy value of 8,000–13,000 BTU per pound or
natural gas with a value of approximately 24,000 BTU per pound.
A more appropriate comparison is between MWC and other energy generating technologies for
residual waste, such as landfill gas to energy. Landfill gas is generated during a longer time frame
after a significant amount of waste is in place, while MWC generates energy immediately using
incoming waste. A landfill gas to energy facility will not extract as much energy value from the

65
New York considers only the source‐separated, combustible, untreated and uncontaminated wood portion
of municipal solid waste or construction and demolition debris as an eligible renewable energy source for
the purposes of the renewable portfolio standard. DEC regulations (NOx Budget Program, 6 NYCRR Part
204‐1.2(b)(67)) and state law (Chapter 497 of 2009) exclude the combustion or pyrolysis of municipal solid
waste from the definition of renewable energy sources.]


residual waste stream because certain materials with high BTU values for MWC (e.g., plastics) will
not break down into methane in a landfill, and, therefore, their embedded energy will be lost. And,
landfill gas collection systems do not completely capture all methane gas produced, contributing to
the inefficiencies in that system. (For a full discussion of landfill gas collection and management, see
Section 9.4.76.4 (g); for a more complete analysis of the GHG implications of MWC vs. landfilling,
see Section 4.) Taking these factors into account, a landfill gas‐to‐energy project can provide about
105 kWh per ton of MSW as compared to 585 kWh per ton from MWC and 2,250 kWh per ton of
energy saved through recycling. 66 A recent study comparing MWC and landfill gas to energy on a
life‐cycle basis found that MWC can generate an order of magnitude more electricity than landfill
gas to energy, given the same amount of waste handled. 67

9.3.2 Compatibility with Recycling
A common issue that is raised during consideration of a new MWC is whether combustion and
recycling are incompatible, as it can be argued that both compete for the same high BTU value
materials. The implication is that a robust recycling program will reduce the quality or quantity of
waste necessary for the effective operation of an MWC or, conversely, that the operational needs of
a MWC will diminish recycling efforts. In fact, however, communities with MWCs tend to have
slightly higher recycling rates than average. Nationally, in 2004 the average actual recycling rate of
MWC communities across the country was 34 percent, as compared to the national average of 31
percent. 68
The capacity of an MWC, its steam boiler capacity and permit limits are based on the amount of
MSW projected to be combusted and the heating value (BTUs per pound) of the MSW. While
certain combustible recyclable items, such as plastic, paper, cardboard, can improve the BTU value
of the waste stream, separating out non‐combustible materials such as metal and glass also
improves the BTU value of the remaining waste. However, because throughput at MWCs is limited
to 110 percent of the capacity at which emissions are tested, combusting disproportionate amounts
of recyclable materials with a significantly higher BTU value is counter‐productive and will actually
result in a reduction of the total tonnage of MSW that can be charged into a combustion unit.
Success in recycling in New York State has a stronger correlation to the level of investment in
recycling outreach, education and infrastructure in the facility’s service area, the facility’s financing,
facility permit conditions, and flow control or other legal support structures. In particular, public
outreach and education to gain public support for and participation in recycling programs is critical
to good performance. Another significant factor is the financial incentive or disincentive created by
disposal contracts. Contracts that commit communities to deliver a certain amount of waste to a
facility, known as “put or pay” contracts, have created a disincentive for communities to reduce the

66
Materials Management Options for MA Solid Waste Master Plan Review, Tellus Institute, 2008; p.3
67
“Is it Better to Burn or Bury Waste for Clean Electricity Generation?” P. Ozge Kaplan, Joseph Decarolis, and
Susan Thrnelow; Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 43, No. 6, 2009.
76
Surveys conducted by J. V. L. Kiser.

amount of waste going to disposal. These types of contracts are often used for MWCs and have also
been used for transfer stations and other facilities in the state.
Given that recycling is a preferred management strategy under the statutory hierarchy,
compatibility is an important consideration. An important factor in achieving compatibility with
recycling is the proper sizing of an MWC, considering the amount of materials that can be diverted
through comprehensive reduction, reuse, recycling and organics recovery programs as described in
the LSWMP or CRA for the facility’s service area. DEC influences the proper sizing of MWCs through
the Part 360 permit application requirements, which require a year‐by‐year analysis of the projected
waste stream and the permit conditions that include acceptance rate limits.
When appropriately sized and permitted, MWCs can co‐exist with very strong recycling programs, as
evidenced in Onondaga County. In the permits for the Onondaga RRF, the sizing of the facility was
limited to what was calculated to be residue after the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency
reached aggressive recycling diversion goals. That provision, in combination with a management
structure that includes flow control and a publicly owned facility that invests tip fee revenues into
an integrated waste prevention, recycling and composting program, has yielded one of the strongest
MSW recycling rates in the state at 51 percent. (For more on OCRRA, see profile in appendix 5.1.)

9.3.3 Air Emissions
The poor performance and significant air pollution of incinerators in the past have resulted in strict
emission standards and numerous emission controls being used in all active MWCs in New York
State and nationwide. To ensure compliance with standards, DEC requires MWCs to perform their
own continuous emissions monitoring for NOx, SO2, CO, opacity and O2, and to perform annual
stack tests to gauge levels of other pollutants. 69
In its book, Waste Incineration & Public Health, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that
the application of improved combustor design, operating practices, air pollution control equipment
and changes in waste feed composition have resulted in a dramatic decrease in the emissions that
used to characterize uncontrolled incineration facilities. However, operating data analyzed from off‐
normal operations (startup, shutdown, equipment malfunction, etc.) in the early 1990s indicated
that production of dioxins and furans during these upset conditions could rapidly increase. Based on
its findings, the NAS identified 13 specific best practices for reducing emissions. Although the
instances of these off‐normal operations are infrequent, the stringent limits and operating
requirements in facility permits embody the best practices outlined by NAS. DEC MWC permits
require waste screening and operator training. DEC air permits require continuous monitoring for
the pollutants identified above as well as for temperature. Federal Title V permits also require
compliance assurance monitoring, such as monitoring voltages of the electrostatic precipitators and

69
Most MWCs in NYS are required to monitor: NOx; SO2; CO; Total Hydrocarbons; PM; HCl; Hg;
Dioxins/Furans; PCBs; PAHs; Formaldehyde; Hexavalent Chromium; Total Fluorides; Various metals
(Arsenic, Be, Cd, total Chromium, Cu, Pb, Mn, Ni, Vanadium, and Zinc), and Ammonia.


the injection rate of carbon, to help assure removal for pollutants which do not have continuous
monitors.
A variety of pollution control technologies are now used to significantly reduce the gases and
particulate matter (PM‐2.5) emitted into the air, including:
• Combustion Controls B to minimize the formation of organic compounds
• Urea or Ammonia Injection B to control NOx emissions
• Carbon Injection B to reduce mercury emissions
• Scrubbers B to neutralize acid gases through use of a liquid spray
• Fabric Filters B to remove very tiny ash particles, down to submicron size, including heavy
metals such as lead, cadmium, chromium, etc., attached to particulates
Pollution control technologies used in the state’s 10 MWCs are identified in Appendix 9.1. In
addition to use of these technologies, prohibiting certain waste from entering the MWC waste
stream (e.g., batteries and fluorescent light bulbs) has also resulted in lower stack emissions for
certain compounds.
As demonstrated in Table 9.4 (EPA Memorandum, August 10, 2007; Subject: Emissions from Large
and Small MWC Units at MACT Compliance), these emissions have been dramatically reduced as a
result of the EPA‐required maximum achievable control technology (MACT) retrofits. This data
includes the 1990 and 2005 emissions for 66 large and 22 small MWC plants nationwide.
The EPA data represented in Table 9.5 demonstrates that, nationally, MWCs operate below EPA
standard emission limits for key pollutants.
TABLE 9.4 EMISSIONS FROM LARGE AND SMALL MWC UNITS
Pollutant 1990 Emissions 2005 emissions Percent Reduction

(tpy) (tpy)
CDD/CDF, teq basis 440 15 99+%
Mercury 57 2.3 96%
Cadmium 9.6 0.4 96%
Lead 170 5.5 97%
Particulate matter 18,600 780 96%
HCl 57,400 3,200 94%
S02 38,300 4,600 88%
NOx 64,900 49,500 24%
*Dioxin/furan emissions are in units of grams per year toxic equivalent quantity (teq), using 1989 NATO
toxicity factors; all other pollutant emissions are in units of tons per year
Source: USEPA Memorandum, “Emissions from Large and Small MWC Units at MACT Compliance,” August 10, 2007


TABLE 9.5 COMPARISON OF 2001 EMISSIONS FROM 95 US MWC PLANTS W/USEPA STANDARD
Pollutant Average EPA % of EPA Unit

Emission
Standard Standard
CDD/CDF* 0.05 0.26 19.2% ng/dscm
Mercury 0.01 0.08 12.5% mg/dscm
Cadmium 0.001 0.02 5% mg/dscm
Lead 0.02 0.20 10% mg/dscm
Particulate 4 24 16.7% mg/dscm

Matter
HCl 10 25 40% ppmv
SO2 6 30 20% ppmv
NOx 170 180 94.4% ppmv

Source: “Comparative Impacts of Local Waste to Energy vs. Long Distance Disposal of Municipal Waste” presented at AWMA Annual
Meeting, New Orleans, LA, June 2006
ng/dscm = nanogram per dry standard cubic meter; ppmv = parts per million volume
*Represents dioxin and furan compounds (i.e., mono‐ to tri‐chlorinated dibenzodioxins [CDDs] and dibenzofurans [CDFs])
In addition to achieving the EPA standards, as part of the SEQR process, DEC requires MWCs to
prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in accordance with an established protocol, to be approved
by DEC and DOH, that includes a description of the project, the air contaminants that will be
modeled, the basis and documentation for emission factors, the air dispersion model that will be
used, human exposure pathways to be evaluated and the public health guidelines that will be
referenced. The HRA is used to determine whether the project will have any adverse effects on
public health that need to be mitigated. Once constructed, the MWC is required to conduct
emissions tests which are used by DEC to determine whether the actual emission rates exceed the
values used in the HRA. Once full‐scale operations are underway, MWCs begin to perform the
requisite daily continuous emissions monitoring and annual air emissions tests to ensure that they
are operating within environmentally protective parameters.

9.3.4 Ash Management

While MWC significantly reduces the volume of waste to be disposed of in landfills, in the US the ash
is typically landfilled, either directly or as ADC. In 2008, MWCs in New York State generated
approximately one million tons of ash residue. More than three quarters of this ash was disposed in
one of the state’s three lined ash monofills 70 , monofill areas at the Town of Brookhaven Cleanfill, or
in MSW landfills. Approximately 200,000 tons per year are being used beneficially as ADC at several
landfills in the state. (See Table 9.7.)
MWCs generate two primary types of ash residue. Coarse bottom ash is generated in the primary
combustion zone, while a finer fly ash is captured in pollution control equipment. While the base
constituents of fly ash are somewhat similar to those of bottom ash, fly ash contains higher
concentrations of volatile metals than those found in bottom ash and in some cases, may require
management as a hazardous waste if managed separately. It is common industry practice in the US
to manage bottom ash and fly ash together as combined ash, with fly ash comprising approximately
10‐15 percent of the combined ash stream. However, this serves to limit the development of
potential higher‐value uses of the bottom ash.
In May, 1994, the US Supreme Court ruled that MWC ash is subject to hazardous waste
determination requirements, and in the February 1995 Federal Register, USEPA issued its
interpretation that these requirements take effect when the ash exits the combustion facility. In
June of 1995, USEPA issued Sampling and Analysis of Municipal Refuse Incineration Ash Guidance
(EPA 530‐R‐95‐036), which provided guidance to MWCs on how to sample and analyze ash to
determine whether or not the ash is a hazardous waste.
In New York State, combined ash is subject to an initial testing regimen that begins at a MWCs
startup with weekly testing for volatile matter and quarterly testing for leaching potential.
Combined ash from all of the MWCs in New York State has been tested for more than a decade in
accordance with USEPA protocol. These tests have demonstrated that combined ash is a non‐
hazardous solid waste and can be managed pursuant to Part 360, and they have formed the basis
for granting facility‐specific variances to reduce the testing frequency. The average TCLP data for
cadmium and lead for MWCs in New York State since 1994 has ranged from 0.08 ppm to 0.61 ppm
for cadmium and 0.36 ppm to 1.51 ppm for lead. The TCLP hazardous waste regulatory limit is 1.0
ppm for cadmium and 5.0 ppm for lead.

9.3.5 Siting Issues and Restrictions
Siting MWCs has been a lengthy and controversial process. The high costs and lack of community
support for MWCs and other thermal technologies has limited their development. MWCs are
required to evaluate a host of environmental impacts, including those related to siting, through the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The review includes impacts on traffic, aesthetic
resources, community character, noise and odors, and public health. DEC has issued guidance to aid
project proponents in addressing climate impacts under SEQRA analysis
(see http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/56552.html). The extent to which significant

70
The three monofills are: Babylon North and Babylon Southern in West Babylon and Sprout Brook in
Peekskill.

environmental impacts can be mitigated is weighed in the decision to permit MWCs and to place
conditions on a permit.
9.4 LANDFILLING
The fourth and final solid waste management method in New York State’s hierarchy is land burial, in
the category of “other methods approved by the department.” Although landfilling should be the
management method of last resort, given the state policy goals expressed in the solid waste
management hierarchy, landfills—either in state or out of state—handle the largest proportion of
New York State waste sent for disposal. Approximately 53 percent of the total waste disposed of
from New York State generators is landfilled within the state, while about 13 percent is processed in
MWCs (with the residual ash land disposed), and 34 percent is exported, primarily to out‐of‐state
landfills. When only MSW is considered, more of the waste disposed is exported than landfilled
within the state (42 and 41 percent, respectively).
The goals and recommendations expressed throughout this Plan are intended to correct this trend
and reduce reliance on landfilling as a waste materials management strategy. Continuing reliance on
waste disposal, and landfills in particular, comes at a significant environmental and economic cost.
The state’s preference for waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting reflects the fact that
these strategies offer greater energy conservation, GHG reduction and other environmental
benefits. Once these strategies are maximized, however, some residual waste will still remain and
need to be disposed.
Significant progress has been made in landfill design and operation to mitigate the negative impacts
of landfilling; much less waste is landfilled in New York State now than in 1988 compared to other
waste management methods, with most of that reduction achieved between 1988 and 1992. Still,
there is much room for improvement in diverting waste from disposal and reducing reliance on the
least preferable waste management approach.
The dramatic reduction in the number of MSW landfills since 1988 is shown in Figure 9.3. The old,
small, local, unlined municipal landfills, which used to be known as “town dumps,” are no longer in
operation, in large part due to the regulatory structure DEC put in place in 1988 and the federal
requirements for MSW landfills promulgated in 1991 (40 CFR Part 258).
As with most other types of solid waste management facilities, landfills may be permitted,
registered or exempt, depending primarily on the types of waste they receive. The exempt and
registered sites handle a very limited range and amount of materials and are described briefly in
Appendix 9.2. The Part 360 regulations of 1988, and revisions thereafter, established some of the
most stringent, protective, and costly permitting requirements in the nation with regard to siting,
design, construction, operation, closure and post‐closure care. A brief summary of those
requirements is also included in Appendix 9.2. The regulations, combined with changes in the
industry and state financial assistance for municipal landfill closure, effectively led to the elimination
of “town dumps” and the development of larger, regional, highly engineered and controlled
facilities.


In 2010, the state is developing revisions to the Part 360 regulations, which will improve
environmental protections even further, reflect advances in technology and practice during the last
two decades and set the course for facility design, construction and operation for the next 10 to 20
years. Revisions include enhanced operational requirements, including provisions for improved
odor control, resource efficiency, liner systems and post‐closure care and maintenance.

FIGURE 9.3

Of the 63 active landfills in the state, 62 are subject to the Part 360 permitting requirements, and
one active coal ash landfill is not directly subject to Part 360 permitting (see 9.4.5). In addition to
the requirements applicable to all landfills, the regulations include specific requirements for Long
Island landfills and for landfills that receive only one type of waste, such as C&D debris or industrial
waste, which include wastes such as paper mill sludge, coal ash or MWC ash.

9.4.1 Total Landfill Capacity
The amount of waste landfilled in New York State steadily decreased between 1988 and 1992. This
was the result of two key factors. First, many communities particularly in the downstate area
increased exports. And second, recycling began to take a foothold and expand across the state. The
in‐state landfill disposal decrease continued until about 2002, but increased sharply for the next
couple of years as exports decreased and imports increased. Landfilling in New York State has
essentially levelled off since 2004.


In addition to the 63 active landfills in New York State, there is also one permitted and constructed
MSW landfill that has remained inactive and two MSW landfills that were permitted but never
constructed. The active landfills received about 11.4 million tons of solid waste in 2008. The
number of each type of landfill and the amounts of waste they received in 2008 are shown in Table
9.6; their locations are depicted in Figure 9.4. Figure 9.5 shows the distinct regional differences in
the quantities of waste landfilled, with approximately 80 percent of all landfilling in 2008 occurring
in DEC regions 1, 8 and 9.

TABLE 9.6
Number of Active Landfills Amount of Waste
Type of Landfill Received in 2006 71
(millions of tons)
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 27 8.0
Long Island 3 1.7
C&D Debris 14 0.4
Industrial 16 1.1
MWC Ash Monofills 3 0.3
Total 63 11.5

71
The amounts presented here do not include materials used as alternative daily cover but do include imports.

FIGURE 9.4


FIGURE 9.5

9.4.2 MSW Landfills
The 27 active MSW landfills are located in DEC regions 3 through 9, as shown in Figure 9.6. These
landfills receive MSW and can accept C&D debris and industrial waste. About 78 percent of the
MSW that was land disposed went to landfills in DEC regions 8 and 9, where all 6 private MSW
landfills are located. There are no active MSW landfills in DEC Region 2 (New York City) since the
2001 closure of Fresh Kills—the world’s largest landfill, based on measurement of waste‐in‐place.
There are also no active MSW landfills in DEC Region 1 (Long Island) due to the enactment of the
Long Island Landfill Law in 1983, which essentially eliminated direct landfilling of MSW in Nassau
and Suffolk counties.


There are 64 planning units in New York State, only about half of which have disposal facilities
(landfills and/or MWCs) within their boundaries. New York City is the most notable planning unit
without any disposal facilities, though several towns on Long Island also lack such capacity. Most of
New York City’s waste and approximately 1.3 million tons of waste from Long Island is exported out
of state. The remaining planning units without disposal facilities, however, rely primarily on other
in‐state disposal capacity.
FIGURE 9.6

Table 9.2 shows the amount disposed in 2008 and the remaining capacity for the active MSW
landfills. These 2008 disposal amounts are shown by individual landfill and DEC region on the maps
in figures 9.7 and 9.8.


FIGURE 9.7


FIGURE 9.8

The remaining disposal capacity is also depicted by individual landfill and DEC region on the maps in
figures 9.9 and 9.10. About 68 percent of the remaining MSW landfill capacity in New York State is
currently located in DEC regions 8 and 9.


FIGURE 9.9


FIGURE 9.10

Six of the 27 active MSW landfills operating in the state are privately owned and operated. The
remaining 21 are publicly owned. Of these, four are owned by county agencies and operated on
their behalf by private waste management firms, while the remaining 17 are owned and operated
by municipalities (counties, cities, towns, or public authorities).
Despite their smaller number, privately operated landfills play a dominant role in MSW landfilling in
New York State. The six privately owned and operated landfills received about 4.5 million tons of
waste, or 56 percent of the waste disposed of at MSW landfills in 2008. The four publicly owned,
privately operated landfills received about 1.5 million tons of waste in 2008. Altogether, the
privately operated MSW landfills (six privately owned and four publicly owned) received about six
million tons or about 75 percent of the total waste disposed of at MSW landfills in the state.
The 27 active MSW landfills and ten MWCs provide disposal service for most of the 64 planning units
in the state as well as a number of out‐of‐state communities, with New York City among the largely
downstate exporting communities. The MSW landfills essentially operate according to one of four
generalized service area models. An example of each model is depicted on maps in figures 9.11
through 9.14. It should be noted that landfill operators can, and sometimes do, change from one of
these models to another, depending on market conditions, operational restrictions, or other factors.


1. Publicly owned and operated
FIGURE 9.11
landfills planned and designed to
primarily serve their own
planning unit. These are located
in planning units that have made
conscious decisions and
significant investments to be
essentially self‐sufficient and
take responsibility for
management of waste
generated within their own
borders for the longterm. This is
typical of the landfills in DEC
Region 7, although there is
currently one example of this
model in each of DEC regions 3
through 6 as well. An example is
provided in Figure 9.11. FIGURE 9.12

2. Publicly owned and operated
landfills that primarily serve
their own planning unit and also
provide service to one or more
neighboring planning units. One
or more of these operates in
DEC regions 4 through 9. An
example is provided in Figure
9.12.


3. Publicly owned landfills, often FIGURE 9.13
privately operated which act as
merchant facilities serving a
limited and usually nearby group
of planning units. These can be
found in DEC regions 5 and 8. An
example is provided in Figure
9.13.

4. Privately owned and operated
merchant facilities in DEC
regions 8 and 9 that serve a
much larger and more diverse
area. An example is provided in
Figure 9.14. FIGURE 9.14

9.4.3 Long Island Landfills

Landfills located in Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island are subject to special requirements
and restrictions under the ECL and corresponding Part 360 regulations. They can receive either
“clean fill” only (as defined in the ECL and Part 360) or residual waste resulting from recycling and
composting facilities, or MWCs. In the case of MWCs, residuals include ash and materials that
cannot be combusted either because the facility is experiencing downtime or because the materials
are non‐processble and designated as such by regulation or permit condition. There are three
permitted facilities considered by DEC to be Long Island landfills that primarily receive C&D debris
and similar “inert” materials. Two receive only “clean fill,” and one, the Town of Brookhaven
Landfill, can also receive the residual wastes described above. These landfills received about 1.7
million tons of waste in 2008, about 1.3 million tons of which was C&D debris or “clean fill.” There
are also two MWC ash monofills in the Town of Babylon which are discussed in Sections 9.3.4 and
9.4.6.

9.4.4 C&D Debris Landfills
There are 14 active C&D debris landfills in New York State, most of which are relatively small and
located in upstate New York. Collectively, these C&D landfills received almost 374,000 tons of C&D
debris in 2008, which represents only about 13 percent of the total C&D debris landfilled in the
state. This does not include C&D materials that are beneficially used in landfills as ADC. Much more
significant quantities of C&D debris are disposed of in Long Island landfills (1.3 million tons, about 45
percent of C&D debris landfilled) and MSW landfills (almost 1.2 million tons, about 42 percent).
The C&D debris landfills are shown in Figure 9.15. Figure 9.16 shows the quantities disposed at C&D
debris landfills in each region, including the Long Island landfills.


FIGURE 9.15


FIGURE 9.16

9.4.5 Industrial Landfills
The 16 active industrial landfills are shown in Figure 9.17. They include coal ash monofills and paper
mill residuals monofills. They are all located near water bodies due to the needs of these industries.
The paper mill sludge monofills are mostly located in the Hudson River Valley in the eastern portion
of the state, while the coal ash monofills serving coal‐fired power plants are primarily in the western
part of the state. One coal ash landfill is not permitted by DEC pursuant to Part 360 but is subject to
the requirements of a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need issued pursuant to
Article VIII of the Public Service Law.


FIGURE 9.17

9.4.6 Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) Ash Monofills
There are only three permitted MWC ash monofills. Two are in DEC Region 1 and one is in DEC
Region 3, as shown in Figure 9.18. All three are publicly owned and operated. One of the landfills in
Region 1 did not receive ash in 2008 but is expanding and will resume ash disposal upon completion
of construction. The monofill in Region 3 is expected to reach capacity around the end of 2009.
MWC ash is also disposed at MSW landfills and at the Brookhaven Landfill on Long Island.
MWC ash is also used as alternative daily cover (ADC) at a number of MSW landfills in the state. As
shown in Table 9.7, about 318,000 tons of ash was disposed of at the ash monofills, about 546,000
tons of MWC ash generated within New York State was disposed of at in‐state landfills, about
45,000 tons was imported to an MSW landfill, and about 211,000 tons was used as ADC.


TABLE 9.7

Ash Disposed of in Ash Monofill Landfills Tons
Sprout Brook LF 179,296
Babylon North "U" Bypass 138,490
Babylon Southern Ashfill 0
Subtotal 317,786

Ash Disposed of in MSW Landfills
Allied Waste Niagara Falls Landfill 2,061
Modern Landfill 91

Bristol Hill SLF 14,611
Mill Seat SLF 166
Seneca Meadows LF 171,411
Subtotal 188,340
Ash Imported and Disposed of in MSW Landfills

Ash Disposed of in LI Landfills
Brookhaven Waste Management Facility 358,412
Ash used as ADC at MSW Landfills
Allied Waste Niagara Falls Landfill 84,585

Ontario County Sanitary Landfill 74,570
Mill Seat SLF 12,831
Madison County West Side Extension LF 9,856
Bristol Hill SLF 9,741

Franklin County Regional Landfill 5,433
Delaware County SWMF 4,506
Sullivan County Landfill 2,075
High Acres Western Expansion Landfill 622

Hyland Landfill 42
Chemung County Sanitary Landfill 5
Subtotal 211,119


FIGURE 9.18
9.4.7 Landfill Gas
As concern about climate change grows, so does the urgency in combating its effects by reducing
GHG emissions. Landfill gas contributes approximately 4 percent of the state’s GHG inventory,
primarily because about half the gas generated at a landfill is methane, a potent GHG whose
warming potential is 23 to 72 times more powerful than CO2, depending on the time horizon
analyzed. This impact cements landfilling at the bottom of the state’s solid waste management
hierarchy in the 21st century, and reducing these emissions is a critical strategy for New York State in
combating climate change. (For more detail see Section 4.)
Landfill gas is generated by the anaerobic (oxygen‐starved) degradation of organic waste. It is
typically composed, on a volume basis, of about 50 percent methane (CH4), 49 percent carbon
dioxide (CO2) and 1 percent other gases. The amount of gas produced depends on many factors,
particularly waste composition and site conditions. (See Section 4 for more details.) Landfill gas
generation follows a very familiar pattern in which the volume of gas increases due to
biodegradation of the waste under anaerobic conditions until it reaches peak production and then
slowly decreases with time as the amount of organic waste is consumed. (See Figure 9.19.)
During the first phase of decomposition, aerobic bacteria consume oxygen while breaking down
organic waste. Phase I decomposition can last for days or months, depending on how much oxygen

is present when the waste is disposed of in the landfill. Phase II decomposition begins the anaerobic
processes that start after the oxygen in the landfill has been used up. The landfill becomes highly
acidic in Phase II. During Phase III, the landfill becomes a more neutral environment in which
methane‐producing bacteria begin to establish themselves. Phase IV decomposition begins when
both the composition and production rates of landfill gas remain relatively constant. Under
favorable conditions, the methanogenesis stage for a waste mass can be reached in two years.
Phase IV landfill gas usually contains approximately 45 percent to 60 percent methane by volume,
40 percent to 60 percent carbon dioxide, and two percent to nine percent other gases, such as
sulfides. Gas is produced at a stable rate in Phase IV, typically for about 20 years. However, the
actual timeframes for landfill gas production can vary. Gas can continue to be emitted for 50 or
more years after waste is placed in the landfill.72
FIGURE 9.19. TYPICAL LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITION IN TIME (TCHOBANOGLOUS, ET AL., 1993)

Several options are available for the management of landfill gas, depending on the landfill’s size, age
and waste composition. Owners and operators of larger MSW landfills constructed or operated
since November 8, 1987 must comply with the requirements of 6NYCRR Part 208, Landfill Gas
Collection and Control Systems for Certain MSW Landfills. 73 Owners and operators of these landfills
must design, construct and operate a collection and control system if the calculated non‐methane
organic compounds (NMOC) emission rate exceeds 50 megagrams per year and must monitor
methane concentrations at the landfill surface to ensure they do not exceed 500 parts per million.
Of the 27 operating MSW landfills in New York State, 14 are subject to this requirement. They are
highlighted in Table 9.9. For smaller landfills where gas collection is not mandatory, carbon offset
trading and renewable energy credits have created incentives for the collection and destruction of
landfill gas and its conversion to energy.

72
Crawford and Smith 1985.
73
Landfills with a design capacity of at least 2.5 million cubic meters and with non‐methane organic compound
(NMOC) emissions of at least 50 megagrams per year are subject to Part 208.

Gas is collected using either a passive or active gas collection system. An active gas collection
system typically includes horizontal collection laterals and/or vertical collection wells. Gas is
extracted from the landfill by vacuums created by large blowers directing the gas to a large enclosed
flare or gas‐to‐energy facility. A passive system typically consists of a number of shallow wells which
penetrate a few feet into the waste mass or connect to a gas venting layer in the cover system and
vent directly to the atmosphere or sometimes to small flares mounted to the vents. Most of today’s
larger, active MSW landfills use an active collection system.
DEC regulations (6NYCRR Part 208) require that the gas from larger landfills be collected and
destroyed. Facilities can meet Part 208 requirements by combusting the gas, either using flares or
engines that generate electricity. Gas combustion, with or without energy recovery, converts the
methane from all of these systems into CO2, resulting in lower GHG impacts. GHG reductions are
also realized in systems that use the landfill gas for energy production because the combusted gas
displaces fossil fuels for energy production. In some cases, such as the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten
Island, the gas is cleaned and marketed to commercial gas supply systems. In New York State,
approximately half of the landfill gas captured from both active and inactive landfills is used for
energy generation. (See tables 9.8 and 9.9.)
Table 9.9 shows the amount of landfill gas that was collected and flared or used to generate energy
from the active MSW landfills and one Long Island landfill. At these 28 landfills, the amount of gas
flared (about 10.5 billion cubic feet) was only about 6 percent more than was used for energy
production (almost 10 billion cubic feet) in 2008. This is an improvement compared to 2006 when
the amount flared was 42 percent more than was used for energy production. Thus, there may be
significant opportunities for additional energy recovery at these sites. Energy generation from
landfill gas is limited by the substantial costs to facilities, as well as logistical and regulatory hurdles
related to connecting landfill energy recovery facilities to the electricity grid.
In the case of small, old, inactive MSW landfills (25 acres or less), it has generally been assumed that
recovery of methane for energy production is not feasible due to economies of scale. Little has
been done to develop small scale landfill gas recovery systems or to seriously evaluate their
potential. Although individual landfills of this type may produce relatively small quantities of
methane compared to larger and newer facilities, because of their sheer number—which is
estimated to be more than 1,500 statewide—their cumulative contributions to GHG emissions may
be significant. Due to the problems inherent in recovery of landfill gas on a small scale and the need
for basic research in this area, it is likely that grant monies or other incentives will be needed to
encourage research and development.

Table 9.8 shows information, compiled from the 2008 annual reports, about the gas collected from
landfills for energy recovery in New York State. Twenty MSW landfills and one Long Island Landfill
currently have gas‐to‐energy production systems. Of the 21, 7 are closed, and 14 are still
operational. Figure 9.20 shows the locations of the landfill gas‐to‐energy facilities and MSW
landfills. Altogether, they collected a total of about 14 billion cubic feet of gas and produced almost
564,000 megawatt‐hours of electricity. The gas collected from two of the landfills is not used to
produce electricity onsite. The gas from Fresh Kills Landfill is conditioned and marketed to a
supplier of natural gas, while the City of Auburn uses its landfill gas for sludge drying at its nearby
wastewater treatment plant.
FIGURE 9.20

TABLE 9.8 2008 LANDFILL GAS‐TO‐ENERGY FACILITY ANNUAL REPORT DATA

Region Facility Name Activity Landfill Amount Gas Amount Amount Amount
Number Recovered for Electricity Low BTU Condensate
Energy Generated Gas Generated
(cubic feet) (megawatt‐ Produced (gallons)
hours) (cubic feet)
1 Brookhaven Landfill Gas 52F06 Brookhaven (52S02) 185,000,000 284 175,000
Recovery Facility
1 Oceanside Landfill Gas 30F13 Oceanside (30S06) 110,440,000 3,617 12,105
Recovery Facility
2 NYCDOS/GSF FRESHKILLS 43F21 Fresh Kills (43S02) 2,875,596,000 1,490,748,000 142,021
GAS PLANT
3 Ameresco 36F02 Al Turi (36S04) 657,394,532 3,726 15,410
4 Hudson Valley 42F01 Troy (42S17) 22,103,348 933 2,449
Community College LFG
4 Minnesota Methane 01F01 Albany (01S02) 359,850,000 12,521
Albany LGRF
4 Town of Colonie Sanitary 01F Colonie (01S26) 797,463,000 38,241
Landfill
5 Clinton County Landfill 10S20 Clinton County 144,242,589 6,994
(10S20)
5 Saratoga Springs Landfill 46F01 Wieble Avenue 6,720,000 417
Gas Project (46S17)
6 DANC DANC (23S13) 194,073,483 9,410
7 Auburn Landfill Gas 06F01 Auburn (06S14) 109,255,383
7 Broome County LGRF 04F Broome (04S07) 328,220,000 13,478 38,321
7 Onondaga Energy Group 34F01 Onondaga/Tripoli 67,300,000 2,193 15,600
(34S12)
8 High Acres Gas 28F02 High Acres (28S32) 1,552,100,000 70,605 1,451,952
8 Mill Seat LGRF 28F03 Mill Seat (28S31) 864,400,000 41,087 603,944
8 Monroe‐Livingston Gas 26F01 Monroe‐Livingston 11,648
(26S09) 306,738,169 85,050
8 Ontario LGRF 35F Ontario (35S11) 1,014,669,687 47,917
8 Seneca Energy; Inc. 50F02 SMI (50S08) 2,792,137,640 145,342 462,211
9 Chaffee Landfill 15F01 Chaffee (15S14) 800,129,000 41,627 23,713
9 Hyland Landfill 02F01 Hyland (02S17) 249,684,545 12,106
9 Model City Energy 32F01 Modern (32S30) 2,218,131,000 101,805
Total: 15,546,392,993 563,951 1,600,003,383 3,027,776


TABLE 9.9
Amount Gas % Recovered
Amount Gas
Activity % Gas Recovered for for Energy of
Region Landfill Name Flared Comments
Number Flared Energy Total Gas
(cubic feet)
(cubic feet) Collected

4 Albany Rapp Rd. 1,360,579,877 79% 359,850,000 21% 3 Open Flares
9 Allegany County 02S15 No flare
No flare ‐
Allied Niagara Nonputrescible
9 Falls 32S11 Waste
1 Open Flare ‐
Auburn Landfill variable amounts
7 No. 2 06S14 flared
6 Ava 33S15 24,440,000 100% ‐ 0% 4 Open Flares

8 Bath 51S21 303,711,000 100% ‐ 0% 1 Open Flare
7 Bristol Hill 38S14 No flare
1 Open Flare, 1
1 Brookhaven 52S02 446,000,000 71% 185,000,000 29% Enclosed Flare

7 Broome County 04S07 216,260,000 40% 328,220,000 60% 1 Open Flare
1 Open Flare, 1
9 Chaffee 15S14 290,371,000 27% 800,129,000 73% Enclosed Flare
9 Chautauqua 07S12 565,261,146 100% 0%
8 Chemung County 08S02 376,400,000 100% 0% 6 Open Flares
Chenango
7 County 09S16 5 Open flares
5 Clinton County 10S20 756,400,000 84% 144,242,589 16% 1 Flare
4 Colonie 01S26 3,379,860 0% 797,463,000 100% 2 Open Flares
Cortland County
7 Westside Ext 12S10 No flare
6 DANC 23S13 622,000,000 76% 194,073,483 24% 2 Open Flares
Delaware County
4 SWMF 13S18 197,000,000 100% 0% 1 Open Flare
Franklin County
5 Regional 17S21 143,000,000 100% 0% 1 Open Flare
5 Fulton County 18S20 227,959,000 100% 0% 1 Open Flare
High Acres
8 Western Exp 28S32 1,900,038,000 55% 1,552,100,000 45% 2 Enclosed Flares
9 Hyland 02S17 618,425,000 71% 249,684,545 29% 1 Open Flare
Madison County
7 West Side Ext. 27S15 259,288,000 100% 0% 1 Open Flare
8 Mill Seat 28S31 1,012,500,000 54% 864,400,000 46% 1 Enclosed Flare
9 Modern 32S30 ‐ 0% 2,218,131,000 100% 1 Enclosed Flare
1 Open Flare, 2
8 Ontario County 35S11 132,870,000 12% 1,014,669,687 88% Enclosed Flares
Seneca
8 Meadows 50S08 534,000,000 16% 2,792,137,640 84% 2 Enclosed Flares
3 Sullivan County 53S03 552,000,000 100% 0% 2 Open Flares

Total: 10,541,882,883 15,546,392,993
Note: 1. The amount of gas collected does not equal the amount generated because landfills experience uncontrolled emissions. For a more complete
discussion, see Section 3.
2. Higlighted landfills are subject to the requirements of 6NYCRR Part 208, Landfill Gas Collection and Control Systems for MSW Landfills.

9.4.8 Siting Issues and Restrictions
Siting landfills is a complicated and controversial process that has, at times, taken more than a
decade. This is, in part, due to the siting restrictions identified in Appendix 9.2. Among the most
common issues are the restrictions related to regulated wetlands. These are often applicable to
proposed landfill projects because of the widespread nature of wetlands in New York State and
because the low‐permeability soils which promote wetland formation are also preferred for landfills
because they limit the potential for groundwater contamination. Additional factors are considered
under SEQRA and include impacts on traffic and aesthetic resources, such as scenic views; noise and
odors, and public health concerns. DEC has issued guidance to aid project proponents in addressing
climate impacts under SEQRA analysis (see http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/56552.html). The
extent to which significant environmental impacts can be mitigated is weighed in the decision to
permit waste disposal capacity and to place conditions on a permit.

9.4.9 Landfill Expansions
In 2009, landfills are fewer in number and larger in size due to the challenges of siting new landfills
in greenfield sites, the time and cost involved in developing a new landfill, the objectives of many
municipalities to use exising facilities outside their boundaries rather than construct and operate
their own facilities, and the goals of private enterprises to provide and expand service to a wide
array of customers. Today, landfill expansions, which typically take one to five years to develop, are
much more common than new landfill sites because of litigation, local zoning prohibitions, real
property acquisition costs and lengthy regulatory and public review processes that make new
greenfield site development ever more daunting. Also in their favor, landfill expansions use existing
infrastructure, are much less expensive to design and construct, and generally impact fewer natural
resources than new landfills. Even municipalities that actively manage their waste and operate their
own landfills have generally sought to expand existing landfills to provide long‐term disposal
solutions rather than site new facilities.

9.4.10 Future MSW Disposal Capacity 74
Looking at the state as a whole, at the end of 2008, there were about 220 million tons of permitted
MSW landfill capacity for future disposal. Approximately 75 percent of that capacity is available to
the marketplace, generally at merchant facilities, and 25 percent of capacity is designated for
particular jurisdictions. At 2008 waste disposal rates, the remaining capacity permitted in the state
can be equated, for illustrative and planning purposes, to an overall average of about 21 to 25 years
of remaining, approved landfill site life. However, once acceptance restrictions are taken into
account, 9 to 12 years of capacity are readily available to the rest of the state.

74
It should be noted that capacity projections are a snapshot in time. As landfill expansion applications are
approved, the remaining capacity picture changes. DEC has provided estimates based on the assumption
that current operations and conditions will continue into the future.

To provide a more in‐depth analysis, Figure 9.9 and Table 9.11 provide the site life remaining at each
of the MSW landfills in the state at the end of 2008. A more realistic analysis of disposal capacity
must consider site‐specific capacity at the landfills that serve or could serve that planning unit.
Approximately one third of the MSW landfills, representing less than 10 percent of the total
approved MSW landfill capacity, have less than 10 years of site life remaining before they reach
their current permitted capacity. Several of these facilities have proposed expansions. Another 12
representing almost half of the remaining permitted capacity in the state have 10 to 30 years
remaining. Another quarter, representing about 45 percent of the remaining permitted capacity,
have more than 30 years left to fill. Therefore, two‐thirds of the MSW landfill operators or the
planning units in which they are located, representing almost 95 percent of the permitted landfill
capacity in the state, have ample time to attempt to reduce waste and increase recovery or plan for
future expansion.

TABLE 9.10 MSW LANDFILL PERMITTED CAPACITY SITE LIFE SCENARIOS (YEARS)
Current Conditions No Waste
Continue Import/Export
Permitted Landfill Capacity (All 21‐25 15‐18

MSWLFs)
Permitted Capacity w/o Self‐ 14‐18 9‐12

Sufficient or Limited Service Area
MSWLFs


TABLE 9.11
Site Life >2008 Existing & Entitled Percent of Total

MSW Landfill (Years) Capacity (Tons) Landfill Capacity
0 ‐ 10 Years
Albany 1 478,000
Sullivan 1 140,000
Chautauqua 2 2,240,000
Allegany 4 250,000
6
Franklin 7 575,000
Ontario 7 7,350,000
Auburn 8 761,000
Chemung 8 1,240,000
11 ‐ 30 Years
Mill Seat 11 6,890,000
DANC 12 3,500,000
Allied Niagara 13 9,240,000
Colonie 15 4,000,000
Steuben 15 2,420,000
Chaffee 17 6,080,000
49
Hyland 17 7,710,000
SMI 17 37,600,000
Clinton 20 7,640,000
Delaware 20 508,000
Modern 24 22,100,000
Cortland 28 710,000
31 ‐ 50 Years
High Acres 41 44,400,000
Chenango 42 1,100,000 26
Broome 50 10,600,000
51 ‐ 100 Years
Bristol Hill 60 3,350,000
Fulton 63 9,450,000 16
OHSWA 67 21,400,000
100 + Years
Madison 106 7,770,000 4

Denotes Self‐Sufficient or Limited Service Area MSW Landfills


9.5 IMPORT/EXPORT FOR DISPOSAL
While some planning units have enacted flow control measures as part of integrated waste
management systems within their communities, more often than not, waste is moved from the
planning unit or community where it was generated to another where it is disposed. While many
New York State communities dispose of their waste within the state, as shown in Figure 9.21, a
significant amount of waste is also transported for disposal across state borders, both out of and
into the state. Figure 9.22 illustrates the progressive increase in waste exports in time.
The state’s increasing reliance on waste export from many of its densely populated areas represents
a significant public policy issue. While DEC acknowledges that the flow of waste is dictated by
economic and market forces as well as regulatory and policy directives, it is important to recognize
that relying on other jurisdictions to manage one‐fifth of the total waste stream and one‐third of
MSW is problematic and potentially unreliable. Principles of sustainability and responsibility dictate
that materials be managed in the most efficient and environmentally sensitive manner, with
consideration of the risks and impacts of out‐of‐state transportation. Although complete self‐
sufficiency is unlikely, it is a worthy goal to which the state and its communities should aspire to
reduce its vulnerability to the decisions of other states and jurisdictions and to achieve sustainable
materials management.
Achieving the goals of this Plan—preventing waste, increasing reuse, recycling and composting and
reducing waste disposal—will help reduce reliance on export. For example, increasing the statewide
MSW recycling rate to 45 percent and reducing waste generation to 2.9 pounds per person per day
would result in six million tons of waste reduced statewide—roughly equivalent to the amount of
MSW exported annually. Fully realizing the potential of this Plan would reduce waste generation to
below one pound per person per day, even further reducing pressure for export. If the state is
successful in moving Beyond Waste and achieving the goals of this Plan, existing in‐state disposal
capacity could be extended, and out of state export could be curtailed significantly.


FIGURE 9.21

Figure 9.22 demonstrates the trends in the total amount of solid waste transported out of the state
during the past 20 years and into the state during the past 10 years. (Supporting data is included in
Appendix 9.3.) New York State continues to be a significant net exporter to disposal facilities in
other states, as the figure shows, with both exports and imports generally rising with time. It should
be noted that the older data is not as comprehensive as that from recent years, and import data was
not collected prior to 1998. The newer data is more reliable due to enhanced reporting
requirements and improved data management methods employed by solid waste management
facilities and by DEC, although further improvements are still needed as discussed in section 8.3.1.


FIGURE 9.22

9.5.1 Exports
This section focuses on waste transported for disposal and not on recyclables. 75 The data presented
here includes: MSW, C&D debris, and industrial waste but excludes biosolids. MSW represented
about 74 percent of the solid waste exports in 2008 and about 60 percent of the imports. The
export data presented in this section is based on the information provided in the solid waste
management facility annual reports submitted to the DEC.
During the past decade, more than a quarter of all solid waste generated and destined for disposal
in New York State annually has been exported. Exports appear to have increased significantly in the
past 20 years, and they are still rising. Perhaps the most significant reason for the increase since
2000 is that the immense Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island ceased receiving waste at that time.
New York City began gradually decreasing the amount of waste disposed at Fresh Kills and
increasing out‐of‐state exports several years prior to that the landfill’s closure.
Much of the waste exported from New York State is generated in New York City (DEC Region 2).
Since 2005, almost 75 percent of the state’s exported waste originated there. Most of the rest was
exported from the neighboring downstate areas of Long Island (DEC Region 1) and the lower Hudson
Valley (DEC Region 3). Altogether, waste exports from these three DEC regions account for about 99
percent of the state’s export total.

75
It is important to note that, in addition to conventional recyclables, approximately 86,823 tons of yard
trimmings were exported from Long Island for composting in other states in 2008.

As illustrated in figures 9.23 and 9.24, the primary states to which New York State waste has been
exported for disposal in recent years were, from greatest quantities to least:
1. Pennsylvania – exports from New York State have consistently ranged between 2 and 3
million tons per year since 2004.
2. Virginia – exports increased from about 1.2 million tons in 2004 to more than 1.5 million
tons in 2008.
3. Ohio – exports increased significantly from about 200,000 tons in 2004 to more than 1.7
million tons in 2008.
4. South Carolina – exports increased significantly from virtually none in 2004 to more than
500,000 tons in 2008.
5. New Jersey – exports amounted to just under 200,000 tons.

These five states receive about 99 percent of New York State’s exported waste.

FIGURE 9.23

FIGURE 9.24

Solid waste exports for disposal far outweigh imports and will continue to do so for the foreseeable
future, primarily due to long‐term export contracts that are in place for New York City’s residential
solid waste. Despite excluding New York City’s exports, imports and exports for the rest of the state
seem to be comparable. Exports from the rest of the state, which have been primarily from DEC
regions 1 and 3, have generally been about the same as imports during the past several years. Table
8.11 shows this, as well as a breakdown by waste type, for 2008. It should be noted that the data in
Table 9.12 is based on information reported by solid waste facilities in New York State. As
mentioned earlier, the primary states to which waste from New York is exported report about an
additional 1.3 million tons from New York. Imports have been accepted, for the most part, at
facilities in DEC regions 3, 5, 8 and 9.

TABLE 9.12
Waste Type 2008 Exports from NYS (in Millions of Tons) 2008 Imports
Total NYC Other NYS

MSW 4.7 3.7 1.1 1.2
C&D 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.5
Industrial <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2
Biosolids 0.2 0 0.2 0.07
Total 6.5 4.7 1.9 2.0


9.5.2 Imports
Although New York State is a net exporter of solid waste, waste import quantities have also
increased substantially during the past decade. Since 2005, imports have accounted for more than
ten percent of all solid waste disposed at landfills and MWCs within New York State. As illustrated in
Figure 9.25 for 2008, the major states/provinces from which waste is imported are:
1. Ontario – Imports from this province have increased since 2005 from about 300,000 tons to
almost 900,000 tons in 2008.
2. Connecticut
3. Massachusetts
4. New Jersey
5. Pennsylvania

FIGURE 9.25

As illustrated in Figure 9.26, about 75 percent of the waste imported into New York State since 2005
has come from Ontario, Connecticut and Massachusetts. The top five import states, which include
these three plus New Jersey and Pennsylvania, are the source of about 95 percent of the waste
imported into New York State. While imports from most states have remained relatively constant or
vary somewhat from year to year, imports from Ontario in particular have increased steadily since

2005 and have accounted for approximately 33 percent of all imports into New York State since that
time. As with exports, most imported waste is received by privately operated landfills and MWCs.

FIGURE 9.26 PERCENTAGES OF SOLID WASTE IMPORTED FOR DISPOSAL FROM OTHER STATES

9.5.3 Interstate Transport Limitations
Communities and businesses that generate or receive waste make waste management decisions
based on a variety of economic, legal, and political factors. Only about half of the 64 planning units
in the state have disposal facilities (landfills and/or MWCs) within their boundaries. The rest
essentially rely on disposal capacity in other in‐state planning units or out‐of‐state facilities. The
free movement of waste is critical, therefore, to these planning units and the facilities that serve
them. Restrictions on waste exports would potentially impact about 22 percent of New York State’s
waste that is currently destined for disposal.

9.5.4 Data Collection and Reporting
As mentioned earlier, the information presented in this section is based on the data provided to DEC
in the solid waste management facility annual reports. Unfortunately, there have been inherent
discrepancies and inconsistencies in data reporting and transcription. Data collection and reporting
improvements have been made both by DEC and the facilities, resulting in more complete and
accurate data. Better monitoring of facilities has also resulted in the submission of more reports,
and measurements are more accurate as most facilities now use calibrated weighing scales rather
than estimating loads based on truck counts or volumes.

Nevertheless, data on exported waste available to DEC is incomplete in that annual reports are
submitted to DEC only by regulated solid waste management facilities in New York State. DEC
currently does not capture information about waste that is transported directly out of state without
going through such a facility, resulting in an underreporting of exported waste. The degree of
underreporting is uncertain. The difference between New York State’s annual export estimates and
those reported by other states, most notably Pennsylvania, has been up to three million tons.
Efforts have been underway to obtain better information, but more comprehensive reporting
mechanisms and other improvements are still needed.
To prepare the 2008 export estimate, DEC included: (1) reported exports from transfer stations and
other facilities in New York State and (2) data from state agencies in the five states that receive most
of New York State’s waste exports, as reported by transfer and disposal facilities in those states.
Adding data collected from other states resulted in an estimated increase of 1.5 million tons of solid
waste exports.

9.6 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
Many municipalities, companies, universities and research institutions are working to develop the
next generation of MSW conversion technologies as a waste management alternative to landfilling
or conventional mass burn MWC. These technologies use advanced thermal, biological, or chemical
processes to convert the organic portion of the waste stream into a syngas which can be used to
produce electricity, synthetic fuels, and/or chemical products.
Thermal conversion technologies include pyrolysis, gasification, and plasma arc gasification. As of
fall 2009, there were four proposals for gasification plants in the state in the permit application
process. Biological and chemical conversion technologies include anaerobic digestion, fermentation
to ethanol, acid hydrolysis, and catalytic cracking. While some consider anaerobic digestion an
“emerging energy from waste technology,” DEC considers it a biological organics recovery system,
and, therefore, it is discussed in Section 8.4.
Emerging technologies are attracting the attention of researchers, consultants and municipalities
seeking alternatives to current residuals management techniques. Communities in California,
Florida and New York City have commissioned studies on alternative thermal, thermochemical and
biochemical conversion technologies. They are finding that thermochemical and biochemical
conversion technologies possess unique characteristics which have varying potentials to reduce the
amount of material that is ultimately landfilled.
However, there are still many questions regarding the implementation of these technologies on a
commercial scale, including:
• Can the technology be scaled up successfully and for long‐term operations?
• Will costs and revenues be as proposed by the project sponsor for the life of the project?

• Will the system be available, and the project sponsor solvent, at the time contracted for
delivery and operation?
• Will the project sponsor be available throughout the life of the project for servicing and
operation assistance?
• Will the system perform as expected during the life of the project?
• Will the system have good reliability and greater than 85 percent availability when waste is
delivered?
• Will the environmental impacts be as described by the project sponsor?
In March 2006, the New York City Economic Development Corporation released its study, Focused
Verification and Validation of Advanced Solid Waste Management Conversion Technologies. The
study found that anaerobic digestion and thermal processing technologies are in commercial
operation overseas for MSW, and these technologies could be successfully applied in New York City.
According to the report, the environmental findings showed that, in general, anaerobic digestion
and thermal processing technologies have the potential to offer better environmental performance
than MWCs, including lower air emissions, increased beneficial use of waste, and reduced reliance
on landfilling. The economic findings also showed that costs for these technologies (on a
commercial scale) were comparable to costs for current export practices.
Other studies, however, have found that some thermal treatment facilities have demonstrated
higher air emissions than mass‐burn MWCs. Test burns at a pyrolysis facility in Riverside County, CA
yielded emissions of key pollutants (ozone precursors NOx and reactive organic gas and dioxins) at
higher levels than conventional mass‐burn MWCs.76
Also to be considered is the potential energy consumption needs of certain emerging technologies
that can offset their value as a source of electricity. For example, plasma arc facilities use electricity
to create the ultra‐high‐temperature environment needed to generate the arc. Reportedly, 40
percent of the energy produced at a plasma facility would be required to operate it, and only 60
percent would be available for resale.
It is also important to note that many emerging technologies have been plagued by operational
problems and have had difficulty growing from bench to commercial scale. There are two examples
of MSW gasification facilities, one in Germany and one in Australia, which have closed due to
operational issues, including technical problems, equipment breakdowns, and air emissions
exceedences. 77
In summary, while thermal treatment technologies are emerging, they have not yet been
successfully demonstrated in the US in an economically viable, environmentally protective
commercial scale operation.

76
South Coast Air Quality Management District.
77
Source: Incineration in Disguise.

10. AGENDA FOR ACTION

The Plan seeks to fundamentally change the way discarded materials are managed in New York
State. The action agenda presented here is a compilation of the recommendations detailed
throughout the Plan and represents the path that will move the state toward sustainable materials
management by progressively reducing the amount of materials that go to waste. Taking this path
will have a tremendous positive impact on our economy and our environment—conserving energy
and natural resources, creating economic opportunity and jobs, and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
This Plan is ambitious. To meet its promise, the state and its solid waste management planning
units must implement the wide range of actions detailed throughout the Plan and summarized
below; New York State’s citizens must embrace its concepts as well. Fully realizing these
recommendations will require additional resources—both financial and human—at the state and
local level. Options for generating new resources are presented in Section 10.1.3 below.
10.1 LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
While some of the goals of the Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 (Act) have been met, as
evidenced by the growth in recycling programs since its passage, it is undeniable that higher levels
of achievement are possible. With the continued growth in the volume of solid waste generated, an
evolved understanding of the environmental impacts of waste disposal, and the emergence of new
materials management options, there is a clear need for new priorities. Moving forward requires an
updated statutory framework that sets the stage for growth and supports the paradigm shift needed
to move Beyond Waste.
This section includes the critical elements of a new legal structure to prevent waste and increase
recycling, including an updated solid waste management act, product and packaging stewardship
programs, and options for generating new resources. Together, these legislative recommendations
are intended to achieve the following objectives:
• Prevent waste generation
• Use materials in the waste stream for their highest and best use
• Maximize reuse and recycling
• Engage state agencies, authorities, businesses, institutions, and residents in sustainable
materials management programs
• Maximize the energy value of materials management
• Engage manufacturers in end‐of‐life management of the products and packages they put
into the marketplace
•

10.1.1 Updated Solid Waste Management Act
Making truly significant progress to prevent waste and increase recycling will require a new
statutory structure. Updates to the act proposed here represent an integrated package of
recommendations that address many issues raised throughout this Plan. Together they create a
framework that will support the state’s efforts to move Beyond Waste.
A critical element of a new framework is an updated solid waste management act to guide the
actions of the state’s many involved agencies and its varied municipalities. An updated act should
address the following key issues:
1. Set new goals and define new metrics: New and aggressive reduction, composting and
recycling goals will guide New York State and its citizens, businesses, local governments, and
planning units in striving for reductions in waste and increases in recycling. Statutory goals
should mirror the statewide goals proposed in this Plan, beginning with a shift to a more
effective way of measuring success. Instead of attempting to measure the percentage of
waste diverted from the waste stream, the new metric will gauge the amount of waste
destined for disposal on a percapita basis, with a goal of reducing that amount by 15
percent every two years. Using this metric, the state will be able to assess the impact of
waste prevention, reuse and product and packaging stewardship and more effectively assess
progress in moving Beyond Waste. To measure recycling progress, the state will track
percapita diversion of recyclables and organic materials. DEC will evaluate the
effectiveness of the new metric and the state’s progress against the disposal reduction goal
in biennial Plan updates, which will assist the State Legislature and solid waste managers in
making short and long‐term policy decisions that promote both effective and
environmentally responsible materials management.
2. Update and clarify recycling and green purchasing requirements for state agencies and
authorities: The 1988 Act required all state agencies and authorities to implement recycling
programs; however, many agencies have not met their obligations. Executive Order 4 (EO4)
is a valuable step forward in integrating waste prevention, recycling and sustainability into
state operations. (See Appendix 8.1 or http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/ExecutiveOrder4.html.)
Codifying state agency waste prevention, recycling, purchasing, and sustainability
requirements of EO4 would ensure that the state continues to lead by example.
3. Clarify the Solid Waste Management Hierarchy: Research indicates that the hierarchy is still
a valid and useful tool for prioritizing waste management strategies. An updated act should
maintain the core elements of the existing hierarchy, which places a preference for waste
prevention, reuse, and recycling above municipal waste combustion (MWC) and landfilling,
while clarifying that reuse is preferable to recycling, that composting and organics recycling
are equivalent to recycling, and that product stewardship is the preferred approach to
implementing the heirarchy. The updated act should make clear that the hierarchy is a
statement of policy that communities should use as a guidepost, while using more advanced
tools to evaluate the economic, environmental and GHG impacts of various alternatives to
determine the best path Beyond Waste.

4. Generate and allocate new resources to move Beyond Waste: Meeting the goals and
objectives of this Plan will require significant investment in planning, reuse, recycling and
composting infrastructure, market development, education, outreach and enforcement.
This investment will necessitate an infusion of new revenue, such as one or more of the
potential revenue sources discussed in Section 9.1.3 below.
5. Reinforce recycling requirements for all generators: There must be no ambiguity in the
message that all New Yorkers are required to recycle, whether they are at home, at work, at
school, in public spaces, or in MTA transit stations. An updated act must clarify that
recycling programs must be made available to and employed by all generators in all settings
in the state; that is, that source‐separation requirements extend beyond the residential
sector to commercial, institutional and industrial generators and to public spaces, events
and other gatherings. Establishing and enforcing programs in these areas will ensure that
source‐separation/recycling messages are regularly and uniformly conveyed and clearly
understood.
6. Replace the “economic markets” clause in the current law (Section 120‐aa of Article 6 of
General Municipal Law) with a mandatory list of recyclables: The 1988 Act required that
communities establish recycling programs for materials “where economic markets exist.”
This clause has proven to be cumbersome in practice, creating confusion and potentially
undermining the value of recycled materials because a reliable supply of material is critical
to justifying private capital investment in secondary materials markets. In fact, most
programs have continuously collected the same materials for much of the past two decades
despite periodic dips in market values. Experience also shows that when the same items are
widely understood as recyclable for long periods,public participation is more successful.
After more than 20 years of experience in recycling, DEC and ESD can identify the materials
that are common to most programs in the state and that have had consistently viable
markets; they include newspaper, cardboard, metals, PET and HDPE plastic bottles, and yard
trimmings. These would comprise an initial list of mandatory recyclable materials in the
updated act. DEC should be authorized to add or remove materials by regulation as the
market and collection/processing systems evolve. The updated act should then provide for
an expedited mechanism for communities to petition DEC for an exemption from mandatory
recycling requirements and a mechanism for DEC to provide statewide waivers in times of
severe economic hardship or based on other critical concerns.
7. Increase DEC’s authority and resources to enforce recycling requirements: As described in
other sections of the Plan, planning units and municipalities have had the responsibility of
enforcing source‐separation requirements but have had difficulty allocating resources for
this important task. An updated act should supplement local enforcement of source‐
separation requirements with explicit authority for DEC to enforce against generators who
do not source separate mandatory recyclables designated in the act. Increasing DECs
authority and resources in this area would help municipalities get the attention and engage
the cooperation of reluctant recyclers.

8. Ensure that every permitted facility maximizes recycling and reuse and otherwise affords
opportunities to manage waste at the highest possible point in the hierarchy within the
facility’s service area: An applicant whose facility is not explicitly part of an integrated
system should contribute in other ways to encourage recycling, reuse, organics recycling,
household hazardous waste (HHW) collection and other means of reducing the amount of
waste disposed in the community in which it is located and by the communities within its
service area.
9. Establish disposal restrictions on bulk quantities of mandatory recyclable materials and other
materials, including hazardous products, where recovery options are readily available or
achievable: Facilities should report the appearance of such materials and any information on
their origin to DEC and the appropriate planning unit. For example, an initial material eligible
for restriction would be yard trimmings because ample composting infrastructure already
exists, and many solid waste management facilities are already subject to permit conditions
that restrict its disposal. To be most effective, such restrictions should be placed on waste
generators and collectors, not only on the disposal facility. Other states, including
Wisconsin and Massachusetts, report that disposal bans are an effective educational and
enforcement tool and help ensure that materials are properly managed or recovered where
alternatives to disposal exist. They also provide a feedback mechanism so that the state and
the municipality will be notified if materials targeted for recycling are not being effectively
source separated. The act should direct DEC to develop protocols for disposal facilities to
aid in compliance with restrictions, such as performing random inspections of incoming
materials and distributing notices to facility users.
10. Require communities to implement Save Money and Reduce Trash/Pay as You Throw
(SMART/PAYT) programs unless they can demonstrate that their programs otherwise
achieve the state’s waste reduction and recycling goals: In SMART/PAYT programs, residents
are charged for waste disposal based on the volume of waste picked up rather than the level
of service and are provided with recycling and composting services for free, thus creating a
financial incentive for reducing waste and increasing recycling.
11. Require local solid waste management planning: The 1988 Act enabled local governments to
create planning units to manage materials regionally. To foster more consistent program
implementation, local solid waste management plans (LSWMPs) should be made
mandatory.
12. Authorize local governments to franchise private materials management services:
Franchising offers an opportunity for local governments to control materials collection,
recycling and disposal systems without actually operating them to ensure that local systems
are consistent with the state’s sustainable materials management strategy. However, local
governments must be authorized by state law to franchise these services.


13. Expand the Waste Transporter program to place specific requirements on transporters of
municipal solid waste (MSW), recyclables, construction and demolition (C&D) debris and
historic fill to: enforce source separation requirements; account for wastes that are
currently largely unaccounted for, and ensure that communities who export waste comply
with source separation requirements and disposal restrictions. An expansion of the
program should:
a) Require transporters to provide recycling services to all customers; at a minimum,
transporters should be required to provide all services required by local or state
recycling laws in effect for the service area, including the collection of source‐separated
recyclables (SSR) from all generating sectors (residential, commercial, institutional,
industrial).
b) Prohibit the comingling of SSR with MSW, the delivery of SSR to solid waste disposal
facilities, and the comingling or delivery for disposal of any waste prohibited by law,
regulation or permit condition from being disposed of at a solid waste management
facility.
c) Allow for transportation of waste only to facilities authorized to accept the waste or
materials being handled.
d) Establish a means to account for the amounts and composition of waste that is
transported directly outofstate.
e) Establish means to ensure that exported waste complies with source‐separation
requirements, disposal restrictions and other regulations or standards that apply to
waste generated in New York State, so that export is not used as a way of avoiding the
costs and constraints that accompany management in New York State.
14. Provide technical fixes: Several solid waste laws require amendments to resolve technical
and definition issues. Several definitions in existing statute date back to the 1960s and are
not reflective of current conditions. For example, the vehicle dismantler law contains some
requirements that are not consistent with current best practices and the law banning the
sale of creosote treated lumber does not allow for reuse or resale of post‐consumer
creosote treated lumber in commercial or industrial settings.

10.1.2 Product Stewardship
Product stewardship is a centerpiece of the Beyond Waste Plan because it represents a paradigm
shift that can help New York State overcome many of the critical hurdles that have hindered
success. It can influence the design of products and packaging to reduce materials use, reduce
toxicity and improve recyclability. It can generate resources to optimize collection and recycling
systems and improve efficiency. Ultimately, it can reduce the amount of waste disposed of and help
New York State move Beyond Waste. (For more information, including the successful use of product
stewardship in other jurisdictions, see Section 5, Product Stewardship.)

10.1.2 (a) Packaging Stewardship
The product stewardship concept is particularly appropriate for consumer product packaging, which
constitutes 30 percent of waste generated nationwide. Despite a 30 percent recycling rate, EPA
estimates that the amount of packaging being disposed of as waste has not dropped since 1990.
Clearly, conventional approaches to recycling are not reducing the amount of packaging heading to
disposal.
Following the product stewardship model, packaging stewardship programs reimburse
municipalities or private companies for the costs of collection and processing recyclable materials,
and, in most cases, also set aside funds to invest in education, market development, processing
infrastructure or other program enhancements that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
recycling system. Packaging stewardship encourages manufacturers to embrace materials efficiency
and to design for recyclability, which helps local recycling programs capture more materials. And,
when manufacturers must pay for the amount of packaging they use, they have a financial incentive
to use less.

10.1.2 (b) Product‐Specific Stewardship
Any product stewardship program will have to be created by statute, likely beginning with programs
for specific products. A list of potential products most suited to a stewardship approach was
developed by DEC through research and feedback from stakeholders throughout the development
of this Plan. The unannotated list is presented below, with detailed justification for inclusion of each
of these products provided in Section 5.
• Electronics
• Household Hazardous Waste
• Pharmaceuticals
• Mercury‐Containing Thermostats
• Paint
• Automobiles
• Carpets
• Office Furniture
• Roofing Shingles
• Batteries


10.1.2 (c) Product Stewardship Framework
In many Canadian provinces, multiple product stewardship programs are implemented through a
single law that establishes the structure of product stewardship in the province and creates a
process and criteria for identifying products for stewardship and adding them as they meet the
criteria. Known as product stewardship framework, this approach maximizes efficiency by
structuring stewardship programs in a consistent manner.
California, Washington, Oregon and Minnesota introduced product stewardship framework
legislation in 2009 based on the principles of product stewardship, which have been endorsed by
product stewardship councils in New York State, California, the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest,
Texas and Vermont. (See Appendix 5.1.) In support of this approach, the Association for State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) issued a Product Stewardship Framework
Policy document in 2009 that provides greater detail on the various options in pursuing a framework
approach. (See Appendix 5.2.) New York State should also pursue legislation to ensure efficient and
timely implementation of product stewardship programs.

10.1.3 Revenue Generating Programs
Achieving the goals of this Plan—reducing waste generation, increasing reuse and recycling and
reducing disposal—will require a significant commitment of funding, as well as staff and other
resources. In addition to more resources, the state needs greater flexibility in allocating resources
to respond to emerging issues and critical needs. Likewise, municipalities need access to a less
restricted base of financial support than currently provided through the Environmental Protection
Fund (EPF) to create and implement the next generation of integrated materials management plans
and programs.
The funding sources below are described in greater detail in Section 6. Potential sources include:
• Increase state funds dedicated to reduction, reuse and recycling: In 1993, New York State
inaugurated the EPF to support environmental programs in special need of regular and
sustained funding. The EPF has been the most consistent, long‐term funding for the
municipal waste reduction and recycling, HHW and secondary materials marketing
programs. In New York State, Bond Acts have been used to generate hundreds of millions
dollars for environmental infrastructure investments in the past (1972, 1986 and 1996).
Each of these included significant allocations for municipal recycling and solid waste
management. Given current needs for waste water treatment, clean energy and materials
management infrastructure, stakeholders have suggested that an investment on the scale of
a Bond Act is warranted.
• Solid Waste Disposal Fees: More than 30 states assess some type of fee on the disposal of
solid waste, serving as both a disincentive to disposal and a source of revenue to meet
various funding needs. Fees vary by state from $.25 per ton to $8.25 per ton. With the
exception of Massachusetts, all of New York State’s neighbor states assess a solid waste
disposal fee. Fees can be structured in a number of ways to achieve specific objectives, such

as to direct proceeds back to local municipalities to support integrated programs or exempt
facilities whose tip fees are already dedicated, in part, to waste prevention, reuse, recycling
and composting programs.
• Permit Fees: Many states raise revenues by assessing fees on solid waste management
facility permits. According to a survey conducted by the Northeast Waste Management
Officials Association (NEWMOA), New York State is the only state in the region that does not
collect fees from solid waste facility permit applicants. Other DEC programs, including
Water and Air, assess permit fees.

10.2 REGULATORY RECOMMENDATIONS
This section outlines the regulatory changes that can be made within existing statutory authority
and that are necessary to support implementation of this Plan and achievement of its goals and
recommendations. The passage of the legislative recommendations outlined above will likely
require development of implementing regulations not discussed here.

10.2.1 Revisions to the Part 360 Solid Waste Management Facility Regulations
In addition to the technical and structural changes that have been in discussion for some time, DEC
will advance a revision to the Part 360 regulations that include the following key components.
• Update requirements for construction and operation of solid waste management facilities to
better protect human health and the environment.
• Revise and update the Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) Program regulations.
• Add new requirements for the management of historic fill, including additional operational
conditions for its use that protect neighboring areas, particularly in communities of
disproportionate impact.
• Restrict the disposal of yard trimmings and source‐separated recyclables in solid waste
management facilities and other recyclable and organic materials as recycling infrastructure
is developed or product stewardship programs are established.
• Take a regulatory approach to ensure consistent implementation of the requirements to
source separate recyclables, particularly in areas served by private collectors.
• Separate tracks and waiting lists for EPF funding for recycling coordinators, educational
activities, reuse programs, and other high‐priority projects.

10.2.2 Other Regulatory Recommendations
Enact new Part 374‐5 regulation to oversee the collection, handling and recycling of electronic
waste.
Review existing state regulations to remove or address contradictory regulatory requirements that
limit the creation or expansion of composting and other organics recycling facilities.
10.3 PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS
This section outlines the programs and initiatives that the state will pursue within current statutory
and regulatory authority in implementation of this Plan. These recommendations are compiled
from other sections of this Plan, including Materials Management Planning, Roles and
Responsibilities, Financial Assistance, and Materials Management Strategies. Taken together, these
activities represent a comprehensive sustainable materials management program. The state’s
ability to implement these initiatives and achieve the goals of this Plan will depend on its ability to
increase available staff and financial resources.

10.3.1 State Agencies and Authorities Lead by Example
As the state works with municipalities, institutions and businesses to reduce waste and increase
reuse and recycling, it is imperative that it demonstrate sustainable materials management within
its own operations. To that end, the state will:
• Work aggressively to implement the requirements of Governor Paterson’s EO4, including:
goals for waste prevention and paper‐use reduction; sustainable operations plans, including
maximizing reuse, recycling and composting in all contexts (within state facilities, on state
construction projects, etc.); green products purchasing program, including purchase of
reused and recycled content products and local compost, and incorporating “design for
deconstruction” concepts in sustainable building design and construction projects. (See
Appendix 8.1 and http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/ExecutiveOrder4.html.)
• Promote and demonstrate organics recycling systems and activities by state agencies by:
continuing the DEC/OGS partnership to implement organic recycling programs at state
agencies with a goal of diverting all state‐generated organic materials to recycling;
expanding the Department of Correctional Services’ (DOCS) composting program to accept
food scraps from other state facilities where possible, and identifying interested school
systems and assisting them in demonstrating the advantages of on‐site composting systems.
• Develop memoranda of understanding (MOUs) within DEC divisions or with other agencies
as needed to streamline BUD procedures or establish standards for beneficially used
materials (e.g., to provide the Division of Environmental Remediation (DER) with the
authority to make BUDs for materials used as backfill and cover on Superfund and
Brownfield sites).


10.3.2 Educate the Public
Public participation in waste prevention, reuse and recycling is key to achieving sustainable
materials management in New York State. To improve participation, the state will:
• Launch an aggressive public education campaign to promote waste prevention, reuse,
composting, recycling and the proper management of hazardous components of the waste
stream. DEC will seek funding to develop and implement the campaign, which will also
include the production of tools such as templates and informational materials for local
governments to use in their own outreach efforts.
• Organize workshops and other meetings and expand web‐based and other outreach
materials to communicate with key constituencies to promote waste prevention, reuse,
recycling and composting.
• Publicize innovative reuse, organic recycling and other model programs in the state via the
DEC website, ESD’s Recycling Markets Database, agency publications and other
communications.
• Build regional DEC staff outreach and education capacity to assist planning units in
improving recycling.
• Encourage design for reuse and disassembly: Educate manufacturers on the feasibility and
benefits of design for reuse and remanufacturing through the New York State Pollution
Prevention Institute 78 and other methods as appropriate.
• Encourage public understanding of the role of local solid waste management planning units,
how the units function, and how the public can participate in local materials management
planning.

10.3.3 Provide Outreach and Technical Assistance
Municipalities, businesses, institutions and agencies in the state will need guidance and assistance
to develop sustainable materials management programs. To meet that need, the state will:

• Develop written guidance on organic waste prevention for specific affected sectors (e.g.,
grocery stores) based on similar documents available from Cornell University’s Waste
Management Institute and successful strategies being employed by other states and
organizations (e.g., MA Supermarket Composting Handbook and several documents by

78
centers funded through the Environmental Protection Fund. For more information,

NERC) and distribute the guidance to all known facilities in that industry in the state and
other interested parties (local recycling coordinators, etc.).
• Encourage use of the Food Bank Network. Organize meetings in each food bank region of
the state, inviting representatives of relevant state and local agencies, local recycling
coordinators, and institutional and commercial generators of unused food to identify
potential new suppliers, raise funds to expand activities, educate commercial and
institutional generators about food donation options, and address regulatory, economic and
other barriers to increased food redistribution.
• Facilitate forums on C&D debris management to bring government and private entities
together to identify strategies for overcoming barriers to increased material recovery,
including market development, policy tools and economic incentives.
• Continue to provide technical and regulatory assistance for entities (private and public)
interested in developing small and large‐scale organic recycling systems and for operators
interested in demonstrating the viability of incorporating food scraps into existing yard
trimmings or biosolids composting facilities.
• Issue a technical guidance document to assist local governments in planning for and
implementing organics recycling and other sustainable materials management programs.
• Maximize the diversion of food scraps to feed animals by providing funding to a non‐
governmental organization to: develop guidance on the regulatory requirements governing
food residuals used for animal feed; work with Cooperative Extension agents to identify
farms and local food residuals sources and facilitate relationships, and hold forums across
the state to disseminate information and facilitate relationships between the sources and
farmers.
• Work with the NERC to take full advantage of its On‐Farm Compost Marketing Project,
including connecting farms with NERC’s technical assistance services and disseminating the
Compost Marketing Toolkit.

10.3.4 Comprehensive Materials Management Planning
Comprehensive planning is one of the key elements of successful materials management programs.
A comprehensive program will:
• Expand DEC’s local solid waste management planning technical assistance program and
provide guidance and tools to help municipalities, advocates, and other stakeholders
address challenging planning issues, including:
o Recycling market development and stabilization
o Flow control or other private sector oversight programs (e.g., waste transporter
licensing or permitting)
o Recycling and waste composition data collection and use

o Technology transfer and data/information sharing
o Infrastructure analysis and needs assessment
o Incentives, education and enforcement
o Program implementation uniformity
• Require planning units to evaluate and implement, to the maximum extent practicable, the
following programs, policies and initiatives as they develop new LSWMPs, modify existing
LSWMPs, and otherwise plan for and implement programs:
o Education and enforcement
o Incentives, including volume‐based pricing structures (e.g., PAYT/SMART Program)
o Waste prevention and reuse programs and infrastructure
o Public space, event, institutional and commercial recycling
o Recovery of additional materials, including residential mixed paper and food scraps
o Long‐term recycled material supply agreements and/or processing contracts with
multiple market outlets
• Evaluate current planning unit membership and structure to ensure that original structures
are functioning, and if not, support efforts to adjust structures or create new planning units
to best carry forward the next stage of planning and program implementation.
• Develop an on‐line reporting system to collect more timely and accurate recycling and
disposal data from solid waste and recycling facilities and planning units; work with industry
to develop uniform methods for more accurate data gathering and reporting, using the new
statewide performance metrics based on per capita amounts collected for recycling and
disposal.
• Evaluate the progress toward this Plan’s goals in biennial state plan updates, and
recommend additional policy approaches as necessary.

10.3.5 Combat Climate Change
Mitigating the impacts of climate climate represents one of the most pressing environmental
challenges for the state, the nation, and the world. The management of discarded materials
represents an opportunity to reduce GHG emissions and combat climate change. In addition to the
other recommendations of this plan, which collectively reduce waste and increase reuse, recycling
and composting to combat climate change, the state will:
• Ensure that landfills in New York State pursue every possible mechanism for achieving GHG
reductions: DECs Part 208 and 360 regulations and the financial incentives provided by the
carbon market have resulted in the installation of landfill gas collection and destruction

systems at most active MSW landfills. DEC will continue to assess the facilities and markets
in New York State to ensure that landfills maximize gas collection and destruction.
• Maximize conversion of landfill gas to energy: DEC will continue to work with electric
utilities and other entities involved in the electrical grid system’s governance and operation
to minimize the costs to connect, while still ensuring sound engineering.

10.3.6 Develop Reuse and Recycling Infrastructure and End‐Use Markets
Expanding the universe of materials diverted from disposal will require additional processing, reuse
and recycling infrastructure and new or stronger markets for the materials processed. To address
market and infrastructure issues, the state will:
• Develop critical recovery infrastructure through inter‐agency collaboration (with ESD,
NYSERDA, and EFC) and public‐private partnerships, including the following:
o Organic material recycling facilities
o New or upgraded material recovery facilities in select areas
o Regional glass processing facilities
o Plastics recovery facilities capable of processing both rigid plastics #1‐7 and film
plastics
o C&D debris processing facilities to generate materials suitable for high‐value end
uses
• Expand market development initiatives to target glass, plastic film, plastics #3‐7, compost
and C&D materials as a means to create green jobs and encourage local recycling‐based
manufacturing.
• Evaluate and implement where appropriate strategies to promote the establishment of
recycling and composting facilities in the environmental quality review and regulatory
processes for other solid waste management facilities.
• Encourage local use of processed, mixed glass, chipped tires and other appropriate recycled
materials in engineering applications.
• Establish a New York State Center for C&D debris recycling through ESD to: research issues
and solutions relative to C&D debris recycling in New York State; act as a central information
access point; promote deconstruction and building materials reuse; provide C&D job site
training programs; identify potential investments for ESD’s Environmental Services Unit, and
recommend policy options to support greater C&D debris recycling.
• Encourage and facilitate food scrap recycling demonstration projects at appropriate existing
composting facilities.
• Expand beneficial use applications for mixed color recovered glass by conducting pilot
projects to demonstrate acceptability of glass as a filter medium under the DEC Division of

Water Stormwater Design Manual’s Criteria for Acceptable Practices and also acceptance by
the New York State Department of Health (DOH) for use in residential septic systems.
1 0.3.7 Provide Necessary Human and Monetary Resources
Solid waste staff at both DEC and ESD, including those dedicated to waste prevention, reuse,
recycling and market development, have been significantly reduced during the past two decades. To
the extent that the recommendations described above cannot be implemented without additional
staff or financial resources, the state must commit to greater investment in preventing waste and
maximizing recyclingwith an understanding of the significant environmental and economic gains
they represent. In the interim, the state must make the most of the resources it has available by:
• ESD continuing to target recycling market development assistance, spur private investment
in recycling infrastructure, and encourage the use of recycled feedstocks by New York State‐
based manufacturers.
• DEC developing a working group with ESD, NYSERDA, Agriculture & Markets, and the
Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) to maximize available resources to promote and
expand composting and organics recycling.
Generating additional revenue for composting and other organics recycling activities by working
with other Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) states to include composting as an eligible
carbon offset category. (See discussion of Carbon Offsets in Section 6.)


11. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND PROJECTIONS

Note: There are constraints on DEC’s ability to accomplish the recommended actions listed above.
Many of the recommendations require the collaboration of other state and local government
entities and the private sector. The legislative recommendations require approval by the Governor
and passage by the State Legislature; regulatory recommendations must be approved by the
Governor’s Office of Regulatory Reform (GORR), and many of the programmatic recommendations
require the allocation of staff and financial resources that are not yet available.

Recommendation Lead & Partner Action Plan Timeframe Outcomes
Entities
Legislative
Updated Solid Waste DEC with Draft legislation Seek Reduce waste disposal to

Management Act Governor’s Office and work toward introduction 1.9 lbs./person/day in 10
and Legislature introduction and in 2010; work years; increase recycling
passage for passage to 11.5 million tons/year;
by 2011 reduce GHG by 11.3
million metric tons of
CO 2 E; conserve 135
trillion BTUs of energy
Packaging DEC with Participate in Seek Reduce or recycle 3.8
Stewardship Program Governor’s Office national dialogue; introduction million tons/year; Reduce
and Legislature draft legislation in 2011; work GHG by 8.8 million metric
and work toward for passage tons of CO 2 E; conserve
introduction and by 2012 82 trillion BTUs of energy
passage
Product‐Specific DEC with Participate in Seek Reduce or recycle
Stewardship Governor’s Office national dialogues introduction 747,000 tons/year;
Programs and Legislature on key products; and passage reduce disposal of
draft legislation as of one products containing
needed, and work bill/year, mercury and other toxins
toward beginning
introduction and 2010
passage
Product Stewardship DEC with Participate in Seek Reduce disposal of
Framework Program Governor’s Office national dialogue; introduction products containing
and Legislature draft legislation in 2011; work mercury and other toxins
and work toward for passage
introduction and by 2013
passage

Entities
Revenue Generating DEC with Develop package Seek Generate significant

Program Governor’s Office of dedicated introduction resources dedicated for
and Legislature revenue in 2010; work state and local
generating for passage government investment
proposals that do by 2011 in sustainable materials
not rely on the management
general fund; draft
legislation and
work toward
introduction and
passage
Regulatory Support goal to reduce
statewide waste disposal
by 15 percent every two
years
Revisions to Part 360 DEC Prepare proposed Submit Improved facility
Solid Waste revisions; achieve proposed operations; increase in
Management Facility GORR approval; regulations to beneficial use of
Regulations release for public GORR by materials; reduced GHG
comment; enact early 2010; emissions
final rule enact final
rule by 2011
New Part 364‐5 DEC Prepare revisions; Submit Protect the public and
Electronic Waste achieve GORR proposed environment from
approval; release regulations to negative impacts of
for public GORR in processing and recycling
comment; enact 2011; enact of electronics
final rule final rule in
2012
Implementing DEC Prepare As legislation Realize outcomes of
regulations on new regulations to is enacted subject legislation
legislation implement new
legislation
Programmatic Collectively reduce
statewide waste disposal
by 15 percent every two
years
State Agencies Lead OGS with DEC Implement EO4; Ongoing Reduce agency waste
by Example and other develop and generation by 10 percent
agencies and implement agency per year
authorities sustainability plans

Entities
Consistently Ongoing Increase materials

implement recycled; reduce waste
recycling programs disposed
at state facilities
and events
Promote and Pilot projects Increase capture of
demonstrate expand in organic materials to 90
composting and 2011; percent of state
organics recycling complete operations’ generation
implementati
on by 2015
Comprehensive DEC with Local Seek staff and Reorganize Outcomes of all
Materials SWM Planning resources to staff to reflect recommendations
Management Units implement state plan priorities achieved; biennial Plan
Planning Plan in 2010; add updates and
staff as modifications prepared
resources
become
available
DEC with Local Work with Ongoing Sustainable materials
Comprehensive SWM Planning planning units to management systems in
Materials Units craft next place across the state
Management generation of
Planning (continued) LSWMPs
Gather and Update Stronger data on which
compile better reporting to base local planning
data; improve forms in efforts and to update and
current reports; 2010; create modify the state Plan
broaden reporting
additional
requirements and reporting
develop on‐line requirements
reporting in 2011;
prepare for
and
implement
on‐line
reporting in
2011‐2012
Public Education DEC with Local Launch public Develop Stronger public support
Governments and education campaign in and participation in
Businesses campaign; develop 2010; launch sustainable materials
outreach materials in 2011 management
for local
governments

Entities
Publicize Ongoing Stronger understanding

innovative of sustainable materials
materials management strategies
management
programs
Outreach and DEC, ESD and Develop guidance Supermarket Guidance documents on
Technical Assistance regional partners on waste guidance in waste prevention in 10
prevention in 2010; one commercial sectors
specific additional
commercial sector per
sectors year or more,
as staffing
permits
Encourage the use Ongoing Increased diversion of
of food banks and usable food to the
other reuse hungry
options
Organize regional ESD to lead Increased diversion of
C&D debris two forums C&D materials for reuse
management and per year in and recycling by 50
recycling forums 2010 and percent in ten years
2011
Assist public and Develop Organics recycling and
private entities in technology composting
developing assessment infrastructure expanded
organics recycling and web‐
and composting based
systems information
in 2010‐2011;
provide
ongoing
assistance as
staffing
permits
Develop tools and Develop two Twenty guidance
resources to guidance documents addressing
support local documents key planning issues
sustainable per year
materials
management
programs

Entities
Infrastructure and ESD, DEC with Develop critical Target New infrastructure for

Market Development NYSERDA and EFC recycling existing recycling glass, organic
infrastructure for funds, where materials, plastics, and
materials, possible, in other target materials
including mixed‐ 2010 and
color glass, organic 2011;
materials, and develop
plastics investment
strategy for
new revenues
in 2012
Expand market Maximize Markets for key materials
development existing ESD expanded; additional
initiatives to target resources in materials diverted to
glass, plastic film, 2010; work to recycling
plastics #3‐7, increase
compost and C&D resources in
debris 2011 and
thereafter
Facilitate food Identify and Food scrap recycling and
scrap recycling facilitate one composting
demonstration demonstratio infrastructure expanded
projects n project per
year
Expand beneficial‐ Demonstrate Expanded markets for
use applications viability of mixed‐color glass
for mixed‐color glass in two
glass new
applications
by 2013


APPENDIX 1

METHODOLOGY AND DATA USED TO ESTIMATE WASTE DIVERSION SCENARIOS,
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS AND JOB CREATION POTENTIAL OF THE BEYOND
WASTE PLAN
1. Materials Composition and Diversion Scenarios

Tables A and B provide data to support the estimated waste diversion scenarios that underpin the
goals of the Beyond Waste Plan (See Table 2.1). The estimated composition of the materials stream
presented in Table A was developed by DEC staff using data inputs from field‐based waste
composition analyses performed both within New York State and in other US cities and states that
have similar demographic characteristics to some of New York’s regions. (For more detail, see
section 7.1.1.)
The diversion scenarios in Table A and disposal reduction scenarios in Table B assume that the most
immediate gains would be in improving the capture rate of materials currently designated in most
New York State recycling programs, such as cardboard, newspaper, other recyclable paper, plastic
containers, metals and yard trimmings. Improvements in the capture of materials that will require
new infrastructure, such as food scraps, glass, textiles, and other plastics, are expected to occur later
in the planning period.
2. Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Energy Conservation Estimates
The GHG calculation results presented in this Plan (Table 4.2) were obtained using diversion
scenarios in Table A and the Environmental Benefits Calculator developed by the Northeast
Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC). NERC’s calculator generates estimates of the environmental benefits
of a study area, in this case New York State. Estimates are based on the tonnages of materials that
are source reduced, reused, recycled, landfilled, or combusted (including waste to energy). The
calculator is based on per‐ton figures of the estimated energy use and emissions from several
lifecycle analysis studies. The estimates are average figures based on “typical” facilities and
operating characteristics existing in the United States. This calculator does not account for the value
of electricity generation from landfill gas recovery and or waste‐to‐energy facilities. It incorporates
US‐EPA’s most recent WARM Calculator, as well as facts and figures for the U.S. Department of
Energy, Steel Recycling Institute, Glass Packaging Institute, and U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation
Gateway, to name a few. More facts and figures can be found throughout the calculator.
For more detail on the calculator and to obtain a copy of it, please visit the NERC website at:
http://www.nerc.org/documents/environmental_benefits_calculator.html.

3. Potential Green Jobs Estimates

The potential green jobs calculation includes the current documented number of jobs related to
recycling and reuse industries and an estimate of potential green job creation based on a national
survey of the recycling industry. The Northeast Recycling Council’s Recycling Economic Information
Study Update: Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania (February 2009)
documented 32,240 jobs related to the recycling and reuse industries in New York State. The study,
prepared for the National Recycling Coalition by R.W. Beck, Inc. (July 2001), estimates that 6 jobs are
created for every 1,000 tons recycled. Using this estimate, and assuming that implementation of
the Plan will yield more than 12 million additional tons recycled annually (see Table A),
implementing the plan would result in an additional 74,220 jobs or a total of more than 100,000 jobs
created or sustained through implementation of the plan.

TABLE B: ESTIMATED MSW DISPOSAL SCENARIOS
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario

Estimated 1‐ 2‐ 3‐ 4 ‐
2008 2012 2014 2016 2018
Tons Disposed 14,591,648 12,311,682 8,435,638 4,220,615 2,221,817
Percent of 2008
Disposal 100% 67% 46% 23% 12%
Disposal/Capita (tons) 0.75 0.63 0.43 0.22 0.11
Disposal/Capita (lbs.) 1,497 1,263 866 433 228
Disposal/Capita/Day
(lbs.) 4.10 3.46 2.37 1.19 0.62

Appendix 3.1
NEW YORK STATE

OFFICE OF GENERAL SERVICES
Material Recovery and Waste

Reduction Program
ANNUAL REPORT
Fiscal Year 2007-08
Submitted in accordance with Subsection 3 of Section 165 of the State Finance Law
David A. Paterson John C. Egan

Governor Commissioner
Appendix 3.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Overview of the OGS Solid Waste Management Program…………………… 3
A. The 3R’s Program-Reduce It! Reuse It! Recycle It! ……………... 3

B. Solid Waste Management through Commodity Purchasing………. 4-5
II. Quantities of Recycled Paper Purchased by the Office of General Services and
Other Agencies………………………………………………………… 5-8
III. Amount of Waste Recycled from State Offices and State Programs and Full
Avoided Costs…………………………………………………………….. 9
A. State Offices……………………………………………………….. 9
IV. Extent of Waste Stream Reduction and Kinds of Materials………………. 10-11

A. Bureau of Surplus Personal Property……………….. 11
B. Department of Education, Bureau of Records Management…… 12
V. Cost of Operating the Program…………………………………………….. 12
VI. Specific Actions Undertaken………………………………………………. 13
A. Initiatives Summary………………………………………………... 13
B. Technical Assistance……………………………………………….. 13
VII. Executive Order 142 Recycling Initiatives by New York State Agencies… 14
VIII. Goals For Fiscal Year 2008-09 14
IX. Exhibits……………………………………………………………………. 15
A. Procurement Services Group Contracts with Recycled and/or Energy 16-19

Efficient Products & Technology
B. Graph of Total Tons of Recycled Materials – 1988-89 to 2007-08 20
C. Graph of Tons of Recycled Materials Versus Trash – 1988-89 to 2007-08 21
2
Appendix 3.1
I. OVERVIEW OF THE OGS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A. The 3R’s Program - Reduce It! Reuse It! Recycle It!
Fiscal Year 2007-08 marks the 19th full year of the Office of General Services’ (OGS)
Solid Waste Management Program. The program is aimed at reducing the demand for
valuable landfill space by efficiently collecting and marketing recyclable waste produced
in OGS-managed facilities. Since its inception, 90,568 tons of paper and other materials,
including batteries and scrap metal, have been recycled, generating $2,092,072 of revenue,
avoiding or averting approximately $7.1 million in tipping fees, and saving 247,684 cubic
yards of landfill space. In addition, since inception, an estimated 1.6 million trees were
saved through this recycling initiative.
During the Fiscal Year 2007-08 reporting period, 2,096 tons of paper and 2,559 tons of
other materials including batteries and scrap metal were recycled, which generated
$174,713 in revenue and avoided $279,300 in tipping fees. Through these efforts, an
estimated 35,632 trees were saved. In addition 13,965 fewer cubic yards of landfill space
were used. Through participation of state agencies, employees, and tenants, 55.3% percent
of the OGS properties’ waste stream was recycled.
The 3R’s Program is OGS Real Property Management’s response to the requirements
of Section 165 of the State Finance Law and is consistent with Executive Order 142,
which calls for the implementation of a comprehensive and environmentally sound
Solid Waste Management Program by all state agencies.
In addition to recycling various paper products, other OGS recycling efforts include
collection and recovery systems for plastic, glass and metal containers; concrete,
asphalt; yard waste; fluorescent lamps; electronic equipment including computers;
motor oil; scrap metals such as brass, copper, iron, and aluminum; and wet cell
batteries. Additionally, OGS encourages all its tenants and employees through
training, posters, and brochures to reduce the waste stream by the use of e-mail in
place of written memoranda; computerized scheduling of meetings to eliminate written
notification; two-sided photocopying; reusing three-ring binders, hanging folders, note
binders, paper clips, rubber bands, and mailing envelopes; and various other practices.
Utilizing the Inmate Labor Program established by the Executive Chamber and
working in conjunction with the Department of Correctional Services, OGS continues
to augment its 3R’s Program staff through the placement of Inmate Labor at the
Empire State Plaza.
3
Appendix 3.1
B. Solid Waste Management through Commodity Purchasing
The OGS Procurement Services Group (PSG) is the central commodity contracting
office for New York State. PSG has contracted for recycled paper since 1981, when
OGS became authorized to apply a 10 percent price preference for the purchase of
recycled paper products. Since that time, PSG has expanded its purchase of recycled
commodities significantly, which is illustrated by the attached list, Procurement
Services Group Contracts with Recycled and/or Energy Efficient Products &
Technology (Exhibit A). The list includes recycled and remanufactured items that
assist state agencies and localities in meeting their recycling collection mandates, such
as gondola collection trucks. Also, a number of OGS contracts, such as those for toner
cartridges, paint, and items shipped in 55-gallon drum containers include provisions
for the return of spent items, which removes them from the state and municipal waste
stream.
A 1993 contract for recycled plastic traffic cones was PSG’s first multi-state award for
a recycled commodity. State agencies and local governments in the states of New
York, New Jersey, and Maine participated. The latest renewal of this contract in 2000
incorporated the requirements of New York and a total of seven other states, resulting
in significant price savings for all participants.
Other contracts established by PSG that address solid waste management concerns
include re-refined lubricating oil, high performance hydraulic oil, and remanufactured
automotive replacement parts.
In 2007, 76 percent ($17,413,225) of the $22.9 million value in estimated

consumption of paper through all OGS paper contracts was for recycled paper. Since
the program’s inception in 1981, 63 percent ($362,235,498) of the total $574,433,024
value in estimated consumption from OGS paper contracts has been for paper with
recycled content.
Most of the contracts established by OGS PSG are available for use by political
subdivisions and other groups authorized to use state contracts. Currently, over 6,200
authorized users are included on PSG mailing lists. To encourage municipalities to
purchase recycled commodities available through state contracts, OGS provides
information and assistance through the Purchase Council for State and Local
Government Procurement Officials. The Council meets bi-annually and consists of
representatives from local government associations, including the New York State
Conference of Mayors (NYCOM) and the New York State Association of School
Business Officials (NYSABO). Through the Purchase Council, OGS provides articles
on recycled and other commodities available through OGS contracts for publication in
various professional association newsletters.
Through the efforts of PSG, the State of New York is a recognized national leader in
the field of recycled product procurement. This is evidenced by requested
participation in national and regional conferences sponsored by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency; the New York State Association for Reduction,
Reuse and Recycling; the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation; and the Empire State Development Corporation.
4
Appendix 3.1
PSG developed and maintains an innovative procurement initiative, fulfilling an
objective outlined in previous annual reports, designed to encourage the state’s
purchase of more recycled commodities. The program allows state agencies to utilize
OGS’ increased discretionary purchasing authority of $100,000 to enhance
procurement of recycled and remanufactured commodities.
II. QUANTITIES OF RECYCLED PAPER PURCHASED BY THE OFFICE OF

GENERAL SERVICES AND OTHER AGENCIES
When New York began its recycled paper procurement program in 1981, OGS PSG
was one of the few major government contracting offices willing and authorized to
pay a premium (no greater than 10 percent) for recycled paper. Thus, we enjoyed
several years of significant growth in recycled paper purchases as the suppliers of such
products sought to participate in New York State contract opportunities. By the end of
the 1980’s, procurement of this product grew in popularity to the extent that we found
ourselves competing with a larger number of governmental and private sector
contracting offices. Consequently, in 1989, since the supply had not grown with the
demand, PSG implemented an aggressive, innovative program designed to facilitate
the establishment of recycled paper contracts.
Section 165(3) of the State Finance Law allows for a 10% preference for recycled
paper which complies with the recycled content and recycled certification
requirements specified. An additional preference, not exceeding a total preference
of 15%, is allowed if at least fifty percent of the post consumer material utilized in
the manufacture of the paper is generated from the waste stream in New York
State.
On April 26, 2008, Governor David A. Paterson signed Executive Order No 4 -

Establishing a State Green Procurement and Agency Sustainability Program Pursuant
to Executive Order No. 4, effective July 1, 2008, all copy paper, janitorial paper and
other paper supplies purchased by each State agency or authority shall be composed of
100% post-consumer recycled content to the maximum extent practicable, and all copy
and janitorial paper shall be process chlorine-free to the extent practicable, unless such
products do not meet required form, function or utility, or the cost of the product is not
competitive.
Additionally, effective July 1, 2008, all State agency and authority publications
shall be printed on 100% post-consumer recycled content paper. Where paper with
100% post-consumer recycled content is not available, or does not meet required
form, function and utility, paper procurements shall use post-consumer recycled
content to the extent practicable. Non-recycled content shall be derived from a
sustainably-managed renewable resource to the extent practicable, unless the cost
of the product is not competitive.
The recycled paper procurement program specifically targets the various grades of
paper found in the typical office environment, with the goal of replacing virgin paper
with recycled paper. Among the accomplishments of the program to date are:
5
Appendix 3.1
Letterhead quality paper (25 percent cotton fiber bond) – The contract was
originally issued in November 1989, and continues with the present contract
having an annual value of approximately $35,000. All state agencies can use
this contract to obtain letterhead quality stationery for in-house printing.
White copy paper – The annual value of the recycled paper contracts for white
copy paper, including acid free and elemental chlorine free, in both less than
truckload lots and truckload lots, had a combined estimated consumption value
of approximately $5.25 million.
Xerographic paper (colors) – The first statewide contract for recycled

xerographic paper in colors was established in 1994. Subsequent contracts
have been established and in 2006 had an estimated annual contract value of
$350,000.
Wove envelopes – This contract was originally issued in March 1990. The
present contract includes both white and colored envelopes and is valued at
approximately $1million annually.
• New York State Printing and Public Documents Law mandates that all
lithographic printing used in the production of New York State printing
requirements contain a certain percentage of vegetable oil as follows:
News Inks - 40%; Sheet Fed Inks - 20%; Forms Inks - 20%; Heat Set Inks -
10%.
Acid Free and Chlorine Free Paper – During the reporting period (2007 being
the most recent full calendar year of data available at this time), 16 contracts
were utilized, resulting in an estimated consumption of $14,819,525 of
recycled paper with acid free and elemental chlorine free properties.
Kraft envelopes – The contract was originally issued in May 1991, where two
of the four items of Kraft envelopes awarded were recycled products. All
items on the present contract, with estimated annual value of $500,000, are
recycled.
Computer paper – Contracts utilized during the reporting period for computer
paper, including acid free and elemental chlorine free products, totaled
approximately $900,000 in estimated consumption.
It is worthwhile to note that the legislated 10 percent/15 percent-recycled preference

applied to only two contracts for paper products issued by the Procurement Services
Group. The premium for recycled paper procurement in calendar year 2007 was
$516,960.
The estimated cumulative contract value of all paper contracts awarded or the total
estimated consumption of paper containing recycled content, during the past 27 years
is as follows:
6
Appendix 3.1
Year Recycled Paper Virgin Paper Total Paper Percentage with

Purchases Purchases Purchases Recycled Paper
1981 $ 2,800,400 $ 6,303,688 $ 9,104,088 31%
1982 2,168,374 5,649,085 7,817,459 28%
1983 4,011,147 3,279,330 7,290,477 55%
1984 4,450,682 4,858,951 9,309,633 48%
1985 5,045,173 3,488,797 8,533,970 59%
1986 3,702,827 5,407,725 9,110,552 41%
1987 2,164,064 6,799,338 8,963,402 24%
1988 4, 655,121 13,161,187 17,816,305 26%
1989 7,166,351 16,232,199 23,398,550 31%
1990 17,159,807 14,444,554 31,604,361 54%
1991 11,972,838 18,938,572 30,911,410 39% 1
1992 11,655,370 13,851,664 25,507,034 46%2
1993 13,932,010 10,472,372 24,404,382 57%
1994 13,001,473 15,940,901 28,942,374 45%
1995 20,366,074 21,099,048 41,465,122 49%
1996 29,830,873 1,281,341 31,112,214 96%
1997 26,932,536 1,826,767 28,759,306 94%
1998 28,923,335 1,024,025 29,947,360 97%
1999 25,582,595 1,910,274 27,492,869 93%
2000 26,792,233 1,648,832 28,441,065 94%
2001 21,085,168 1,506,705 22,591,873 93%3
2002 20,167,624 6,111,552 26,279,176 77%4
2003 12,260,545 5,870,638 18,131,183 68%
2004 8,946,963 9,276,892 18,223,855 49%5
2005 7,752,088 10,649,830 18,401,918 42%
2006 12,296,602 5,642,146 17,938,748 69%
2007 17,413,225 5,521,113 22,934,338 76%
Totals $362,235,498 $212,197,526 $574,433,024 63%
NOTES
1
In July 1991, the recycled paper preference provisions of Section 177 of the State Finance
Law were revised. In accordance with Chapter 644 of the Laws of 1991, a "recycled product"
was one which met the requirements of provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law
and regulations (i.e., products certified under Department of Environmental Conservation’s
(DEC) Emblems Program). As of December 1991, only one paper manufacturer had been so
certified.
2
In July 1992, the recycled paper preference provisions of Section 177 of the State Finance
Law were again revised. Effective September 1, 1992, Chapter 412 of the Laws of 1992
decoupled OGS Central Purchasing's recycled preference authority from DEC's Recycling
Emblems Program.
7
Appendix 3.1
3
Prior to 2002, paper contracts were bid out semi-annually or annually and the chart figures on
page 7 for the years preceding 2002 are based on the number of contracts established during
that calendar year and the estimated dollar value of those contracts issued in the respective
calendar year.
4
In calendar years 2002 and 2003, PSG began establishing multiyear contract terms for paper
contracts with indices for price adjustments, in lieu of bidding paper contracts semi-annually
or annually. This led to a substantial decrease in the overall number of contracts awarded
during the calendar year. It also necessitated the need to make a change in the method of
overall reporting from "recycled paper contracts established" in any given calendar year to
"recycled paper purchases" in any given calendar year, with values of multiyear contracts
prorated to estimate annual consumption.
5
Beginning in calendar year 2004, figures in the chart above are based on actual consumption
values derived from sales data collected from contractors, sometimes extrapolated if a full
year's data was not available.
Regarding the drop-off in the "Percentage with Recycled Paper" over the past several years,
the award of our largest paper contract, Xerographic Copy Paper - Less Than Truckload Lots,
was made on virgin paper when PSG began establishing multiyear contract terms for paper in
2002. When the contract was re-bid in 2006, a significant portion of the contract was again
awarded on virgin paper at a much lesser cost. This is the primary reason for the significant
drop-off in recycled paper consumption in recent years.
OGS anticipates that recycled paper consumption will increase significantly in the coming
years as a result of the enactment of Executive Order No 4 – Establishing A State Green
Procurement And Agency Sustainability Program, which requires that effective July 1, 2008,
all copy paper, janitorial paper, and other paper supplies purchased by each state agency or
authority be composed of 100% post-consumer recycled content to the maximum extent
practicable. OGS will also continue to actively pursue more environmentally preferable paper
products for addition to state contract.
8
Appendix 3.1
III. AMOUNT OF WASTE RECYCLED FROM STATE OFFICES AND STATE

PROGRAMS AND FULL AVOIDED COSTS
A. State Offices
When OGS initiated its paper recovery efforts on July 8, 1987, the “3R’s” Recover It,
Recycle It, Reuse It name was used to promote the program. In May 1988, the office
paper collection portion of the materials recovery effort was called the “Paper Chase
Program” although it is still considered part of the larger 3R’s Program paper
recycling efforts. In 1989, recycling efforts were expanded to include all categories of
scrap metals, wet cell batteries, motor oil, plastics, and polystyrene products from
cafeterias located at the Empire State Plaza.
It should be noted that the amount of revenue generated and tipping fees avoided vary
widely by location depending on two factors: the waste landfill space in the area and
the type of solid waste material generated. For end reporting system purposes, the
Office of General Services has categorized its buildings into three groups: The Empire
State Plaza and the Harriman State Office Building Campus; the New York Metro
Area; and the Western Region. The following chart summarizes the tonnage recycled,
revenues generated, tipping fees avoided, and landfill space saved for the period
April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008:
Group Number of Tons of Tipping Fees Cubic Yards of Revenue

Buildings Material Avoided Landfill Space Generated
Recycled Avoided
Empire State Plaza and 25 4094 $245,640 12,282 $174,140

Harriman State Office Building
Campus
Downstate Region State Office 6 352 $21,120 1,056 $551

Buildings
Eleanor Roosevelt
Perry Br. Duryea
55 Hanson Place
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.
Hawthorne
Nassau County Courts
Upstate Region State Office 7 209 $12,540 627 $22

Buildings
Senator Hughes
Utica
Homer Folks Facility
Dulles
Henderson -Smith
Mahoney
Binghamton
Totals 38 4655 $279,300 13,965 $174,713
9
Appendix 3.1
IV. EXTENT OF WASTE STREAM REDUCTION AND KINDS OF MATERIALS
During the FY 2007-08 reporting period, a 55.3% percent waste stream reduction was
achieved for all OGS owned and operated facilities.
Section 165, Subsection 3 of the State Finance Law requires the Office of General
Services to devise and institute a program to source separate and recover all waste
(other than paper) from state office facilities. OGS has been involved in this activity
since the inception of its own program in 1987. OGS is always looking for new ways
to reduce, recycle and reuse items. OGS waste recovery efforts include the following
initiatives:
Cardboard
Cardboard is a large commodity that is recycled through the 3R’s program. Cardboard
boxes are reused as much as possible, and when they are no longer reusable they are
recycled. During this reporting period, more than 391 tons of cardboard were recycled.
Plastic/Glass/Metal cans
In March 1996, the 3R’s Program was restructured to include the comingled collection
and marketing of plastic, glass, and metal cans or containers. During this reporting
period, more than 4 tons of plastic, glass and metal cans were recycled.
Waste Oil
The waste oil recycling program is an important part of the OGS Recycling program.
Waste oil is typically stored in 275-gallon capacity holding tanks until quantities
warrant collection by vendors. During this reporting period, more than 748 gallons of
used oil were recycled, which is equivalent to about three tons.
Mixed Paper
Mixed paper is the biggest part of the OGS recycling program. Different kinds of
paper are recycled, such as confidential paper (which is shredded), white ledger,
colored paper, and computer paper. For every ton of paper that is recycled, 17 trees are
saved. Since inception of the recycling program approximately 1.6 million trees have
been saved. During this reporting period, 2,096 tons of paper has been recycled.
Waste Metals
A variety of bulk waste metals are recovered from OGS managed facilities. Recycling
efforts are based on the markets available within a locality. Recovered metals include
iron, steel, copper, and aluminum. During this reporting period, over 450 tons of metal
were recycled.
10
Appendix 3.1
Yard Waste
In 1998, OGS began sending its yard waste (i.e. leaves and grass clippings) to a
compost vendor. During this reporting period, 241 tons of yard waste was composted.
Concrete, Stone and Asphalt
In 1998, concrete, stone, and asphalt were added to the recycling program. During this
reporting period, 1,235 tons of these materials were recycled. To date, over 20,474
tons of materials have been recycled.
Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts
In 1998, fluorescent lamps and lighting ballasts were added to the program. During
this reporting period 2 tons of fluorescent lamps and ballasts were recycled. To date,
more than 51 tons of material has been recycled.
Electronic Equipment
During Fiscal Year 1999-2000, electronic equipment such as old computers, monitors,
fax machines, and copiers were added to the recycling program. During this reporting
period, more than 5 tons of electronic equipment was recycled.
Other
228 tons of other materials such as antifreeze, books, newspaper, used tires, batteries,
and wood were recycled during this reporting period.
A. OGS Bureau of Surplus Personal Property
The transfer of state personal property continues to be the first priority of the Surplus
Personal Property Program. The recycling efforts have been greatly enhanced by the
circulation of available surplus through an Internet site available to all agencies, which
lists assets available for transfer statewide, and ongoing improvements in the operation
of the OGS Surplus Property Warehouse.
In Fiscal Year 2007-08, 3,778 items were transferred between and among state
agencies, resulting in an estimated savings/cost avoidance of $1.6 million. Also, 7,116
items were sold to the public, generating a revenue return of $6.5 million. These sales
included vehicles and highway maintenance equipment sold via the public auction
program, and all other commodities such as office, computer and institutional furniture
and equipment, and scrap materials, which were sold on eBay.
11
Appendix 3.1
B. State Education Department, State Archives, State Records Center
Prior to the implementation of the 3R's Program, OGS was operating one of the largest
paper recycling programs in the country. In 1978, OGS negotiated a contract for the
shredding and recycling of confidential surplus records. The former OGS Bureau of
Records Management, now a branch of the State Education Department, assists State
offices in establishing efficient records management programs. A key component of
their assistance program is the disposal of confidential material and source separated
waste paper, primarily in the form of unsorted files. Any agency can have large
quantities of confidential material picked up and shredded. During this reporting period,
approximately 1,245 tons of materials were sold for recycling through this program,
generating $112,662 in revenue, thus avoiding $74,691 in landfill tipping fees.
V. COST OF OPERATING THE PROGRAM
For Fiscal Year 2007-08, $347,700 was expended for the operation of the statewide
3R's Program. These funds were utilized to support the program as indicated below:
Personal Service $217,700

Fringe/Indirect Cost 109,600
Miscellaneous Supplies 600
Travel 3,500
Equipment 800
Misc. Contractual 15,500
Total: $347,700
12
Appendix 3.1
VI. SPECIFIC ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN
A. Initiatives Summary
In OGS’ continued commitment to conserve natural resources and significantly reduce

the volume of solid waste entering the waste stream, the agency has:
Continued to work with Department of Environmental Conservation

(DEC) to assist each agency in fulfilling its requirement under Executive
Order 142 and to help coordinate Executive Branch compliance with the
mandate.
Continued to increase the number of contracts for products that contain

recycled components and/or positively affect the environment.
Maintained innovative procurement initiatives, which enable OGS to

utilize its higher discretionary purchasing authority in promoting and
approving agency requests for the purchase of recycled products.
Offered a current statewide contract for hydraulic oil used in hydraulic

systems and highway maintenance equipment is derived from 50 percent
or greater re-refined stocks and contains as much as 99 percent post
consumer content. A new contract under review has a 90 percent re-
refined content.
Required take-back and recycling options on contracts for computers,

copiers and compact fluorescent lamps.
Continues to provide road products made of recycled materials, primarily

used by the Department of Transportation – glass beads, highway safety
equipment and various road surfacing products.
An office furniture contract was issued that includes items made from
created wood harvested from sustainably managed forests and are certified
by the Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative,
among others.
B. Technical Assistance
Executive Order 142 directs all state agencies to undertake efforts necessary to
maximize all opportunities to reduce the amount of solid waste generated, recycle
material recoverable from solid waste originated at the facilities, and maximize the
procurement of recycled products.
In support of Executive Order 142 and as resources permit, OGS and DEC provide
technical assistance to state agencies in identifying and reviewing products that
contain secondary materials, and in determining product prices, availability and
adequacy for the purposes intended.
13
Appendix 3.1
VII. EXECUTIVE ORDER 142 RECYCLING INITIATIVES BY NEW YORK
STATE AGENCIES
Recognizing the integral part that the state itself must play to successfully implement
its waste management policy, Executive Order 142 was issued in January 1991. The
Executive Order directs all state agencies to increase their efforts to reduce waste, to
source separate recyclable materials from the workplace waste stream, and to
maximize the procurement of recycled products. The Order also directed selected
agencies to undertake specific initiatives aimed at increasing the recycling of certain
solid wastes.
To fulfill our technical assistance mission under the Executive Order, OGS and DEC
work together to help coordinate Executive branch compliance with the mandate.
VIII. GOALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-09
To ensure continuing compliance with the provisions of the Solid Waste Management
Act of 1988 and Subsection 3 of Section 165 of the State Finance Law, OGS will:
Establish additional recycled-content commodity contracts with other states

and jurisdictions through active involvement with the National Association
of State Purchasing Officials Eastern Regional Purchasing Cooperative and
other established regional purchasing cooperatives throughout the nation.
Continue to promote the purchase of commodities containing recycled

content and educate client agencies in the use of the available procedures to
increase such procurement (e.g., OGS’ innovative procurement initiatives
discussed in other sections of this report).
Continue to work in cooperation with the Department of Environmental

Conservation to provide technical assistance and help coordinate
compliance with the Executive Order 4 which was issued in April of 2008.
Increase the purchase and use of alternative fueled vehicles by state

agencies and local governments.
Continue to promote the purchase of recycled commodities such as carpets,

picnic tables, and waste containers.
Continue to promote the recycling of electronic scrap.
Promote the statewide battery recycling program and expand the locations
for collection.
Establish a compost collection program in regions that have composting

facilities.
Continue to recycle all fluorescent lamps and ballasts.
14
Appendix 3.1
EXHIBITS
15
Appendix 3.1
EXHIBIT A
New York State Office of General Services
Procurement Services Group Contracts with Recycled and/or Energy
Efficient Products & Technology
(See Legend at the bottom of this report for explanation of the Codes.)
END
CODE AWARD GROUP DESCRIPTION DATE
E* 00038 75318 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - GREAT LAKES 11/21/2009
ELECTRONICS DIST INC (STATEWIDE)
E* 00263 75501 EPSON AMERICA INC FOR PRINTERS, 12/09/2011
PERIPHERALS, ACC
& REL SVCS (STWD)
E* 00265 75504 OKI DATA AMERICAS INC FOR PRINTERS, 12/09/2011
PERIPHERALS,
ACC & REL SVCS (STWD)
E* 00266 75516 OCE PRINTERS, PERIPHERALS, ACCESS & 12/09/2011
RELATED
SERVICES (STATEWIDE)
E* 00267 75511 XEROX CORP-PRINTERS, PERIPHERALS, 12/09/2011
ACCESSORIES &
RELATED SERVICES
E* 00270 75512 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP 12/09/2011
INFO PRINT
PRINTERS (STWD)
E* 00272 75500 TALLY GENICOM LLC FOR PRINTERS PERIPHERAL 12/09/2011
ACC &
REL SVCS)(STWD)
E* 01374 75313 ALTERNATIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM 11/21/2009
MICROCOMPUTER
SYSTEMS (STATEWIDE)
E* 01649 22424 COPIERS (ANALOG & DIGITAL) DIGITAL DUPLIC, 05/31/2012
COLOR &
WIDE FORMAT (STWD)
E* 01762 75529 RICOH CORPORATION FOR PRINTERS, 12/09/2011
PERIPHERALS,
ACC & REL SVCS (STWD)
E* 18012 75336 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - FUJITSU PC 11/21/2009
CORPORATION
(STATEWIDE)
E* 18311 75339 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS USITEK INC 11/21/2009
(STATEWIDE)
E* 18454 75510 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY-PERIPHERALS 12/09/2011
ACCESS & REL
SERVICES (STATEWIDE)
E* 18884 75340 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - DATA911 SYSTEMS 12/03/2008
(STATEWIDE)
E* 19202 75702 ASSISTIVE TECH FOR PERSONS WITH 08/08/2009
DISABILITIES -
SIGHTED ELEC (STWD)
E* 19408 75702 ASSISTIVE TECH FOR PERSONS WITH 08/08/2009
DISABILITIES/CAPTEK DBA SCI PROD
E* 19458 75341 MICROCOMPUTERS PC - STONE COMPUTER INC 10/18/2009
E* 19464 75702 ASSIST TECHNGY-PERSON W/DISABILITY PULSE 08/08/2009
DATA-
HUMANWARE
E* 19465 75702 ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR PERSONS W/ 08/08/2009
DISABILITIES
- C-TECH INC (STWD)
E* 19478 75523 KONICA MINOLTA PRINTERS PERIPHERALS 06/27/2011
ACCESSORIES
& RELATED SERVICES
16
Appendix 3.1
END
DISABILITIES-
WASHINGTON COMP(STWD)
DISABILITIES
- VIS-ABILITY (STWD)
DISABILITIES
- EVAS (STATEWIDE)
E* 19517 75702 ASST TECHNOLOGY FOR PERSONS W/DISAB 08/08/2009
ENHANCED
VISION (STATEWIDE)
E* 19594 22812 MAILING MACHINES, SCALES, FOLDERS, 04/30/2010
INSERTERS,
METER RENTAL (STWD)
E* 19680 75343 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - SONY 11/21/2009
ELECTRONICS INC
E* 19931 25204 DOMESTIC REFRIGERATORS & FREEZERS 12/31/2008
"ENERGY
STAR" (STATEWIDE)
E* 19967 75344 MICROCOMPUTERS PC - LENOVO 11/21/2009
E* 20064 75702 ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR PERSONS W/ DISB- 08/08/2009
INDEPENDENT LIVING AIDS INC
E* 20065 75702 ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR PERSONS WITH 08/08/2009
DISABILITIES(G ROBERT OYER)
E* 20304 39000 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SUPPLIES & 09/30/2012
EQUIPMENT
(STATEWIDE)
E* 20397 75514 PRINTER - KYOCERA MITA CORP 03/14/2011
E* 20564 34104 DIAGNOSTIC REAGENTS AND INSTRUMENTS 02/28/2012
(STATEWIDE)
E* 20685 25203 RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CLOTHING 12/31/2009
WASHERS
AND DRYERS (STATEWIDE)
E* 4054 75321 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - ACER 11/21/2009
E* 4055 75314 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - APPLE AMERICA 11/21/2009
E* 4056 75322 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - UPSTATE BRITE 11/21/2009
COMPUTERS (STATEWIDE)
E* 4057 75312 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS (CSS LABS) 11/21/2009
(STATEWIDE)
E* 4060 75302 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - DELL (STATEWIDE) 11/21/2009
E* 4061 75304 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - GATEWAY 11/21/2009
E* 4063 75305 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - HEWLETT 11/21/2009
PACKARD
(STATEWIDE)
E* 4064 75306 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - IBM 11/21/2009
E* 4065 75328 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS MPC-G LLC 11/21/2009
(STATEWIDE)
E* 4066 75308 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - TOSHIBA 11/21/2009
(STATEWIDE)
E* 4426 75329 MICROCOMPUTER SYSTEMS - SENECA DATA 11/21/2009
DISTRIBUTORS INC
E*-EE-ES 20332 30000 AIR CONDITIONERS (WINDOW MOUNTED) 08/31/2008
(STATEWIDE)
NAECA & ENERGY STAR
E*-EE-RA-RM 21030 23000 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES (STATEWIDE) 03/31/2013
E*-RA 20304 39000 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SUPPLIES & 09/30/2012
EQUIPMENT
(STATEWIDE)
E*-RM-SW 00264 75505 LEXMARK FOR PRINTERS, PERIPHERALS, 12/09/2011
ACCESSORIES &
REL SVCS (STWIDE)
E*-SW 00262 75502 HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY / PRINTERS, 12/09/2011
17
Appendix 3.1
END
PERIPHERALS, ACC & REL SVCS (STWD)
E*-SW 18935 75531 DELL MARKETING LP FOR PRINTERS, 06/23/2009
PERIPHERALS, ACC
& REL SVCS (STWD)
EE 20470 35814 SPEED DISPLAY TRAILERS (STATEWIDE) 11/30/2008
EE 20555 40401 ALTERNATIVE FUELED VEHICLES (STWD) (2007 11/30/2008
MY)(ITEMS
11-16 ONLY 2008 MY
ES 01510 71010 PEST MANAGEMENT THROUGH INTEGRATED 03/31/2012
PEST
MANAGEMENT (IPM) (STATEWD)
ES 20551 20915 FURNITURE ALL TYPES (STATEWIDE) (EXCEPT 10/28/2012
HOSP RM &
PATIENT HANDLING
RA 20056 38602 GLASS SPHERES FOR REFLECTORIZED 12/31/2008
PAVEMENT
MARKING (VARIOUS) (STWD)
RA 20187 38612 TRAFFIC SAFETY PRODUCTS(CONES POSTS 11/14/2008
DRUMS)(STWD W/MULTI-ST PARTICIPAT)
RA 20304 39000 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SUPPLIES & 09/30/2012
EQUIPMENT
(STATEWIDE)
RA 20674 32000 GUIDE/BRIDGE RAILS END SECTIONS & 11/30/2010
ACCESSORIES
(STATEWIDE)
RA 20836 05701 HYDRAULIC OIL HIGH PERFORMANCE 07/31/2008
RETURNABLE
DRUMS (STATEWIDE)
RA 20873 50206 OFFSET ROLLS UNCOATED WHITE& COLORS 09/30/2009
(ALB/UTICA/PLATS/ROCH AREA AGYS)
RA 20937 05700 OIL LUBRICATING HIGH DETERGENT(STWD (FOR 09/30/2008
INTERN
COMBUST ENG) ZONE 1-11
RA 21044 23830 COMPUTER PAPER (ALL STATE AGY & POL SUBS) 03/31/2013
RA-RM 20304 39000 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SUPPLIES & 09/30/2012
EQUIPMENT
(STATEWIDE)
RA-RP 20508 50211 XEROGRAPHIC COPY PAPER-WHITE (LESS THAN 08/31/2008
TRKLD
LTS) (NYS AG & POL SUB)
RM 18349 30306 AUTOMOTIVE REPLACEMENT PARTS 07/31/2008
(STATEWIDE)
RS 20431 50020 LEGISLATIVE PRINTING-THE EXECUTIVE (BUDGET 11/14/2010
DOC &
MISC PUBLICATIONS)
RS 20432 50020 LEGISLATIVE PRINTING-THE EXECUTIVE 11/14/2010
(GOVERNOR &
MISC PUBLICATIONS)
RS 20435 50030 WOVE ENVELOPES - WHITE REG & WINDOW & 10/31/2008
COLORS
REGULAR (ALL ST AGENCIES)
RS 20436 50030 KRAFT ENVELOPES (ALL STATE AGENCIES) 10/31/2008
RS 20464 50061 LEGISLATIVE PRINTING/LEGISLATURE 12/31/2008
(LEGISLATIVE BILL
DRAFTING COMM)
RS 20623 50020 LETTERHEADS (ALL STATE AGENCIES) 02/28/2009
RS 20624 50020 OFFSET REPRODUCED BOUND BOOKS (OFFICE 02/28/2009
OF
GENERAL SERVICES)
RS 20715 50041 ENGRAVED LETTERHEADS ENVELOPES & 05/14/2009
BUSINESS
CARDS(ALL STATE AGENCIES)
RS 20934 50213 XEROGRAPHIC COPY PAPER - WHITE (TRKLD 09/30/2009
18
Appendix 3.1
END
LOTS) (ALL
AG & POL SUBS)_
RS 20994 23300 FACIAL TISSUE (ALL STATE AGENCIES AND 11/30/2012
POLITICAL
SUBDIVISONS)
RS 20995 23300 PAPER NAPKINS (ALL STATE AGENCIES AND 11/30/2012
POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS)
RS 21045 50022 QUICK COPY/DUPLICATING (ALL STATE AGY - 01/14/2010
ALBANY
AREA)
RS 21047 50207 OFFSET SHEETS COLORS (ALL ST AGYS & POL 12/31/2012
SUBS)
RS 21048 50208 OPAQUE ROLLS UNCOATED (ALBANY AREA NYS 12/31/2012
AGENCIES)
RS 21128 50048 THERMOGRAPHED BUSINESS CARDS 10/08/2009
LETTERHEADS &
ENVELOPE(ALL ST AGY)
Code Legend:
E* - EPA Energy Star Award; Use when awarded product (s) is approved under the US Environmental
Protection Agency's Energy Star Program.
EE - Energy Efficient Award; Commodity contracts which fall into this category include, but are not limited to,
those which use Life Cycle or Energy Efficient Costing in the bid evaluation or those which are Energy Efficient
by their very nature, such as ballasts or rechargeable batteries.
ES - Environmentally Sensitive Award; indicates an award such as integrated pest management.
GR - “Green" Contract Award; containing environmentally friendly products or services.
RA - Recycled Award; Use when awarded product (s) is Recycled but the award does not fit into either of the
above categories (i.e. recycled product (s) is Low Bid Meeting Specifications) or when a combination of
circumstances exists.
RM - Remanufactured Award: Use when awarded product contains Remanufactured Components.
RP - Recycled Preference Applied; Use when Price Preference is applied in awarding the contract to a Recycled
product.
RS - Recycled Specified; Use when the specification for a particular bid solicitation limits competition to Recycled
products.
SW - Solid Waste Impact Award: Use when awarded product (s) is not recycled or remanufactured but has an
impact on solid waste management or the environment. Examples are Returnable Drums or items that reduce
the Landfill or Encourage Recycling.
19
Appendix 3.1
EXHIBIT B
TOTAL TONS OF RECYCLED MATERIAL FROM
ALL OGS OWNED AND OPERATED BUILDINGS
15,000
13,500
12,000
10,500
9,000
7,500
6,000
4,500
3,000
1,500
0
88-89 89-90 90-92 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04* 04-05 06-07 07-08
Total Tons 463 979 1,377 1,537 2,287 3,548 4,510 3,984 3,552 4,400 5,014 6,549 7,038 7,731 7,667 11,911 6,402 5,974 4,655
*Spike in 03-04 was due to the Alfred E. Smith rehabilitation
20
Appendix 3.1
.
EXHIBIT C
NEW YORK STATE

OFFICE OF GENERAL SERVICES – 3R’S PROGRAM
TONS OF RECYCLED MATERIALS VERSUS TRASH
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
03-
88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08
04*
Recycle 463 979 1,377 1,537 2,287 3,548 4,510 3,984 3,552 4,400 5,014 6,549 7,038 7,731 7,667 11,911 6,402 5043 5794 4655
Trash 9,744 8,823 8,046 7,268 7,846 5,685 4,506 4,683 4,646 3,986 3,450 3,312 3,518 3,216 3,178 2,292 4,405 3871 3650 3767
*Spike in 03-04 was due to the Alfred E. Smith rehabilitation
21
APPENDIX 3.2
FLOW CONTROL

Thirty‐five states (including New York) as well as the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands directly
authorize flow control, while four additional states authorize flow control indirectly through mechanisms
such as local solid waste management plans or home rule authority. In New York State, a municipality is
usually specifically authorized by the State Legislature to adopt flow‐control legislation. Unlike several other
states, New York explicitly states that flow control may cover source‐separated recyclable materials.
Currently, there are 37 New York municipalities (i.e., districts, towns counties, authorities) authorized by the
State Legislature to enact flow‐control legislation covering approximately 80 percent of the state’s
population.
New York State has been a primary stage for the legal battles on flow control. In 1994, in C&A Carbone v
Town of Clarkstown, the Supreme Court’s decision struck down the flow‐control ordinance adopted by the
Town of Clarkstown as unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In this case, the town hired a private contractor to build a waste transfer station and enacted a flow‐control
ordinance requiring all solid waste generated within the town be directed to that transfer station. The basis
of the decision was that solid waste is a commodity in commerce and that the Commerce Clause supersedes
laws that discriminate against such commerce on the basis of its origin or destination.
At the time, this decision was widely viewed as invalidating most flow‐control models, thus the impact on
solid waste management in New York was significant. The results of a 1995 survey of planning units,
conducted by DEC, indicated that 16 planning units had significant solid waste debt financing, and most
respondents to the survey indicated that they anticipated modifications to several elements of their in‐place
or planned recycling programs because of the decision regarding flow control. Two‐thirds of the
respondents reported that a decrease in waste receipts of 10 percent or more would occur, with more than
half the respondents reporting a loss of greater than 25 percent of waste flow.
It was reported at that time that few legal challenges to flow control laws had been pursued, but in response
to the Carbone decision and fear of similar action, many municipalities simply chose not to enforce their
flow‐control laws. Several planning units reported that they would no longer be able to compete with the
private sector due to lower tipping fees offered by private facilities. Planning units called on the state to re‐
evaluate its solid waste management legislation, regulations and enforcement to ensure a level playing field
with the private sector. Many planning units claimed that in the absence of flow control, they would be
unable to continue implementing their local solid waste management plans (LSWMPs).
Subsequent to the Carbone decision, private waste collectors challenged both the Town of Smithtown’s and
Town of Babylon’s flow‐control ordinances. In these cases, after lengthy legal proceedings, both of the
towns’ ordinances were ultimately upheld as constitutional. In the Town of Smithtown’s case, the town
enacted a local flow‐control ordinance that required any authorized hauler that collected acceptable waste
within Smithtown to dispose of such waste at a designated solid waste management facility. Smithtown
established municipal garbage collection and disposal for all town residents by contracts with two waste‐
hauling companies to collect residential garbage and deliver it to the designated facility. In 1996, it was
ruled that the contracts were constitutional as the contractual agreement fell within the “market
participant” exception to the Commerce Clause. This was because Smithtown was acting as a market
participant in the solid waste management market by operating the town’s solid waste facilities and was
merely contracting out private haulers for waste transportation services rather than providing those services
themselves. Smithtown was not regulating commerce and, thus, could dictate by contract which waste
disposal services must be used.
In the Town of Babylon’s case, the town established commercial garbage improvement districts within
which a private hauling company, under contractual agreement with Babylon, agreed to collect the
commercial garbage and deliver recyclables to the town’s recycling facility and dispose of the remainder at
the town’s municipal waste combustor. Babylon paid the private hauler a monthly fee for the collection
and disposal of such wastes. To finance the collection and disposal services, the town imposed an annual
assessment against each commercial property within the district. In 1996, it was ruled that Babylon
participates in the garbage collection market by purchasing garbage collection services from a private
hauler. Thus, the court distinguished and upheld the town’s waste management districts as a valid plan of a
local government providing garbage collection services to its residents. Accordingly, this fell within the
“market participant” exception to the Commerce Clause. Both the Smithtown and Babylon decisions
cleared the way for contractual flow control.
After years of protracted legal battles, in 2007, in the case of United Haulers Association v Oneida‐Herkimer
Solid Waste Management Authority, the US Supreme Court ruled that local governments are permitted to
engage in flow control to government‐owned and operated facilities in specific circumstances. In this case,
both Oneida and Herkimer counties’ ordinances required that all solid waste generated within county
boundaries be directed to processing facilities controlled by the Authority. It is important to note that in the
majority opinion, it was reasoned that the counties had adopted an expensive waste disposal system that
accepted recyclables and household hazardous waste for free to promote separation of these materials, and
that the system they had devised enhanced their ability to enforce recycling laws. These provided public
benefits that the justices viewed as overriding any burden that had been placed on interstate commerce.
The court found that the challenged ordinances in this case, unlike the ordinance in the Carbone case,
conferred a benefit on a public facility rather than a private one, and that the ordinances treated all private
companies the same. A significant note in the majority opinion was that local government plays a vital role
in the collection and disposal of solid waste, that the State of New York had adopted a policy of displacing
competition with regulation or monopoly control, and that nothing in the Commerce Clause vests the
responsibility for that policy judgment with the federal judiciary. Consequently, the court held that flow‐
control ordinances, which treat in‐state private business interests exactly the same as out‐of‐state ones, do
not discriminate against commerce for purposes of the Commerce Clause.
The United Haulers decision is expected to modify the development and implementation of the programs
for several, local, solid waste management programs. Although some municipalities have begun to again
enforce their flow‐control ordinances, a significant impact has not yet been seen.

Appendix 5.1
Framework Principles
for Product Stewardship Policy
The following principles are intended to guide development of product stewardship policies
and legislation that governs multiple products. It is primarily aimed at state legislation but is
also intended as a guide for local and federal policy.
1. Producer Responsibility
1.1 All producers selling a covered product into the State are responsible for
designing managing, and financing a stewardship program that addresses the
lifecycle impacts of their products including end-of-life management.
1.2 Producers have flexibility to meet these responsibilities by offering their own
plan or participating in a plan with others.
1.3 In addressing end-of-life management, all stewardship programs must finance
the collection, transportation, and responsible reuse, recycling or disposition of
covered products. Stewardship programs must:
• Cover the costs of new, historic and orphan covered products.
• Provide convenient collection for consumers throughout the State.
1.4 Costs for product waste management are shifted from taxpayers and ratepayers
to producers and users.
1.5 Programs are operated by producers with minimum government involvement.
2. Shared Responsibilities
2.1 Retailers only sell covered products from producers who are in compliance
with stewardship requirements.
2.2 State and local governments work with producers and retailers on educating
the public about the stewardship programs.
2.3 Consumers are responsible for using return systems set up by producers or
their agents.
Page 1 of 2
Appendix 5.1
3. Governance
3.1 Government sets goals and performance standards following consultation with
stakeholders. All programs within a product category are accountable to the
same goals and performance standards.
3.2 Government allows producers the flexibility to determine the most cost-
effective means of achieving the goals and performance standards.
3.3 Government is responsible for ensuring a level playing field by enforcing
requirements that all producers in a product category participate in a
stewardship program as a condition for selling their product in the jurisdiction.
3.4 Product categories required to have stewardship programs are selected using
the process and priorities set out in framework legislation.
3.5 Government is responsible for ensuring transparency and accountability of
stewardship programs. Producers are accountable to both government and
consumers for disclosing environmental outcomes.
4. Financing
4.1 Producers finance their stewardship programs as a general cost of doing
business, through cost internalization or by recovering costs through
arrangements with their distributors and retailers. End of life fees are not
allowed.
5. Environmental Protection
5.1 Framework legislation should address environmental product design, including
source reduction, recyclability and reducing toxicity of covered products.
5.2 Framework legislation requires that stewardship programs ensure that all
products covered by the stewardship program are managed in an
environmentally sound manner.
5.3 Stewardship programs must be consistent with other State sustainability
legislation, including those that address greenhouse gas reduction and the
waste management hierarchy.
5.4 Stewardship programs include reporting on the final disposition, (i.e., reuse,
recycling, disposal) of products handled by the stewardship program, including
any products or materials exported for processing.
Northwest Product Stewardship Council www.productstewardship.net Adopted May19, 2008

California Product Stewardship Council www.calpsc.org Adopted June 4, 2008
Vermont Product Stewardship Council www.vtpsc.org Adopted November 6, 2008
British Columbia Product Stewardship Council www.bcproductstewardship.org Adopted Dec. 9, 2008
Texas Product Stewardship Council www.txpsc.org Adopted January 30, 2009
NYS Assoc. for Solid Waste Management www.newyorkwaste.org Adopted March 11, 2009
Developed with support from Product Policy Institute

www.productpolicy.org
Page 2 of 2
Appendix 5.2
444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 315

Washington, DC 20001
tel: (202) 624-5828 fax: (202) 624-7875
www.astswmo.org
ASTSWMO
Product Stewardship Framework Policy Document
Prepared by the Product Stewardship Task Force
of the ASTSWMO Sustainability Subcommittee
Introduction
The following product stewardship policy document outlines many of the components and issues
that States are grappling with as they consider how to effectively implement product stewardship
for a wide variety of products and materials. The document is meant to serve as guidance in the
development of State policy that addresses the environmental impact of products particularly as
States transition from a focus on individual products to a more comprehensive and consistent
framework approach.
During the past decade, individual States have stepped forward to address specific products such
as electronic waste or mercury-containing products. While these efforts have laid the foundation
for broadening the understanding of product stewardship and illustrating how stewardship
programs can function, individual product efforts are often very resource intensive for all
stakeholders and may inhibit consistency between individual States. Given this experience to
date, several States have stepped forward to propose a comprehensive product stewardship
framework.
By implementing a framework approach, States can define the product stewardship program
structure, set criteria for selecting products and then add products to the stewardship program
either by regulation or legislative authorization. A framework approach can streamline the
policymaking process to enable States to more efficiently expand their stewardship programs to
include products that meet key criteria.
While seeking to address the more defined impacts of products in the solid waste system, States
are encouraged to examine product stewardship as a strategy that may assist with other policy
objectives, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and stimulating the growth of green jobs.
In 2009, several States, including California, Oregon, Washington and Minnesota, saw
legislative proposals introduced to enact product stewardship framework programs, and a
framework study and recommendations report was proposed in Rhode Island. It is expected that
the framework approach will gather momentum in the coming years.
1
Appendix 5.2
Definition of Product Stewardship
This document is using the following definition of Product Stewardship:
Product stewardship, also referred to as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), is the

extension of the responsibility of producers (often referred to as brandowners), and all entities
involved in the product chain, to reduce the cradle-to-cradle impacts of a product and its
packaging; the primary responsibility lies with the producer, or brand owner, who makes design
and marketing decisions. (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2007)
Argument for Product Stewardship
Product stewardship programs extend the role and responsibility of the producer of a product or
package to include the entire life cycle, including ultimate disposition of that product or package
at the end of its useful life. In these programs, producers must take either physical or fiscal
responsibility for the recycling or proper disposal of products.
Instead of requiring local governments to fund collection and recovery programs for discarded
products, stewardship programs incorporate the cost of disposal or recovery into the cost of the
product, so those costs are borne jointly by the producer and the consumer, not by local
government and taxpayers. Internalizing the costs of end-of-life management into the cost of the
product not only reduces the financial burden on communities, but it also ensures that consumers
get proper price signals -- materials that are easier to recycle or dispose of at the end of life
should be cheaper.
Importantly, stewardship programs reduce the financial burden on local communities. Local
governments are required to manage and pay for whatever winds up on the curb, with little or no
ability to influence the design of the products or packaging to reduce management costs or
improve recovery options. The costs are borne locally for production decisions made remotely,
usually without consideration of waste management implications.
placing responsibility for end-of-life management costs on the producer, these programs ensure
that producers consider the end-of-life impacts of their product during the earliest stages of
design. As such, stewardship programs create incentives for producers to redesign products and
packaging to be less toxic, less bulky, and lighter, as well as more recyclable. Reducing material
use and toxicity and increasing recycling results in significant environmental, economic, energy
and greenhouse gas reduction benefits. Indeed, stewardship programs have led to products and
packages that are less toxic, less wasteful, easier to recycle and otherwise less costly to manage.
Additionally, product stewardship relies on a performance driven approach where State

government’s role is primarily one of oversight and the programs are developed and
implemented by manufacturers and the privately run stewardship organizations they employ to
assure that performance goals are met. This is a “minimal government” approach which can be
efficiently accomplished with relatively few public resources.
2
Appendix 5.2
Criteria for Identifying and Selecting Products
There are many criteria that could be used to determine which products or groups of products are
selected for product stewardship programs. The list is neither exhaustive nor prescriptive and is
not presented in either a particular order or priority. Grouping the criteria by policy questions
should assist policy makers in evaluating the relative importance of the criteria. When possible
and appropriate, these criteria should be evaluated from the perspective of the total lifecycle of
the product (extraction, production, use and end-of-life management). It represents a
combination of the criteria either in use or suggested for use in California, Ontario, Oregon and
Washington.
Does the product present adverse environmental and public health impacts, including:
• presence of toxic and hazardous constituents
• opportunities for reducing waste and toxicity
• total volume being generated or disposed in landfills or waste to energy facilities
• climate change impacts
Does the product have potential for enhanced resource conservation, including:
• potential for energy conservation
• potential resource recovery and material conservation
• opportunities for increasing reuse or recycling, recycled content, and design for reuse or
recycling
Does the product significantly burden government solid waste programs and/or offer
business opportunities, including:
• management costs to governments, taxpayers, and solid waste ratepayers
• difficult to manage in traditional recycling collection and other standard solid waste
management systems
• potential to act as a contaminant in solid waste management programs
• existing or potential problems with illegal dumping
• opportunities for existing and new businesses and infrastructure to manage products or
product categories
• level of collection/recycling infrastructure currently in place
• opportunities to increase markets for materials
• willingness of potential partners
• success of other stewardship programs in other jurisdictions
Designating Products
One of the primary purposes of a product stewardship framework is to establish a consistent and
reliable process for identifying and selecting products over time to be managed under a product
stewardship approach. To ensure consistency and that priority products are addressed, the
framework should articulate a transparent, inclusive and objective process for designating
products.
3
Appendix 5.2
Key elements of this process can include:
• Public availability of product evaluation information

• Advisory process that includes impacted stakeholders
• Public process with defined decision points and timelines
• Opportunity for “appeal” of recommendations
• Identified public body as decision maker
The selection process in the framework can be set up to occur ideally through administrative
action, such as rule adoption, if statutory authority is provided or by legislative action.
Legislative action may be more appropriate for a particular State but is more resource intensive,
less certain and can take more time to achieve.
The selection process, to the extent possible and practical, should include input and consultation
with other States so that product inclusion in a stewardship program can be more efficiently
coordinated.
Financing Mechanisms
Although there are many variations, the financing for extended producer responsibility systems
generally fall into two categories, cost internalization and eco-fees. In cost internalization
systems, producers have primary responsibility for the design, implementation and management
of a collection and recycling system. The costs of collecting and recycling the product are
incorporated into the cost of the product just as all other costs associated with producing and
selling the product. There is no visible fee to the consumer or retailer. This allows companies to
make their own pricing decisions internally, and to distribute the costs according to their own
business model and interests. It also gives producers the option of working independently or
partnering with other producers. Some examples of this system are the electronics recycling
laws in Minnesota, Oregon and Washington, the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation
(RBRC) and the Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC). (For more information on examples
of stewardship programs, please see Appendix B.)
The other financing mechanism is an eco-fee. An eco-fee is a set amount paid on each item to a
third party, often referred to as a stewardship organization. The stewardship organization then
uses the funds to establish a collection and recycling program on behalf of the producers. The
eco-fee may or may not be visible to the consumer. It may be paid by the producer or by the
retailer to the stewardship organization. A set eco-fee ensures that a producer will be able to
pass on the cost of managing the product and ensures that the per-item cost to consumers for
similar products is the same regardless of brand. An example of this type of funding mechanism
is the paint stewardship program that is being implemented in the State of Oregon following
enactment of legislation authorizing a two-year demonstration project. The manufacturers of
architectural paints will remit a fee to the paint stewardship organization that will then fund
leftover paint collection and recycling activities.
Eco-fees should not be confused with government-managed consumer fees often referred to as
Advanced Recycling Fees (ARF) or Advanced Disposal Fees. In these systems the government
4
Appendix 5.2
agency is responsible for collecting and managing the fees as well as implementing and
managing the collection and recycling program. Because the responsibilities lie with the
government agency, these fees are not a form of extended producer responsibility or product
stewardship, but rather a means to fund a government managed program. One example of this
type of system is the tire management fees in place in many States.
Stewardship Plans
Industry-developed stewardship plans are a key element of a State stewardship program and
serve as the vehicle for implementing a program and replacing the programmatic details required
by statutes addressing an individual product or material.
Stewardship plans submitted by industry-managed and -funded organizations or individual

producers are featured in the Canadian stewardship programs in Ontario and British Columbia.
For British Columbia’s stewardship plan for paint, please see:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/paint/plan.htm
Stewardship plans are beginning to emerge in the context of the various State stewardship
programs in the U.S. including the paint stewardship program enacted in Oregon in 2009. For the
State of Washington’s waste electronics plan, please see:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/eproductrecycle/docs/StandardPlanBaseDocument2009.p
df
While the plans are developed by the producers and brandowners of the designated products, it is
expected that other entities along the product chain such as retailers, local government and
recyclers will provide input on the plan and, if appropriate, make specific commitments to their
role in the collection and recycling system.
To ensure that the proposed stewardship program is consistent with the overall framework policy
objectives, State agency review of plans and approval may be warranted.
Stewardship plans may include:
• List of participating organizations

• Definition and scope of products to be addressed, including orphan and historic products
• Roles and responsibilities for key players along the product chain
• Collection system information, including how a minimum collection service standard
may be met; a State can consider if it wants minimum collection services available and
pre-set a minimum standard to assure available service Statewide
• Processing/recycling information, including what steps will be taken to ensure
environmentally-sound management
• Anticipated resources and a financing mechanism to implement the plan
• Proposed performance goals
5
Appendix 5.2
• Strategies to promote design for the environment (toxicity reduction, recycled content,
recyclability, product longevity) for the product as well as any attendant packaging
• Public outreach and communications plan
• Public and stakeholder consultation activities in preparation of the plan
• Reporting and evaluation procedures
Stewardship Organizations
Stewardship organizations (also referred to as “third-party organizations”) are often non-profit

organizations formed to implement producers’ responsibilities for designated products in a
stewardship program. Stewardship organizations often carry out various functions extending
beyond the collection and recycling to education and outreach efforts and reporting.
While stewardship organizations play an important role in establishing and managing the
collection and recycling efforts and offer a defined compliance option for producers, State policy
should also ensure that producers have the option to implement individual programs that reflect
their business model.
State policy should encourage the formation of stewardship organizations, for example through
the development of stewardship plans, but also recognize that other State laws and regulations,
such as those prohibiting anti-competitive conduct, may need to be amended to support joint
activity.
Performance Goals
Performance goals are essential for good program management, oversight and accountability.
Producers and other stakeholders use performance goals to plan activities, track program
implementation and verify accomplishments. Performance goals provide feedback to
stakeholders so adjustments can be made to improve programs. It is important to note, however,
that the specific set of performance goals will vary by product or material in recognition of the
differences, among others, in composition, distribution channels and end-of-life management
options.
While an oversight entity, such as State government, typically establishes performance goals, it
is important that the input from stakeholders, especially producers, stewardship organizations
and other groups be considered in that process.
Important performance goals to consider include:
• Product goals, which are qualitative and quantitative goals to reduce the environmental
and health impacts of the product over its life cycle. These types of goals could include
goals covering topics such as product changes from design to end-of-life management,
distribution, reduced use of toxics and hazardous substances, reduced carbon footprint for
the product, increased product longevity, and design for recyclability.
6
Appendix 5.2
• Collection rates, which quantify the amount of the product collected or captured through
the system for reuse or recycling by an established date.
• Reuse/recycling rates, which quantify the amount of the product that is reused and
recycled. This goal may include but is not limited to such things as reuse, recycling rates
and other measures.
States may use different approaches for establishing performance goals. For instance,
performance goals may be established as part of the product selection and designation process
using the best information available to determine reasonable goals.
Another approach is to allow producers to establish their own performance goals (based on
metrics established by State government in regulation) for a program’s initial years, subject to
review as part of the stewardship plan. For example, during the first four years producers report
on progress, but the goals are not enforceable. After a baseline is established, producers
establish enforceable strategic goals for year five and beyond.
Reporting
Reporting on progress towards meeting performance goals is fundamental to program oversight

and evaluation and provides an opportunity for States to harmonize their programs through the
use of similar reporting metrics. From this information stakeholders can learn about what works
best and encourage improved performance over time. These will need to be defined once a
product has been designated, as measurement metrics must be customized to some degree.
In addition to the performance goals identified above, other measures to be addressed during
reporting include:
• Weight of products recovered per capita

• The savings to local government
• The percent of product placed on the market that is collected, reused, recycled, recovered
for energy or disposed in landfills
• The greenhouse gas emissions avoided
• The actions the producer or stewardship organization will take during the next reporting
period, if the performance goals were not met
• A description of the public outreach and education activities undertaken during the
reporting period
• The actions undertaken to manage and reduce the life cycle impacts of the covered
products and packaging including energy reduction, from product design to end-of-life
management
As part of the reporting mechanism, it is anticipated that the stewardship organization will
engage in ongoing evaluation to assess progress towards meeting the objectives of the program.
However, this is meant to complement, but not displace, the role of the government oversight
agencies to ensure that the stewardship effort is meeting the public policy objectives.
7
Appendix 5.2
Compliance/Enforcement
To ensure fairness and a level playing field, States need a way to verify information provided in
producer reports and apply some type of penalty for producers who chose not to participate in a
product stewardship program, when required by law. For this reason the State, or its designee,
needs the right to audit the financial and operational performance of product stewardship
programs and to verify information presented in reports. A common penalty is to restrict a
product’s market access, i.e., a producer loses the right to sell its product in a State if it is in
violation of the stewardship program. Another penalty is to issue a financial civil penalty. A
large penalty can serve as a sufficient deterrent that it may never need to be used.
Environmentally-Sound Management
The stewardship framework should articulate a commitment to the environmentally-sound

management of products and create a mechanism to ensure that the management of products and
materials is done without posing threats to human and environmental health. While this issue is
of utmost concern with products containing toxic and hazardous constituents, it applies to any
product or material that is being processed. Stewardship organizations can ensure that collectors
and processors are adhering to best management practices by instituting requirements such as the
Required Vendor Qualification Program developed by Electronics Product Stewardship Canada
(EPSC) and in use in the provincial stewardship programs.
Incentives for Design for the Environment
Product stewardship seeks to not only increase collection and recycling rates for certain products
but to promote the design and manufacture of more sustainable products. By internalizing the
environmental costs of products into the sales chain, producers will have a defined economic
incentive to reduce toxic and hazardous constituents as well as take steps to promote disassembly
and recyclability. For example, automobile product stewardship programs in Europe and Asia
have led to the standardization of materials, allowing for greater levels of recovery and much less
auto shredder “fluff” requiring disposal. While there are several examples that illustrate the
connection between internalization of costs and design change, many factors, such as product
lifespan and complexity of the product, impact the effectiveness of this strategy. However, it is
important to note that such design changes must be implemented in a broader materials context
to ensure that alternatives do not pose a similar or greater environmental harm.
Several other tools have been identified as effective in supporting the development of
environmentally-preferable products. Materials restrictions, such as the Restriction on
Hazardous Substances (RoHS) adopted by the European Union, as well as those referenced in
several State electronics stewardship programs, present a potential policy avenue for reducing
the use of certain materials of concern.
Another strategy gaining acceptance is to integrate product standards, certifications and eco-label
programs into product stewardship efforts. Product standards such as Energy Star and the
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) have been very effective at
reducing certain aspects of a product’s environmental footprint. States examining stewardship
8
Appendix 5.2
policy may want to include provisions to support these and similar product standards that are
multi-attribute approaches.
Consistency/Harmonization between States
As with any new concept or process, it is essential that terms and their usage are universally
understood by stakeholders. For example, stakeholders may know the general term “product
stewardship” but may have a different perspective regarding its practical application.
Governments may consider product stewardship in a waste management compliance sense, such
as when producer responsibility laws require that the producer take back its products at their end
of life. However, a producer may consider product stewardship in an engineering sense, such as
when a producer strives to make their products less toxic. Both stakeholders are correct, though
the focus of their efforts may not be the same.
As States adopt product stewardship, it is critical that the regulated community, which could
include producers, retailers, recyclers and others, understands the terms used. It has become
evident -- with the variations in State laws that have been passed related to electronics recycling -
- that the regulated community is frequently confused by the scopes and provisions of the various
electronics recycling laws. The diversity of the State laws complicates the regulated
community’s ability to comprehend and act in accordance with many different requirements and
can impair States’ abilities to compel compliance, particularly by stakeholders that do not have
the means to hire consultants to keep abreast of emerging legislation.
Efforts must be made to ensure that product stewardship terms are consistently applied and
universally understood; States and the federal government must make efforts to share their
concepts and reach consensus as much as possible on product stewardship. In addition, it is
essential that governments communicate with the regulated community to address their concerns
and target their outreach and education efforts to producers, retailers, recyclers and others to
ensure compliance with product stewardship regulations and statutes. Consideration could be
given to developing model standard language for product stewardship laws and policies.
Recommended Role for the Federal Government
While regulated stewardship programs have been the province of State government to date, the
federal government is poised to play an important role in facilitating State activity and promoting
harmonization and collaboration among the States. This harmonization will benefit the regulated
community and can decrease the resources necessary for State and local governments to
implement programs. There are also several components of product stewardship programs that
may be best addressed by Congress or U.S. EPA regulatory activity such as restrictions on the
export of certain products, addressing regulatory barriers to the reuse and recycling of certain
products or materials and facilitating the creation of industry-managed stewardship
organizations.
The U.S. EPA can continue its role in facilitating the coordination and collaboration among
States, local governments, industry and non-governmental organizations to develop voluntary
and regulatory approaches for reducing the environmental footprint of products. Facilitation of
9
Appendix 5.2
product stewardship efforts should be continued and expanded by U.S. EPA through its ongoing
emphasis on resource conservation.
The U.S. EPA can also support product stewardship through funding research that will:
• Lead to product design that will extend the life cycle of products and decrease “built-in
obsolescence”
• Provide better data on the flow of materials -- from extraction to disposal -- to identify
environmental impacts and opportunities for improved management
• Determine economic and social drivers that will influence greater public participation in
recycling and product stewardship efforts
• Develop improved technology to increase the efficiency of waste recycling and to safely
remove and dispose of hazardous materials
• Develop more uses for materials captured from recycling and product stewardship
programs
• Lead to product design that will enhance recovery of useful components at the product’s
end-of-life
Finally, U.S. EPA can engage the federal purchasing community and other large institutional
purchasers to support the development of products with stronger environmental attributes.
Approved by the ASTSWMO Board of Directors, October 28, 2009, Bethesda, MD
10
Appendix 5.2
Appendix A
Please see the following web resources that provided background information for the
development of this document.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Recommendations Report

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oea/stewardship/study.cfm
California Integrated Waste Management Board EPR Framework Overview

http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/EPR/Framework/Framework.pdf
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Draft Framework Legislation

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/PSFrameworkLegdrafthandout080916.pdf
Washington Climate Action Team - Beyond Waste Implementation Working Group Draft
Framework Legislation
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/2008CATdocs/IWG/bw/10072008_7_product_stewardshi
p_bill_draft.pdf
Discussion document: Towards a Proposed Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer
Responsibility
(the Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility adopted in principle on
10/29/09 by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment is available at
http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/epr_cap.pdf)
Product Stewardship Institute’s Principles of Product Stewardship

http://www.productstewardship.us/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=231
Product Policy Institute’s Joint Framework Principles for Product Stewardship Policy
http://www.productpolicy.org/content/framework-principles
11
Appendix 5.2
Appendix B- Case Studies of Product Stewardship Programs
Electronics
Minnesota
On May 8, 2007, Governor Pawlenty signed the Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act to
facilitate the collection and recycling of video display devices (televisions, computer monitors,
and laptop computers) from households in Minnesota.
The brandowners of video display devices (VDDs) must annually register and pay a fee to the
State as well as collect and recycle VDDs from households/consumers in Minnesota. The
recycling obligation is determined by the weight of video display devices sold in Minnesota. At
the end of each program year, brandowners file a report detailing the results of their collections
for the year.
There are also specified roles for retailers under the Act. Retailers are required to provide
manufacturers with sales data for their respective brands as well as provide consumers with
information regarding collection opportunities in Minnesota.
During the first program year (July 1, 2007–June 30, 2008), 217 collection locations were
registered with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, a substantial increase in the number of
collection opportunities for Minnesota residents. Registered recyclers and collectors reported
managing approximately 34 million pounds of covered electronic devices from households in
Minnesota. This translates into approximately 6.5 pounds per capita and represents a substantial
increase in the volume of electronics collected from households prior to 2007.
Washington
Washington State’s Electronic Product Recycling Law (Chapter 70.95N RCW) requires
producers to provide recycling services at no cost to households, small businesses, charities,
school districts and small governments in Washington as of January 1, 2009. Producers of TVs,
computers (desktops and laptops) and monitors must finance the collection, transportation and
recycling of these products. There must be a collection site in every county and one in every city
with a population of 10,000 or more.
The law requires producers to register with the Washington State Department of Ecology and
participate in an approved recycling plan in order to sell their products in or into the State by any
means including internet sales. The law also created the Washington Materials Management &
Financing Authority to administer and operate the Standard Plan for electronics recycling. By
default, all producers must participate in the Standard Plan unless they meet the requirements to
operate their own independent recycling plan.
12
Appendix 5.2
Rechargeable batteries
Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation
Following statutory producer responsibility requirements enacted in New Jersey and Minnesota
in the early 1990s, producers of nickel-cadmium rechargeable batteries and battery-containing
products founded the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation (RBRC) in 1994.
The federal Mercury Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996 allowed for
the implementation of the national program to collect rechargeable batteries. Since its inception,
RBRC has continued to evolve its program, expanding to include additional rechargeable battery
chemistries in 2001 and in 2004 adding cell phones. RBRC currently collects discarded
rechargeable batteries at retail locations and other collection locations including household
hazardous waste facilities.
Mercury-Containing Automobile Switches

Maine
In 2002, the Maine Legislature enacted a producer responsibility program to increase the
recovery of mercury-containing switches from automobiles.
The statute prohibits the sale of new motor vehicles with mercury switches and replacement
mercury switches while requiring the removal of all mercury switches prior to flattening,
crushing or bailing. It requires the auto manufacturers to “establish and maintain consolidation
facilities” where the person who removed the switches (the end-of-life vehicle handler) can turn
them in for recycling. The end-of-life vehicle (ELV) handler has to maintain a log on switches
collected. The manufacturers pay a $4 bounty for each switch turned in with the VIN recorded
on the log.
Pharmaceuticals
British Columbia
A program to divert expired and/or unused medications from landfills and sewers, as well as to
ensure safe and effective collection, has been in place since 1996. The public can return expired
or unused medications at participating community pharmacies across British Columbia. The
pharmaceutical industry voluntarily established the Medications Return Program (formally called
British Columbia EnviRx) in November 1996 then in 1997 it was regulated under the Post-
Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation. Brand-owners of pharmaceutical and
consumer health-care products are currently regulated under the Recycling Regulation and this
program allows consumers to return (at no charge) unused or expired medications to over 95 per
cent of participating pharmacies in the province.
The Medications Return Program is administered by the Post-Consumers Pharmaceutical

Stewardship Association and funded by brand-owners selling medications in British Columbia.
This program provides the pharmaceutical and self-care health products industries with a
collective means of adhering to the requirements of the British Columbia Recycling Regulation.
13
Appendix 5.2
Packaging
Ontario
The Waste Diversion Act was passed by the Parliament in Ontario in 2002. The Waste
Diversion Act empowers the Minister to designate a material for which a waste diversion
program is to be established. The first product category designated under the Waste Diversion
Act was “blue box” packaging materials collected in curb side recycling programs -- glass,
metal, paper, plastic and textiles.
The Waste Diversion Act creates a shared responsibility model for managing “blue box”
materials with a 50-50 cost sharing arrangement between industry and the municipalities. The
Minister established a 60 percent recycling target for the Blue Box Program Plan. The recycling
rate for 2007 was 63 percent.
The Act created a non-profit organization, Waste Diversion Ontario, that serves as the
implementation entity for the Act and oversees the development of the industry funding
organizations to fulfill the stewardship obligations.
For traditional recyclables generated from households, Stewardship Ontario was established in
2003 as the industry organization to fulfill responsibility for “Designated Blue Box Waste.”
Stewardship Ontario is responsible for collecting fees from the approximately 2,000 stewards
and then remitting funds to municipalities for their recycling programs.
14
APPENDIX 6.1
SUMMARY OF DEC FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

PROGRAM: HIGH TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE RECOVERY (HTRR)
Authorizing Legislation: 1972 Environmental Quality Bond Act (EQBA); Section 51‐0905 of the ECL
Summary: This program was created to assist local governments in the planning, design and
construction of municipal waste combustion (MWC) projects, also known as waste‐to‐energy plants,
and other associated solid waste management facilities, such as transfer stations and ash
management or disposal operations. A total of more than $217.6 million in EQBA funds were
originally dedicated to this purpose, including $169 million from the Solid Waste category and more
than $48.6 million from the Air Quality category.
Results: Applications from 25 municipalities totaling more than $215.4 million were originally
selected for funding. (The remaining approximate $2.3 million was legislatively reassigned for use
toward statewide recycling projects.)
In time, several of these projects were either completed for less than originally estimated or were
discontinued. The statute required DEC to review project status annually and recommend
reallocation where appropriate, with an emphasis on reallocating for small–scale, low‐technology
resource recovery approaches, such as new material recovery facilities or other recycling
investments. More than $90 million of these funds were eventually reprogrammed‐‐$77 million for
recycling projects, nearly $11 million for other solid waste disposal/transfer projects, and $5 million
for waterfront revitalization.
Ultimately, this program provided more than $122.3 million in funding toward 19 high‐technology
resource recovery projects.
Status: Not active.
Program: Low Technology Resource Recovery (LTRR)/Municipal Recycling Grants Program (MRGP)

Authorizing Legislation: 1972 Environmental Quality Bond Act (EQBA); 1988 Solid Waste
Management Act
Summary: The Low Technology Resource Recovery (LTRR) Program was established in 1972 for use
to purchase small‐scale source‐separation equipment. The initial appropriations were small ($3.2
million) but came at a time when municipalities were encouraged to begin recycling before source‐
separation programs were required. With the passage of the 1988 Solid Waste Management Act’s
mandatory local source‐separation requirements and accompanying appropriations, the legislature
significantly enhanced the funding available for recycling equipment and facilities to assist
municipalities with the costs of new or expanded programs.
A total of more than $90.5 million was allocated from the following sources: approximately $3.3
million from the 1972 EQBA ($1 million original allocation and approximately $2.3 million through
reallocation); $6 million from the 1988 SWMA, and $81.2 million reallocation of HTRR funds
(generally earmarked for communities that did not use the full allocation of their original HTRR
funds, though some HTRR funding was reallocated for statewide purposes).
Results: The more than $90 million allocated for this program funded 265 recycling projects
between 1972 and 2008. Typical projects included curbside collection containers, trucks to collect
recyclables, material recovery facilities, composting facilities and processing equipment. These
investments helped make statewide source separation a reality. Of that $90 million, $67.5 million
was reassigned from the HTRR program to the following 13 municipalities for use on recycling
projects only in those municipalities:

‐ Town of Brookhaven $ 6,250,000
‐ Town of North Hempstead $ 1,520,941
‐ Town of Smithtown $ 280,256
‐ New York City $50,967,940
‐ Westchester County $ 2,566,667
‐ Albany County $ 940,257
‐ Oneida‐Herkimer SWMA $ 191,744
‐ St. Lawrence County $ 750,000
‐ Broome County $ 286,559
‐ Monroe County $ 1,651,875
‐ Western Finger Lakes SWMA $ 1,300,000
‐ Chautauqua County $ 37,427
‐ Erie County $ 7,000,000
An additional $7.533 million of that $90 million was reassigned from three original HTRR projects
(St. Lawrence County [$5.333 million], Town of Brookhaven [$2 million], and Western Finger Lakes
Solid Waste Management Authority [$0.2 million]to statewide recycling projects.
Status: Not active.
Program: Local Resource Reuse and Recovery Program (LRRRP)

Authorizing Legislation: Kansas Stripper Well Settlement (Chapter 615 of the laws of 1987,
Chapter 659 of the laws of 1989), Petroleum Overcharge Restitution Chapter 598 of the
laws of 1993), and Solid Waste Management Act (Chapter 70 of the laws of 1988)

Summary: The LRRRP was established to help municipalities meet the requirements
contained in the Solid Waste Management Act. DEC structured the program to allow
grant funds to be used by local governments to help defray up to 75 percent of the costs
of recycling programs, including public education, information and outreach programs,
salaries of local recycling coordinators and waste reduction projects. DEC granted
nearly $10 million through the program, including approximately $4 million in
petroleum overcharge funds from the Kansas Stripper Well Settlement and the
Petroleum Overcharge Restitution Act, along with $6 million from the Solid Waste
Management Act.

Results: In total, the LRRRP funded 101 projects between 1987 and 1994, for a total cost of
more than $9.9 million. The program helped create 60 municipal recycling coordinator
positions, some of which have been sustained by municipalities and others with
additional funds through the Municipal Waste Reduction and Recycling program (see
below).

Although the results of the program were significant, funding was not sufficient to meet the
total statewide need. Of the 135 applications received and reviewed against criteria
established for the program, 125 were determined to be eligible. Funding requested by
the 125 applicants totaled nearly twice the available funding.

Status: Not active.
Program: Municipal Waste Reduction and Recycling State Assistance Program (MWRR)

Authorizing Legislation: Environmental Protection Act (chapters 610 and 611, laws of 1993);
Title 7 of Article 54 of the ECL, and 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act

Summary: MWRR is the successor program to the LTRR/MRGP and LRRRP programs
described above. It was established and has been funded annually as a part of the
Environmental Protection Fund (EPF), supplemented by $50 million from the 1996 Clean
Water/Clean Air Bond Act.

Through the MWRR program, DEC provides grants to cover 50 percent of the costs, to a
maximum of $2 million, of capital, planning and promotion for waste prevention and for
capital costs (equipment, structures and facilities) for recycling projects. In 2000, the
definition of “cost” was amended to also include planning, educational and promotional
activities associated with a recyclables recovery program. This includes the cost of
recycling coordinator salaries.

The MWRR grant program is governed by regulations (Part 369) that include eligibility
criteria and dictate a “first‐in, first‐out” method of distribution. Under the system,
municipalities submit pre‐applications to ensure eligibility and secure a place on the
waiting list. As funds become available, DEC requests full applications in the order that
applicants appear on the waiting list and proceeds with contracts as appropriate.

Results: Since the inception of this program, $106.2 million, including more than $55 million
in funding from EPF, has been awarded to municipalities for 432 projects. Since the
expansion of eligibility under the EPF in 2000, it has funded education and coordination
activities in more than half of the planning units, representing more than 85 percent of
the state’s population. See Table A for a breakdown of these projects.

Table A ‐ Funding From the EPF for Waste Reduction and Recycling
1993 ‐ 1993 – 2000‐ 2000‐

2008 2008 2008 20
08
($) (%) ($) (%)
Recycling equipment & facilities 15.9 28.8% 7.6 19.0%

milli milli
on on
Composting equipment & 10.2 18.4% 7.7 19.2%

facilities milli milli
on on
Recycling education & 21.3 38.5% 21.3 53.1%

coordination milli milli
on on
Waste reduction equipment & 7.9 14.3% 3.5 8.7%

education milli milli
on on

As of December 31, 2008, 105 projects totaling a little more than $36 million in pre‐
applications were on the waiting list. At the average funding level appropriated for this
program during the last two years, this represents approximately three years of waiting.
The projects include:

‐ 82 for recycling equipment, structures and facility projects ($24.5 million)
‐ 22 for recycling education and coordination projects ($11.1 million)
‐ 1 waste reduction project ($0.4 million)

Status: Active.
Program: Local Solid Waste Management Planning Grant Program

Authorizing Legislation: Solid Waste Management Act

Summary: In 1988, through the Solid Waste Management Act, the legislature appropriated
$7.5 million for a grant program to assist local governments in developing solid waste
management plans. The plans were expected to implement the solid waste
management hierarchy and ensure environmentally sound and integrated programs
that include waste reduction, reuse and recycling, with ultimate disposal for remaining
waste.

Results: Planning grants were available to cover 90 percent of the costs of preparing a local
solid waste management plan (LSWMP), up to a maximum of $1 per capita or $25,000,
whichever was greater. DEC received 50 applications requesting a total of $14.9 million.
With the limited grant money available, DEC funded the first 36 projects before funds
were completely obligated by November 1992. Because no new money was
appropriated for this program, $7.4 million in eligible applications were never funded.

For more on LSWMPs, see Section 5.

Status: Not active.
Program: Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) State Assistance Program

Authorizing Legislation: 1993 Environmental Protection Act (ECL, Title 7 of Article 54)

Summary: The HHW State Assistance Program provides up to 50 percent reimbursement to
municipalities, to a maximum of $2 million, for the costs related to collection programs
for household hazardous waste. From 1995 through 2007, program payments have
averaged just under $2 million per year.

The program reimburses municipalities for costs of operating household hazardous waste
collection day programs, as well as costs to construct and operate permitted household
hazardous waste collection and storage facilities. Eligible costs include: contractor costs
to accept, segregate, prepare for shipment, transport, and recycle, treat, or dispose of
the collected wastes; operational costs for a permitted facility, and costs for publicity,
promotion, and public education. Collection and disposal of certain items that are
routinely collected by HHW programs but are not, in fact, hazardous (e.g., latex paint
and electronic waste), are not eligible expenses in the program. When communities
choose to continue collecting these materials due to popular demand, state
reimbursement does not cover a full 50 percent of the program costs.

Results: As of December 31, 2008, DEC had awarded 461 HHW assistance contracts valued
at nearly $30.2 million to 80 municipalities. Since the program’s inception, the number
of collection events in the state has doubled to serve more than 60 municipalities per
year, and 11 permitted HHW drop‐off facilities have been established. These municipal
programs have collected, in aggregate, more than 125 million pounds of HHW since the
HHW State Assistance Program began, with five times as much HHW collected today as
in 1993, amounting to about 8.5 percent of all HHW generated in the state. During the
same period, costs were reduced by 67 percent. On average, HHW program costs,
including outreach, education and disposal, are $720 per ton. (For more information on
HHW, see Section 4.2.3).

Status: Active.
Program: Municipal Landfill Closure Program

Authorizing Legislation: 1986 Environmental Quality Bond Act (EQBA); 1993 Environmental
Protection Act, and 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act

Summary: This program provides funding to assist in proper closure of non‐hazardous,
municipallyowned landfills. Initially funded with $100 million from the 1986
Environmental Quality Bond Act (EQBA), the program provides reimbursement of 50
percent of a municipality’s costs (90 percent for those municipalities with populations of
less than 3,500) for proper landfill closure, up to a maximum of $2 million. To be
eligible, the landfill must have completed a Closure Investigation Report and must be
closed, or be required to close, within 18 months of the municipality’s state‐assistance
application.

The 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air (CW/CA) Bond Act provided $75 million specifically
dedicated to closure of the Fresh Kills Landfill in New York City, with additional funding
to be granted through an application process. Money has continued to be available
through annual appropriations from the EPF. As of early 2009, 226 landfill closure
projects had been completed and nine applications, for a total of $10 million, were on
the waiting list. Funding for this program has decreased significantly during the past
three years: only $3 million in FY ‘07‐’08; no appropriations in FY ’08‐’09, and only
$750,000 in FY ‘09‐’10. This program shares a funding line in the EPF with the Municipal
Landfill Gas Management State Assistance Program, described below, so these
allocations fund both programs.

Results: As noted in the 1987 State Solid Waste Management Plan, in June 1986, there were
358 active landfills in New York State. Since 1986, $307.5 million in funding has been
awarded for 254 closure projects, including: $100 million from the 1986 EQBA; $121.5
million from the CW/CA Bond Act, and $86 million from the Environmental Protection
Fund (EPF). As of December 31, 2008, 226 of these projects have been completed.

Status: Active
Program: Municipal Landfill Gas Management State Assistance Program

Authorizing Legislation: ECL Article 54, Title 5, and Article 56, Title 4; 1993 Environmental
Protection Act, and 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act

Summary: The landfill gas management program was established in 1996 to promote
improved air quality and to encourage energy recovery from landfill gas. Through this
program, municipal owners or operators of non‐hazardous waste landfills that have
incurred costs associated with the design and construction of an active landfill gas
collection and treatment system can receive reimbursement of up to 50 percent of
eligible costs, to a maximum of $2 million dollars per project.

Results: Since 1996, $12.3 million in funding has been awarded for 12 landfill gas
management projects. This total includes: $3.5 million from the Clean Water/Clean Air
Bond Act and $8.8 million from the EPF. As of December 31, 2008, 4 applications
totaling $8 million remained on the waiting list.

Status: Active

APPENDIX 6.2

HISTORY OF ESD FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND PROGRAMS

In 1987, the Petroleum Overcharge Restitution Act allocated $1 million to Empire State
Development (ESD) to establish “a secondary materials utilization program.” The legislation
recognized that the amount of solid waste generated in the state was outstripping existing reuse,
recycling and disposal capacity, and that industry reliance on virgin rather than secondary materials
wasted energy that could be conserved with the adoption of secondary materials technologies by
NYS firms. To implement the program, ESD created the Office of Recycling Market Development
(ORMD).
In 1988, Article 14 of Economic Development Law extended the powers and responsibilities of ESD
to provide financial and technical assistance to build market‐driven capacity to recycle solid waste
materials. In 1998, Article 14 (sections 260‐264) was expanded to add pollution prevention to
ongoing recycling market development responsibilities and directed ESD to assist businesses with
the development of new technologies and capital investments to expand commercial recycling
capacity, reduce waste and prevent pollution at the point of generation. ESD was authorized to
provide feasibility studies, technical assistance, public education and recycling market information
to further the development and efficiency of market‐driven recycling and pollution prevention in
New York.
Despite the broad market‐development mandate, early funding was scant. From 1987 through
1993, ORMD implemented two key programs to facilitate recycling market development:
• Feasibility Study Grants of up to $100,000 (later raised to $200,000) were offered on a
competitive basis to NYS firms to evaluate recycling technologies, processes, systems or
products manufactured from recycled materials.
• Recycling Technology Financing (direct loans or interest subsidies) was offered competitively
for the construction of recycling facilities or the acquisition of related machinery and
equipment.
Through 1993, ORMD awarded nearly $2 million in feasibility study grants, committed $1.4 million in
loans and interest subsidies, and directed an additional $36 million in loans, interest subsidies and
loan guarantees from the Urban Development Corporation and the NYS Job Development Authority
for recycling market development projects.
During this period, ORMD initiated several programs to address specific barriers to recycling
adoption. Through the Business Waste Prevention Program in 1992, ESD contracted with trade
associations and business service organizations to help businesses achieve waste reduction and
recycling outcomes. ORMD supported the creation of three recycling market cooperatives, through
which groups of municipalities marketed their recyclables as a single entity to obtain better prices to
support their operating costs. ORMD established the NY Newspaper Recycling Task Force in the
early 1990s to persuade newspaper publishers to voluntarily convert to recycled newsprint, thereby
creating a major new market outlet for recycled paper.

ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Funding to support the ORMD mandate improved significantly with passage of the New York State
Environmental Protection Act in 1993, creating the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) as a
dedicated fund to support recycling and other environmental initiatives. Beginning in 1994, ESD
received annual allocations from the EPF. With a reliable source of funds to support the legislative
mandate, ESD created the Recycling Investment Program (RIP).
In 1998, with the legislative expansion of ESD’s investment authority to include pollution prevention,
the Recycling Investment Program became the Environmental Investment Program (EIP), and ORMD
became the Environmental Services Unit. The current mission of EIP is to assist New York State
business investment in sustainable production through market‐based recycling, pollution prevention
and the development of new green products and process technologies. EIP assists projects that
result in substantive improvements to environmental quality and associated economic benefits.
Environmental improvements may be achieved through:
• Expanded recycling capacity (which includes reuse, remanufacturing and composting) and
diversion of solid waste from disposal to higher‐value uses
• Pollution prevention and waste reduction below regulated thresholds
• Sustainable product and technology development and implementation (which must deliver
measurable improvements to environmental quality when compared to existing products
and technologies in the marketplace)
Associated economic benefits may include:
• Cost reductions from improved productivity and reduced regulatory, operating or
purchasing costs
• Increased revenues from expanded production output or new product development
• Job creation and retention
EIP assists three types of projects:
• Capital projects assist in the acquisition of machinery and equipment and improvements to
building, property, and infrastructure directly associated with the environmental outcomes
achieved by NYS businesses. Non‐profit organizations or municipalities apply on behalf of
NYS businesses.
• Research, development and demonstration projects answer final questions standing
between product/process prototypes and their commercialization or implementation and
are available to New York State businesses or non‐profit organizations.
• Technical assistance projects assist non‐profit organizations or municipalities that help
groups of NYS businesses to achieve measurable recycling, pollution prevention or
sustainability outcomes.
EIP operates as an outcome‐based funding program, and applications are reviewed competitively on
multiple criteria, including: how well they compare to EIP investment benchmarks for recycling,
pollution prevention and sustainability outcomes; associated economic benefits; return on
investment; ability of the applicant to successfully complete the project, and the amount of private
investment leveraged by the EIP award. Applicants must achieve environmentally significant and
measurable results to receive funds.
EIP establishes investment priorities annually based on areas of greatest need and inefficiency in the
marketplace and identifies specific strategies within each priority that receive highest consideration
during competitive review. In Fiscal Year 2008/09, EIP investment priorities included paper, plastic,
glass, tires, construction and demolition debris/building materials reuse, food processing waste and
industrial pollution prevention.
EIP investment benchmarks grow more diversified and competitive as investment experience
accumulates. For example, applications that seek to install plastic processing capacity are compared
to all prior plastic processing projects on a per‐ton basis to assess the amount of public investment
needed to induce new processing capacity and the degree of value added to the material by the
process. Industrial process changes that reduce the generation of SOx and NOx are compared on a
dollars‐per‐ton basis with prior air emission reduction projects. Applications are also compared to
similar historic projects for the degree of economic benefit they will achieve.
Since 1994, EIP has received $84.3 million in appropriations from EPF. In recent years (prior to the
fiscal crisis), annual appropriations from the EPF were sustained at $8.75 million, which was
consistent with the level of commercial interest and need for investment in recycling market
development and sustainable production. However, actual authorization to spend these funds has
lagged behind the appropriations. As of 2009, ESD spending authorization stands at $62.08 million,
of which ESD has committed $59.74 million and earmarked the remaining $2.34 million to projects
that successfully completed the competitive review process. EIP staff continue to work with a
significant and growing backlog of additional projects awaiting competitive review once new
spending authorization is granted for the balance of unspent appropriations.
From 1994 through 2008, EIP committed $59.74 million to 399 projects that leveraged $221.05
million in private sector support. Appendix 6.2.1 provides aggregated economic and environmental
benefits achieved by all ESD environmental investments from 1987 through 2008, grouped by
investment priority areas. In total these projects have:
• Established new capacity to recycle 3.329 million tons/year of secondary materials
• Developed the capacity to recycle 421 million gallons/year of water for beneficial uses
• Helped to create or retain nearly 4,800 jobs
• Created a recurring economic benefit estimated at $279.63 million per year

6.2.3 Pollution Prevention Partnerships
After the enabling statute expanded its investment authority to include pollution prevention, ESD
sought project development partners that could work directly with manufacturing facilities to
identify pollution prevention projects. Firms receiving assistance must comply with all DEC
regulations, and the projects must reduce pollution below regulated thresholds through changes to
the manufacturing process or product formulation. Pollution prevention (P2) projects must also be
costeffective, ultimately saving the manufacturer more money than they invest through reduced
regulatory, disposal, energy and input costs, coupled with new revenue through expanded
production and improved product quality.
ESD found a ready partnership in the ten Regional Technology Development Corporations (RTDCs),
whose mission is to work directly with small and mid‐sized manufacturers to adopt enhanced
production methods that yield greater productivity and competitiveness. Adding the
competitiveness benefits of pollution prevention to the RTDC tool kit was a natural next step.
Through EIP, ESD has contracted with multiple RTDCs to deliver on‐site P2 project development
assistance to manufacturers in their regions. Through these RTDC contracts, EIP has assisted more
than 252 small and mid‐sized manufacturers to adopt sustainable production practices that enhance
their competitiveness and improve NYS environmental quality.
ESD recognized that the RTDCs could deliver greater P2 outcomes if they had more sophisticated
evaluation tools and technical support to research potential solutions. In 2006, ESD contracted with
the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies (CIMS) to
create a prototype Pollution Prevention Institute. ESD directed RIT‐CIMS to develop P2 diagnostic
tools for the RTDCs to use in manufacturing site evaluations. ESD asked RIT to provide training and
technical support to RTDC field staff to enhance the environmental impact and competitiveness of
the P2 projects they developed. This project married the research and development capacity at RIT
with the technology delivery capacity of the RTDCs to create a comprehensive network for advanced
technology diffusion. As manufacturers remain essential to economic vitality, helping them to adopt
the most sustainable and competitive practices enhances both environmental quality and economic
growth.
Recognizing the value of the approach embodied in the RIT/RTDC partnership, in 2007 the state
created a dedicated line within the EPF to channel more significant resources to create a state
Pollution Prevention Institute(P2I). Subsequent to a DEC‐led competitive bid process, the P2I
contract was awarded to a consortium led by RIT and included the University of Buffalo, Clarkson
University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the RTDCs. ESD continues to work with the P2I on
projects that enhance sustainable production methods that support the competitiveness of
manufacturing in New York to ESD for funding.

6.2.4 Market Information Resources
ESD manages the Recycling Markets Database, which provides information about intermediate and
end‐use markets for recyclable materials. The database is searchable online and available to the
public at: (http://www.empire.state.ny.us/recycle). It helps generators locate outlets for materials
that can be reused, recycled or composted and helps end users access the raw materials they need
to make new products. The database enables searches by material type and geographic regions for
brokers, processors, manufacturers, compost facilities, reuse organizations and other recycling‐
related services in the Northeast and Canada.
ESU project managers maintain special expertise within various recycling, pollution prevention and
sustainability sectors that reflect EIP investment priorities. Their expertise incorporates an
understanding of market forces and technology driving viable business options, as well as networks
of operators, regulators and stakeholders that contribute to business development in their various
areas.

6.2.5 Pollution Prevention and Compliance Assistance
Since 1994, the Small Business Environmental Ombudsman (SBEO), an integral program of the ESU,
has helped small firms understand their regulatory and reporting responsibilities under the Clean Air
Act amendments and advocates on their behalf when regulation and enforcement become an
undue impediment to business operation. In 2005, the Small Business Pollution Prevention and
Environmental Compliance Assistance Program extended ESD responsibilities to encourage
enhanced environmental management practices through all of ESD regional incentive projects. ESD
assists business through the full spectrum of environmental responsibility, from compliance with
regulation to voluntary actions that achieve recycling, pollution prevention and sustainable
production methods.
ESD participates in the work of the Pollution Prevention/Compliance Assistance Council, chaired by
DEC, which helps coordinate various environmental programs offered by DEC, EFC, ESD, NYSERDA
and NYSTAR and strengthens the comprehensive offering of compliance through sustainability
services to business.

EXPLANATION OF TABLE AND TERMS USED
This table summarizes the investments in recycling, pollution prevention and sustainable product
and process projects made by Empire State Development’s Environmental Services Unit via various
programs (including the Environmental Investment Program, the Recycling Investment Program, the
Waste Tire Management Fund and the Secondary Materials Utilization Program) since 1987. ESU
makes investments at or on behalf of private sector businesses in New York State. The majority of
the investments have been made via the Recycling Investment Program and the subsequent
Environmental Investment Program enabled by the NYS Environmental Protection Act in 1993. Prior
to 1998, ESU was called the Office of Recycling Market Development.
TPY = Tons Per Year
SW = Solid Waste
MGPY = Millions of Gallons Per Year
Priority Investment Area ‐ Each year, ESU establishes a set of investment priority areas. These are
areas determined to be in greatest need of improvement and support. The set of investment priority
areas changes somewhat so that not every priority investment area in this column is part of the
current set. Some, however, like paper, plastics and glass, have always been on the list. ESU also
identifies specific strategies within each priority area that receive highest consideration during
competitive review. This also changes so that not every strategy or item described within each
priority investment area is part of the current focus. All ESU investments made or committed since
1987 fall into one of these investment priority areas.
ESD Investment ‐ This represents the total amount committed to or expended for projects
supported by ESU (and ORMD) programs. There are three main types of investments: those that
assist the private sector with the acquisition of machinery and equipment for pollution prevention,
reuse, recycling and/or sustainable products and processes; research and development to help NYS
businesses answer questions that will lead directly to pollution prevention, increased recycling or
reuse, or the manufacture of sustainable products or adoption of sustainable processes, and those
that support the provision of technical assistance to businesses to help with the adoption of
pollution prevention, reuse or recycling practices.
Private Sector Investment ‐ This represents the total amount of private sector support for projects
leveraged by ESU Investments. ESU commitments require substantial matching funds.
TOTAL ‐ ESU Investment plus Private Sector Investment
Annual Economic Benefit Results or Committed ‐ ESU projects are performance based. Contractors
(except research and development contractors) must set and achieve measurable environmental
improvements and economic benefits to receive support. Economic benefits are expressed in annual
rates (dollars per year) and are defined as the additional revenue (usually from the sale of a recycled
product or feedstock) and/or savings accruing to one or more New York State companies as a result
of the project. Savings generally comprise avoided disposal costs, avoided purchasing costs and/or
other operational savings related to resource conservation or efficiency improvements. Contractors
must verify that a specific annual rate of new economic benefit has been attained by the end of a
project. Figures in this column are the sum of the annual rates of economic benefit attained by
completed projects and those estimated by projects currently under contract or in the contracting
process.
Rates attained when projects were completed are assumed to be recurring. Because of staffing and
resource shortages, ESU has never implemented a process to verify that the economic benefits
attained at project completion have continued, been exceeded or have lapsed years later.
ESU’s research and development projects are performance based but are implemented differently
than others described here. Because they focus on resolving barriers and answering questions, R&D
projects do not yield measurable economic benefits that can be counted in this section (benefits
come later when investments are made to apply lessons learned from the research). Therefore,
while ESU investment, private sector investment and total investment in R&D projects are captured
in the columns to the left, because they cannot be easily quantified, benefits from ESU’s R&D
investments are underrepresented in this column.
Environmental Improvement Results or Committed ‐ Environmental improvements that result from
ESU projects may take many forms. In cases where ESU assists with the installation of new recycling
machinery or equipment, environmental improvement is expressed as the rated recycling capacity
(in tons per year or TPY) of that machinery or equipment. Also captured for all ESU projects (those
that assist with acquisition of new recycling capacity, those that prompt new recycling, reuse or
prevention practices via business outreach as well as research projects) are the tons of material
recycled, reused or prevented as a result of the project. Contractors must verify that a specific
environmental improvement, expressed as an annual rate, usually TPY, has been attained by the end
of a project. For example, a project to install a new plastics recycling system must verify the
installed capacity of the new system and must also verify by the close of the project that the system
is up, running and successfully recycling X tons per year. Likewise, a local business assistance
organization that helps 20 firms integrate new waste prevention practices must verify that X tons
per year or gallons per year of material (solid waste, hazardous waste, air emissions or water) has
been reduced or recycled as a result of the project.
Materials measured in tons per year (TPY) are solid waste, hazardous waste (prevented or reused
within the same production process), hazardous materials (manufacturing feedstocks that are
prevented as a result of the project) and air emissions, including BOD, COD, TSS, NOx, SOx, CO2,
VOCs, HAPs and others. Process water that is prevented, reused or recycled is expressed in millions
of gallons per year (MGPY).
This column also captures the number of jobs created or retained in New York State as a result of
the projects in this priority investment area. Also captured is the number of companies assisted
from multi‐firm projects.
Environmental improvements achieved when projects were completed are assumed to be recurring.
Because of staffing and resource shortages, ESU has never implemented a process to verify that the
environmental improvements attained or achieved at the time a project was completed have
continued, lapsed or been exceeded years later.

APPENDIX 7.1

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ORGANIC MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
IN NEW YORK

1. YARD WASTE COMPOSTING
Some of the larger yard waste composting facilities are noted on the following map. This map, along
with information about each of the sites can be found at:
http://compost.css.cornell.edu/maps/yardwaste.asp

Under New York’s Part 360 regulations, smaller (less than 10,000 cubic yards per year) yard waste
composting facilities are not required to obtain a permit. Of the yard waste composting facilities
that exist in the state, 37 have a permit to operate and are listed in the following table.

Facility Name County Size (cubic

yards/y
ear)

City of Albany Albany 38,000
Town of Bethlehem Albany 81,000
Town of Colonie Albany 20,000
Soundview Park Bronx 22,000
Village of Endicott Broome 7,000
City of Beacon Dutchess 20,000
West Hook Sand & Dutchess 20,000

Gravel
Town of Amherst Erie 85,000
Town of Brighton Monroe 20,800
Town of Greece Monroe 45,000
Village of Garden City Nassau 21,000
Oneida‐Herkimer Oneida 100,000

SWMA
Town of New Hartford Oneida 19,000
Miller Murphy Onondaga 35,000

Construction
Organic Recycling LLC Orange 325,000

City of Port Jervis Orange 19,000
NYC Dept of Sanitation Richmond 50,000
Clarkstown – French Rockland 38,000

Farms
Clarkstown – Rte 59 Rockland 120,000
Organic Recycling LLC Rockland 110,000
Rockland County SWMA Rockland 12,000
City of Saratoga Springs Saratoga 49,000
Town of Clifton Park Saratoga 60,000
Town of Rotterdam Schenectady 15,000
Schenectady County Schenectady 86,000
Bistrian Gravel Corp. Suffolk 5,065
Town of Brookhaven Suffolk 35,000
Holtsville Park Suffolk 18,500
Town of Islip Suffolk 200,000
Town of Southold Suffolk 42,000
Custom Compost, Inc. Ulster 68,000
High Acres Wayne 70,000
Town of Bedford Westchester 27,000
Town of Eastchester Westchester 17,000
Town of Harrison Westchester 50,000

Town of Mount Westchester 20,000
Pleasant

City of White Plains Westchester 38,000

2. FOOD SCRAPS SOURCES
There are many sources for food waste. The major sources can be grouped in the following
categories based on the type of generator. NOTE: Additional maps and more detailed information
on individual generators can be found athttp://wastetoenergy.bee.cornell.edu/default.htm
• Industrial – includes primarily food processors. New York State has many dairy processors,
fruit and vegetable processors, and wine‐making operations. The following map shows the
locations of food processors. Most of these processors currently recycle their food wastes
through use as animal feed, direct land application, composting and anaerobic digestion.

• Institutional – includes schools, colleges, universities, correctional facilities, and similar
generators. State‐operated correctional facilities have very active composting systems in
place—more than 40 sites. A few higher education institutions compost food waste, but the
practice has not yet become common. Key: Pink = colleges, Blue = correctional facilities

• Commercial – includes restaurants, grocery stores, fast food restaurants, and similar retail
establishments. Very limited food waste recycling activity results from these generators.

• Residential – includes homes, apartments, etc. This is a plentiful food waste source but can
present obstacles to recycling. The only large‐scale recycling system for residential waste in
New York State is the Delaware County Co‐Composting Facility, which accepts a mixed‐
waste stream, including food waste for composting.

3. FOOD BANKS
New York State is fortunate to have very active programs to feed the poor and hungry in all
counties. Food banks serve a crucial role, providing for the collection of edible food and monetary
contributions and the distribution of assets to hundreds of member agencies, including food
pantries, soup kitchens, emergency shelters for the homeless, residential programs, and other
entities serving needy people. The following figure depicts the members of America’s Second
Harvest in New York State, primarily food banks. In addition to food banks, there are many other
community‐based donation systems in place.

One of the food banks shown in the figure is the Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York
(Regional Food Bank). This food bank distributes food to 23 counties in eastern New York. The
amount of food (in pounds) distributed to each of these counties in 2006 is as follows:

Albany ‐ 3,066,381 Otsego ‐ 638,126
Clinton ‐ 308,886 Putnam ‐ 488,749
Columbia ‐ 271,394 Rensselaer ‐ 1,327,901
Delaware ‐ 119,482 Rockland ‐ 1,528,934
Dutchess ‐ 1,341,502 Saratoga ‐ 745,281
Essex ‐ 206,797 Schenectady ‐ 1,524,394
Franklin ‐ 1,232,096 Schoharie ‐ 206,748
Fulton ‐ 157,878 Sullivan ‐ 772,204
Greene ‐ 235,115 Ulster ‐ 1,567,522
Hamilton ‐ 26,299 Warren ‐ 981,945
Montgomery ‐ 311,857 Washington ‐ 173,717
Orange ‐ 2,434,746

The Regional Food Bank provides food to more than1,000 agencies which assist almost 200,000
people each year. The Regional Food Bank collects wholesale food from food companies, fresh
produce, food in damaged packaging, and individual donations from various sources. One program
that may be very useful in terms of expanding food diversion is the Moveable Feast. The Moveable
Feast, run by the Regional Food Bank, collects donations of prepared and perishable food from
grocery stores, restaurants, schools, and farm stands and delivers it directly to member agencies.

4. BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT IN NEW YORK STATE (DRY‐WEIGHT BASIS)
1%
25% Other
48% Incineration
Landfill
Recycling
26%
Beneficial use options include direct land application, composting, alkaline stabilization, and heat drying.
The figures below depict the breakdown of beneficial use methods, based on quantity of biosolids and
number of treatment facilities. On a dry‐weight basis, most beneficial use involves heat drying and use of
the resultant pellets as a fertilizer. There are only two heat dryers in the state compared to 27 composting
facilities, but the heat dryer located in New York City is so large that it treats about one‐third of the
biosolids beneficially used.
Land Apply
19% 20% 9% Land Apply
Heat Drying
40% Heat Drying
24% Composting
37% 40% Composting
Chem Stab.
Chem Stab.
11%

Biosolids Beneficial Use Biosolids Beneficial Use
Dry‐Weight Basis By Number of POTWs
There are 57 permitted, biosolids, beneficial use facilities in New York State, including 27
composting facilities, 25 direct land application facilities, 2 heat drying facilities, and 3 alkaline
stabilization facilities. These facilities are listed in the DEC Biosolids Report, which can be accessed
on the department’s website. These 57 permitted facilities receive biosolids from 147 POTWs.

5. OTHER – CARCASSES, MANURE, ETC.
The map below shows the location of manure composting facilities in New York State.

This map is found on Cornell’s website at: http://compost.css.cornell.edu/maps/manures.asp,
which also has links to information about each site.

APPENDIX 7.2
VEHICLE DISMANTLING FACILITIES (VDFS)

OVERVIEW/STATE OF THE STATE
On July 26, 2006, Chapter 180 of the Laws of 2006 created Article 27 Title 23: Vehicle Dismantling
Facilities (VDFs). This law expands the solid waste management requirements for facilities that
dismantle end‐of‐life vehicles (ELVs) and generate used vehicle fluids and other materials such as
mercury switches, PCB capacitors, etc. Previously, such facilities were exempt from solid waste
permitting requirements under 6 NYCRR Part 360, provided they submitted an annual fluids report.
Under the new law, VDFs are required to submit detailed annual reports and comply with
management practices that are protective of the environment.
FIGURE 1: NUMBER OF VDF FACILITIES

Vehicle Dismantling Facilities, by Region
Reporting Facilities Facilities listed in SWIMS Database
Total Facilities in SWIMS: 993
250
215
200 191

150
112 117
100 92
83 86 83 79
71 70
50 50 55
64
48
50 38 37

0
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9

FIGURE 2: VDF BREAKDOWN BY ELVS RECEIVED

VDF Size Distribution by Annual Throughput - 2007

Greater than 5000
ELVs
1000 to 5000 16 facilities
ELVs
64 facilities
Less than 25
ELVs
500 to 1000 ELVs 146 facilities
46 facilities
25 to 100 ELVs
100 to 500 ELVs 85 facilities
158 facilities
ELVs Received: 399,218
No response from facility: 33

FIGURE 3: ELVS RECEIVED BY SIZE OF VDF

ELVs Received, by VDF Size Groupings
Less than 25 25 to 100 ELVs

ELVs 4,988
817 1%
0% 100-500 ELVs
40,839
10%
500-1000 ELVs

Greater than 34,110
5000 ELVs
189,704
8%

46%
1000-5000 ELVs
144,460
35%

VDFs are located in each region of the state, and regional inspectors perform VDF
inspections in addition to their other solid waste responsibilities. The multi‐media nature of
these facilities often leads to the involvement of other DEC divisions, most notably the
Division of Environmental Remediation.
The data submitted in the required VDF annual reports for 2007, the first full year in which
Article 27, Title 23 was enforceable, have been summarized in DEC’s report, which is
available on the website http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/58165.htmlOf the 993 VDFs
currently listed in the Solid Waste Information Management System (SWIMS) database, 548
facilities (55 percent) submitted annual reports. See Figure 1. Almost 400,000 vehicles were
reported recycled in New York State in 2007.

FACILITY SIZE
Data indicate that almost half of VDFs are small operators taking in less than 100 ELVs per
year. (See Figure 2.) High numbers of small facilities increase the difficulty and expense of
inspection, compliance enhancement, and enforcement. In areas where low‐throughput,
high‐storage area facilities are located, department staff focus on facilities’ leak inspection
procedures, continuing leak observation procedures and timely decommissioning of ELVs
because long storage times could lead to increased soil and water contamination in the
storage areas.
Data also suggest that the majority of ELVs are handled by a few high‐throughput facilities.
(See Figure 3.) The top 16 facilities of the 548 that reported handle 46 percent of New
York’s ELVs, while the top 80 facilities handle 81 percent. Clearly, increased focus on
compliance and operating procedures at these high‐throughput facilities could lead to
increased material collection volumes and compliance rates on a per‐car basis. High‐
throughput facilities are directed toward improved and enhanced decommissioning
operating procedures to maximize fluids and material recovery. High‐throughput facilities
are located in almost every region; however, most operate in regions 2 and 9.

STORAGE TIME
Annual report data indicate that during 2007, the number of ELVs stored at dismantling
facilities did not increase significantly. DEC concludes that favorable economic conditions
and scrap metal markets drove this condition of high throughput and low storage buildup.
However, since mid‐2008, the vehicle dismantling industry has seen huge drops in scrap
metal values. Falling scrap values may lead dismantlers to store vehicles for longer periods
with the hope of increasing prices. Longer storage times will increase the potential of
environmental impact from spilled automotive fluids, especially if fluids are not removed
from vehicles soon after receipt. Further, lower profit margins may lead some dismantlers
to improperly store or handle ELVs and/or automotive residuals to reduce operating costs.
Lower scrap values may lead to improper storage and handling of end‐of‐life vehicles and
related environmental impacts across the state.
APPENDIX 7.3

WASTE TIRE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING ACT IMPLEMENTATION

BACKGROUND
To ensure the proper management of waste tires in New York State, the legislature enacted the
“Waste Tire Management and Recycling Act,” which became effective on September 12, 2003. The
act established waste tire management priorities for the state, created a Waste Tire Management
and Recycling Fund derived from a recycling fee of $2.50 on each new tire sold, and required DEC to
prepare a comprehensive plan designed to abate all non‐compliant waste tire stockpiles in New York
State by December 31, 2010.
Consistent with the requirements of the act, DEC released the New York State Waste Tire Stockpile
Abatement Plan (Plan) in August 2004. This Plan established the framework to eliminate all non‐
compliant waste tire stockpiles in the state by the statutory deadline using a combination of
voluntary site owner/operator effort and DEC actions, should the site owners/operators fail to abate
the non‐compliant waste tire stockpiles in a timely manner.
The Tire Management and Recycling Act also required the NYS Department of Economic
Development (dba Empire State Development, ESD) to prepare an annual analysis of markets and
market trends for New York State’s annually generated waste tires and to implement a
comprehensive program to expand value‐added markets for those tires.
Waste Tire Stockpile Abatement Program Status
In August 2004, there were an estimated 29 million waste tires stockpiled in 95 sites throughout the
state. A priority list for abatement of each stockpile was developed by establishing criteria to assess
potential adverse impacts on public health, safety or welfare, the environment, or natural resources.
Since then, 51 additional non‐compliant waste tire stockpiles have been identified, bringing the total
to an estimated 36.3 million waste tires stockpiled at 146 non‐compliant sites.
Since 2004, 16 contracts for the cleanup of 14 larger waste tire stockpiles have been issued by the
Office of General Services (OGS) on behalf of DEC. To date, of those 14 waste tire stockpiles, 11
have been completely cleaned, and work is underway at the remaining 3 sites. In addition, OGS
issued three regional contracts for cleanup of the smaller waste tire stockpiles for which the state
has had to assume abatement responsibility. Currently these contracts include provision for 33
waste tire stockpiles. Of these stockpiles, 21 have been completely abated.

In addition to the direct efforts of the state, approximately two million tires at 78 sites have been
cleaned up by the owner/operator as a result of enforcement actions taken by DEC. Of those 78
sites, at least 62 have been completely cleaned up by the owner/operator.

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SCRAP TIRE ABATEMENT ACTIVITIES
# of # of Tires # of Tires # of Tires % of Total

Sites Removed Remaining Tires
on Sites Cleaned Up

Cleaned Up by State 33 8,543,555 8,543,555 0 24%
Cleanup by State in 3 18,922,400 15,377,441 3,544,959 43%

Progress
Cleaned Up by 62 1,177,981 1,177,981 0 3%

Responsible Parties
Cleanup by 16 1,567,472 771,894 795,578 2%

Responsible Parties in
Progress
Remaining to be 32 5,749,600 0 5,749,600 0%

Addressed
Total 146 35,961,008 25,870,871 10,090,137 72%

The vast majority of tires removed by the state through the scrap tire abatement program were
processed into a product and used in a number of beneficial applications. The largest uses were in
landfill construction and operation and in road construction activities in cooperation with DOT and
the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA).

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF SCRAP TIRE ABATEMENT TIRE USE
# of Tires

Landfill Use 14,1758,296
DOT & NYSTA Road Construction (7 projects) 5,140,100
Crumb Rubber Processor 1,196,000
Whole Tires Removed for Processing 3,426,600
Total 23,920,996

Total costs for the abatement portion of the program charged to the Waste Tire Management and
Recycling Fund (Fund) by December 31, 2008 was approximately $81 million. This includes
$8,350,000 sub‐allocated by DEC to ESD for market research and development activities and
$3,820,000 sub‐allocated to DOT for use for their road construction efforts.

Waste Tire Market Analysis
As in previous years, 2006 markets for New York State‐generated scrap tires were relatively
diversified and strong. R.W. Beck documented the flows of 203,528 tons (which equals 20.3 million
passenger tire equivalents or PTE) of scrap tires generated in New York in 2006. The 2008 market
analysis update indicated that by 2006 (the year on which the report focused), a little more than 80
percent of all tires generated annually in NYS flowed to in‐state, end‐use markets. The remainder
flowed to other states and Canada. In general, use of NYS annually generated tires in tire‐derived
fuel and ground rubber applications steadily grew, while use in tire‐derived aggregate applications
and, to a lesser degree, other recycling steadily declined. Ground rubber grew from the fourth‐
largest use in 2003 to the second‐largest use in 2006, more than doubling in size. Reuse has held
steady.

COMPARISON OF 2003 – 2006 NEW YORK SCRAP TIRE MARKETS
80,000
70,000
Uses of Scrap Tires (Tons)
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Reuse Ground Tire Derived Tire Derived Other Other
Rubber Aggregate Fuel Recycling Unspecified
Market Category
2003 2004 2005 2006

The table indicates trends for four years, showing tires flowing into five broad‐use categories:

• Driven by higher costs for conventional power generation fuels, tire‐derived fuel demand
grew by 10 percent from 2005 and was the largest market for NYS annually generated waste
tires.
• Ground rubber markets were growing ‐ Within this market, athletic surfacing (sports turf
infill) and horticulture (mulch) and playground cushioning products showed the largest
increases.
• Tire‐derived aggregate, mostly used in landfill engineering applications, continued its four‐
year decline (down 15 percent from 2005) but remained a significant use. Reduced landfill
cell expansion activity and strong demand from tire‐‐derived fuel markets were likely causes
for reduced demand by this market.
• The Reuse category is likely underestimated since the response rate from tire re‐treaders
was low.
• The Other Uses category is dominated by a New York steel mill using tires as a carbon
source in its electric arc furnace.

ESD began investing in New York State waste‐tire markets many years prior to enactment of the
2003 Waste Tire Management and Recycling Act. ESD has invested in ground rubber production
expansion projects, the promotion of tire‐derived aggregate and strengthening and expanding scrap
tire markets in general. As shown in the following table, these investments and market trends are
resulting in a greater amount of value‐added recycling, with the estimated total value (based on the
assumed typical values shown in the table) increasing from $11.1 million in 2003 to $20 million in
2006.

ESTIMATED VALUE‐ADDED FOR NEW YORK SCRAP PROCESSING ACTIVITIES
Typical 2003 2004 2005 2006

Value to Tons Value Tons Value Tons Value Tons Value
Processors
($M) ($M) ($M) ($M)
[1] ($/ton)
Reuse $300 8,140 $2.4 15,441 $4.6 17,507 $5.3 15,231 $4.6
Ground $220 23,938 $5.3 46,485 $10.2 39,800 $8.8 55,901 $12.3
Rubber
Tire- $31 67,883 $2.1 57,302 $1.8 44,062 $1.4 38,107 $1.2
Derived
Aggregate
Tire- $25 49,834 $1.2 64,737 $1.6 71,801 $1.8 78,074 $2.0
Derived
Fuel
Total 149,795 $11.1 183,966 $18.3 173,171 $17.2 187,313 $20.0

A summary of investments made by Empire State Development under the authority of the Waste
Tire Management and Recycling Act of 2003 to strengthen and expand markets for tires generated
in New York State can be found below. In the 15 years prior to the act, ESD committed an
additional $5.8 million to 34 tire recycling projects.
Information on tire recyclers and end markets can be found in ESD’s Recycling Markets Database at
http://www.empire.state.ny.us/recycle.

INVESTMENTS IN SCRAP TIRE MARKET EXPANSION
Following is a summary of investments made by Empire State Development under the authority of
the Waste Tire Management and Recycling Act of 2003 to strengthen and expand markets for tires
1
generated in New York State . To locate a tire recycler, use the ESD markets database at
http://www.empire.state.ny.us/recycle.

NIAGARA COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Award: $499,800 Total Project: $1,045,075
Capital project to assist RubberForm Recycled Products, LLC, Lockport, NY, to purchase additional
machinery and equipment to increase the production of recycled rubber molded products. The
project will increase current production to 5.25 tons per day, increase recycled crumb rubber usage
by 425 tons per year, manufacturing several new value‐added rubber molded products. (March
2008) http://www.rubberform.com/

RE‐TREAD PRODUCTS, INC.
Award: $200,000 Total Project: $250,000
Research project to assist Re‐Tread Products, Inc., Great Valley, NY, to develop an automated
manufacturing process for its Tire Log™ retaining wall component system. (March 2008)
http://www.retreadproducts.com/

COLONIE (TOWN OF) INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Capital project to assist CRM, LLC with the purchase of equipment to expand its cryogenic tire
recycling facility in Colonie, NY. Success of this project will result in additional tire recycling capacity
of one million tires per year, bringing the total throughput the facility to 5.5 million tires annually.
(February 2008) http://www.crmrubber.com/NewSite/index2.asp

1
Prior to the act, ESD committed $5.8 million for fifteen years to 34 tire recycling projects. The act enabled
ESD to accelerate investments.

RUBBER PAVEMENTS ASSOCIATION
Seminar to educate key members of the road paving community in NY State, including DOT, paving
contractors, asphalt producers and tire recyclers, about the benefits of modifying liquid asphalt with
ground tire rubber to improve product properties. (October 2007)
http://www.rubberpavements.org/

NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
Demonstrate the use of an improved asphalt chip seal that incorporates recycled tire rubber to
create an improved binder, extending the 2006 program to three additional DOT regions, continuing
to provide local DOT regions with exposure to the technology. (Summer 2007)

NEW YORK STATE FAIR
Demonstrate the use of an improved synthetic horse arena surface at the Coca Cola Equestrian
Arena at the State Fairgrounds. The surface material incorporates recycled tire rubber and tire fiber
as components of the highly engineered surface. Fair staff will evaluate the effectiveness of the
surface, and the installation will increase exposure of New York tire recycling companies to the
equestrian market. (Summer 2007)

AMSTERDAM (TOWN OF)
Capital project to assist BCD Tire Chip Manufacturing, Inc., Hagaman, NY, to purchase tire‐shredding
equipment. Success of the project will increase capacity to 38,000 tons per year; process at least
10,956 tons of tires per year; increase revenue by $250,000 per year; retain six jobs, and create six,
new, full‐time positions. (June 2007)

Capital project to assist Rubbersidewalks, Inc., Lockport, NY with the purchase of molds and
associated tooling to produce rubber sidewalks from recycled crumb rubber. Success of this project
will enable Rubbersidewalks, Inc. to manufacture its product in New York State, using a minimum of
469 tons of recycled crumb rubber while producing a minimum of 15,000 units per year. (March
2007) http://www.rubbersidewalks.com/

Capital project to assist CRM, LLC to expand its Colonie, NY tire recycling facility with the addition of
an ambient ground rubber line. Success of this project will result in additional tire recycling capacity
of 2 million tires per year, producing 24 million pounds of ground rubber per year with a sales value
of $3.6 million annually. (November 2006) http://www.crmrubber.com/NewSite/index2.asp

NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
Demonstrate the use of an innovative new technology that incorporates recycled tire rubber to
create an improved asphalt chip seal. The project will place the improved chip seal on four stretches
of road within New York State. If adopted as regular practice, this technology would create
additional demand for finely ground rubber from New York State. (Summer 2006)

RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO CENTER FOR INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
Award: $1,823,667 Total Project: $1,823,667
Five‐year project forming the New York State Tire Derived Aggregate Program. Will expand the
acceptance of recycled tire‐derived aggregate (TDA) in civil engineering applications in New York
State. Civil engineering applications for TDA include septic system leach fields, insulating layers for
road base, lightweight fill behind bridge embankments and backfill for building foundations and
similar uses. Program activities include developing a central information clearinghouse on the
Internet and conducting targeted research. (January 2006) http://www.tdanys.buffalo.edu/

Capital project to assist CRM, LLC with the purchase of equipment to establish a cryogenic ground
rubber recycling facility in Colonie, NY. Success of this project will result in additional tire recycling
capacity of 2.5 million tires per year, producing 30 million pounds of ground rubber per year with a
sales value of $6 million annually. (December 2005)
http://www.crmrubber.com/NewSite/index2.asp

Capital project to assist RubberForm Recycled Products, LLC, Lockport, NY to purchase the
machinery and equipment necessary to manufacture molded rubber products out of crumb rubber
(processed from scrap passenger tires). Success of this project will result in the manufacture of new
products made from 625 tons of crumb annually and the creation of eight full‐time jobs. (October
2005) http://www.rubberform.com/

Capital project to assist High Tread International, Lockport, NY to purchase equipment to increase its
passenger tire recycling capacity and significantly increase the value of its products. This project will
increase passenger tire recycling by 1,800 tons per year, realize an annual economic benefit of
$975,000, and create three new jobs. (September 2005) http://www.hightread.com/

SCHENECTADY METROPLEX DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Capital project to assist New York Rubber Recycling (formerly RTG ‐ New York), Schenectady, NY
with the purchase and installation of a new grinding system to increase the volume and quality of its
ground rubber production. Success of this project will increase throughput by 1.5 million tires per
year. (April 2005) NYRR is now a unit of Permalife Products, LLC. http://www.permalife.com/

RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO CENTER FOR INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
Research, development and demonstration project to identify ways to overcome the remaining
barriers (technical, practical and economic) to using tire‐derived aggregate (TDA) in septic system
leachfield applications. (March 2005) http://www.tdanys.buffalo.edu/

AN‐COR INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS, INC.
Research, development and demonstration project to assist this North Tonawanda, NY company in
evaluating the manufacture and testing of a new "tire log" made from scrap tires. The project will
determine the cost to manufacture as well as demonstrate its use in a retaining wall application.
(March 2005) This project later led to the formation of Re‐Tread Products, Inc.
http://www.retreadproducts.com/

NP & G INNOVATIONS, INC.
Research, development and demonstration project to assist this Cazenovia, NY company with
completion of engineering design, process development and construction, testing and certifications
required by the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association for its
innovative railroad cross ties made from recycled tire strips and steel. (November 2004)
http://www.npginnovations.com/

R.W. BECK INC.
Award: $544, 181 Total Project: $544,181
Contractor is assisting Empire State Development to carry out its mandates under the Waste Tire
Management and Recycling Act of 2003, by creating a comprehensive tire recycling market analysis
for New York State and up to four annual updates. (July 2004) The initial report and annual updates
completed to date can be found at: http://www.empire.state.ny.us/recycle

Appendix 8.1
Appendix 8.1
Appendix 8.1
Appendix 8.1
Appendix 8.1
Appendix 8.2
Pay-As-You-Throw
Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing of
Municipal Solid Waste
Prepared by
Janice L. Canterbury
U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste
Acknowledgements
The following state, county, and local officials and private consultants contributed
their expertise in unit pricing programs to EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable and to the
development of this guide:
Nancy Lee Newell, City of Durham, North Carolina

Peggy Douglas, City of Knoxville, Tennessee
Barbara Cathey, City of Pasadena, California
Bill Dunn, Minnesota Office of Waste Management
Nick Pealy, Seattle Solid Waste Utility
Jody Harris, Maine Waste Management Agency
Jamy Poth, City of Austin, Texas
Jeanne Becker, Becker Associates
Lisa Skumatz and Cabell Breckinridge, Synergic Resources Corporation
Lon Hultgren, Town of Mansfield, Connecticut
Greg Harder, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Thomas Kusterer, Montgomery County Government, Maryland
Robert Arner, Northern Virginia Planning District Commission
Their assistance is greatly appreciated.
ii
Contents
About This Guide . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Key to Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . viii
PART I: Is Unit Pricing Right for

Your C ommunity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
What Is Unit Pricing? . . . . . . . . . . 2
Potential Benefits to Unit Pricing . . . . . . . . 3
Potential Barriers to Unit Pricing . . . . . . . . 4
Types of Communities That Can Benefit From Unit Pricing . . . . 5
Making a Decision About Unit Pricing . . . . . . . 6
PART II: Building Consensus and Planning for

Unit Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Setting Goals and Establishing a Unit Pricing Team . . . . . 11
Addressing Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Building a Public Consensus . . . . . . . . . 13
Scheduling Your Planning Activities . . . . . . . . 15
PART III: Designing an Integrated

Unit Pricing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Volume-Based Versus Weight-Based Programs . . . . . . 20
Container Options . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Pricing Structures . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Billing and Payment Systems . . . . . . . . . 26
Accounting Options . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Program Service Options . . . . . . . . . . 27
Multi-Family Housing . . . . . . . . . . 29
Residents With Special Needs . . . . . . . . . 30
iii
Putting the Blocks Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Step 1: Estimating Demand . . . . . . . . . 35
Step 2: Choosing Components . . . . . . . . . 36
Step 3: Estimating Costs . . . . . . . . . . 37
Step 4: Developing a Rate Structure . . . . . . . . 37
Step 5: Calculating Revenues . . . . . . . . . 38
Step 6: Evaluating and Adjusting the Program . . . . . . 38
PART IV: Implementing and Monitoring

Unit Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Implementation Activities . . . . . . . . . . 46
Public Education and Outreach . . . . . . . . . 47
Reorganizing Your Solid Waste Agency’s Administration . . . . 50
Developing a Schedule . . . . . . . . . . 52
Program Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . 52
APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Appendix A: Unit Pricing Roundtable Discussion: Questions and Alternatives 63
Appendix B: Putting the Blocks Together: Additional Examples . . . 79
Appendix C: Definitions . . . . . . . . . . 83
Appendix D: Bibliography . . . . . . . . . 85
iv
About This Guide
In December 1992, as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)
efforts to disseminate information about potential solutions to solid waste
management issues, the Agency organized a gathering of experts and local officials
involved in unit pricing programs. The Unit Pricing Roundtable resulted in a
wide-ranging discussion of the benefits and barriers associated with unit pricing
programs. This guide is based on the insights gained from that meeting.
Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing of Municipal Solid Waste is designed
to help local solid waste administrators and planners, elected officials, community
and civic groups, environmental and business organizations, and others find an
answer to the question, “Is unit pricing a viable option for our community, and, if so,
how do we implement it?”
Since communities differ in size, demographics, governing jurisdiction, and other

factors, this guide presents lessons learned in a variety of communities that have
implemented unit pricing. As such, decision-makers can use the guide to chart a
course through the issues and potential obstacles involved in launching a unit pricing
program and tailoring it to meet the specific needs and goals of the community.
In addition to information drawn from the Roundtable, the guide is derived from
data on dozens of existing unit pricing programs in communities of varying sizes and
demographics. Case studies showcase differences in the types of collection systems,
fee structures, and complementary programs that can accompany unit pricing
programs. The guide also reflects information extracted from available literature, as
well as direct advice from experts in the field.
v
The process of considering, planning, and implementing a unit pricing program is a
process of moving from general to specific notions of addressing waste management
issues. After considering long-term solid waste goals and options and how unit
pricing might help achieve them, decision-makers must move on to broad system
planning and finally to specific details. This guide is designed to mirror that process
of increasing specificity. It is divided into four parts:
Part I: Is Unit Pricing Right for Your Community?

Part I offers an introduction to the concept of unit pricing, helps readers decide
whether unit pricing holds enough promise for their communities to merit continued
investigation and study, and provides an overview of the organization of the guide.
Part II: Building Consensus and Planning for Unit Pricing

Part II focuses on creating a framework for a successful system. It describes how to
establish goals, build a consensus for change within the community, make a decision
to pursue a unit pricing strategy, and perform basic planning tasks for the new
program.
Part III: Designing an Integrated Unit Pricing Program

Part III introduces solid waste officials to unit pricing program options, including
container type and size, pricing structures, and billing systems. It also presents a
six-step process for selecting options and designing a rate structure that will best
address the community’s unit pricing goals.
Part IV: Implementing and Monitoring Unit Pricing

Part IV guides communities through the process of launching their unit pricing
program. While implementation often requires an ongoing series of tasks, this part
focuses on the central issues: providing public education and reorganizing the solid
waste agency’s administrative office. Part IV also discusses ways to collect and
analyze data regarding the performance of the program.
To meet the needs of many decision-makers, this guide has been designed to be
modular in approach. Solid waste officials with little experience with unit pricing will
want to read the entire guide carefully. Decision-makers who are somewhat familiar
with unit pricing might want to skim Part I, while carefully studying the remainder of
the guide. Those individuals with a good understanding of the pros and cons of unit
pricing might proceed directly to the design and implementation guidelines offered in
Parts III and IV.
vi
Key to Symbols
To help readers focus on key issues, symbols are used throughout the guide to
indicate the themes and concepts that are central to unit pricing. These are:
There are no universally applicable guidelines that must be followed when

developing a unit pricing program. All unit pricing options offer their own
set of advantages and disadvantages. When designing a unit pricing pro-
TR ADEOFFS
gram, decision-makers need to weigh these factors and choose the course
of action that best suits the needs of their communities.
Involving and educating the public is key to the success of any unit
pricing program.
EDUCATION
One of the biggest issues associated with unit pricing programs concerns
the costs to design and implement a program. Residents also will be con-
cerned about waste collection fees.
COSTS
EPA has established a hierarchy identifying the preferred methods for

managing solid waste. At the top of the hierarchy is waste prevention.
Recycling (including composting) is the next preferred technique, used
HIER ARCHY
for managing the waste that cannot be prevented. Finally, landfilling and
combustion can be used to dispose of the remaining waste.
Decision-makers will need to address some potential hurdles to imple-

menting unit pricing. These include recovering expenses, increased
administrative costs, perception of increased costs being passed on to
BARRIERS
citizens, and illegal dumping.
vii
PART
RT II
Is Unit Pricing Right for Your
Community?
O
ver the past several years, many communities across
the United States have found it increasingly diff icult to
effectively and economically manage their municipal
solid waste (MSW). Against a backdrop of steadily
rising waste generation rates, many communities have seen
their local landf ills closing, tipping fees rising, and prospects
for siting new disposal facilities diminishing. Other demands on
waste management systems include growing public awareness
of general environmental issues, as well as state and locally
legislated waste prevention and recycling goals.
In response, many communities have begun adopting new

approaches to waste management, such as collecting materials
for recycling; composting yard trimmings and other organic
materials; and conducting education programs intended to help
residents understand the need for waste prevention and
recycling. In addition, recognizing that market-based
approaches are proving to be important tools in dealing with
environmental issues, some communities have turned to
economic incentives to encourage residents to prevent waste
whenever possible and recycle or compost the remainder.
One such incentive system is unit pricing.
IS UN IT PR IC I NG RI G HT FO R YO UR CO MMUN IT Y? 1
PART I
What Is Unit Pricing?

Traditionally, many communities in the United States have paid for
Unit pricing is not waste management services through property taxes or through an annual
a new concept. fee charged to each household. The cost per residence remains constant
Berkeley, regardless of differences in the amount of waste generated. This creates
California, began the mistaken impression that MSW management is free.
its unit pricing
program in Unit pricing, also known as variable rate pricing or pay-as-you-throw,
1924, and is a system under which residents pay for municipal waste management
Richmond, services per unit of waste collected rather than through a fixed fee. Unit
California, pricing takes into account variations in waste generation rates by
launched a unit charging households or residents based on the amount of trash they place
pricing program at the curb, thereby offering individuals an incentive to reduce the
in 1916! amount of waste they generate and dispose of.
Unit pricing programs can take two basic forms. Residents can be
charged by:
• Volume of waste, using bags, tags or stickers,

or prescribed sizes of waste cans.
• Weight of waste, with the municipality
measuring at the curbside the amount of
waste set out for collection.
While they operate differently from one
another, these systems share one defining
characteristic: residents who throw away more pay
more.
If the basic concept of unit pricing is

straightforward, however, the decision to adopt
such a program is far from simple. To help
communities considering unit pricing as a solution
to their mounting solid waste management
difficulties, EPA convened a Unit Pricing
By encouraging residents Roundtable, attended by representatives from
to prevent waste and communities that had implemented unit pricing or were actively
recycle whenever considering it. EPA then organized the resulting wealth of ideas and
possible, unit pricing is
advice to produce this guide. EPA designed the guide to help readers
helping communities to
better manage their solid
determine whether unit pricing is a viable option for their community
waste. and, if so, which factors to consider when planning and implementing
such a program.
2
PART I
Potential Benefits to Unit Pricing

Communities that have adopted unit pricing programs have reported
a number of benefits, ranging from reductions in waste generation to
greater public awareness of environmental issues. These benefits include:
Waste reduction. Unit pricing can help substantially reduce the

amount of waste disposed of in a community. Some communities
with unit pricing programs report that unit pricing helped their
municipality achieve reductions of 25 to 45 percent in the amount of
waste shipped to disposal facilities.
Reduced waste disposal costs. When the amount of waste is
reduced, communities often find their overall MSW management
costs have declined as well. (A portion of the revenues previously
COSTS
spent on waste disposal, however, may need to be dedicated to
recycling, composting, or other diversion activities.)
Increased waste prevention. To take advantage of the potential
savings that unit pricing offers, residents typically modify their
traditional purchasing and consumption patterns to reduce the amount
of waste they place at the curb. These behavioral changes have
beneficial environmental effects beyond reduced waste generation,
often including reduced energy usage and materials conservation.
Increased participation in composting and recycling programs.
Under unit pricing, new or existing recycling and yard waste
composting programs become opportunities for residents to
divert waste for which they otherwise would pay. Experience has
shown that these programs are the perfect complement for unit
pricing: analysis of existing unit pricing systems shows that
composting and recycling programs divert 8 to 13 percent more waste
by weight when used in conjunction with a unit pricing program.
Support of the waste management hierarchy. By creating an
incentive to reduce as much waste as possible using source reduction
and to recycle and/or compost the waste that cannot be prevented, HIERARCHY
unit pricing supports the hierarchy of waste management techniques
defined by EPA.
More equitable waste management fee structure. Traditional
waste management fees, in effect, require residents who generate a
small amount of waste to subsidize the greater generation rates of
their neighbors. Under unit pricing, waste removal charges are based
on the level of service the municipality provides to collect and
dispose of the waste, similar to the way residents are charged for gas
or electricity. Because the customer is charged only for the level of
PART I
service required, residents have more control over the amount of

money they pay for waste management.
Increased understanding of environmental issues in general.
Through unit pricing, communities have the opportunity to explain
EDUCATION the hidden costs of waste management. Traditional waste
management systems often obscure the actual economic and
environmental costs associated with waste generation and disposal.
Once individuals understand their impact on the environment, they
can choose to take steps to minimize it.
Potential Barriers to Unit Pricing

While there are clearly benefits associated with unit pricing
programs, there also are potential barriers. Communities considering unit
BARRIERS pricing should be aware of the costs and possible community relations
implications associated with the following issues:
Illegal dumping. Some residents have strong reservations about unit

pricing, believing it will encourage illegal dumping or burning of
waste in their area. Communities can counter this fear with an
effective public education program. Since most communities with
unit pricing programs have reported that illegal dumping proved to
be less of a concern than anticipated, providing residents with this
information can help allay their concerns over illegal dumping.
Recovering expenses. Since unit pricing offers a variable rate to
residents, the potential exists for uneven cash flow that could make it
COSTS
harder to operate a unit pricing program. To address this,
communities must be sure to set prices at the appropriate level to
ensure that, on average, sufficient funds are raised to pay for waste
collection, complementary programs, and special services.
Administrative costs. Effectively establishing rates, billing
residents, and collecting payments under a unit pricing program will
likely increase a waste management agency’s administrative costs.
Communities need to set waste collection prices at a level that can
cover these costs.
In all unit pricing
programs, Perception of increased costs to residents. While a unit pricing
residents who program offers residents greater control over the cost of collecting
throw away more their waste, it could initially be seen as a rate increase. An effective
pay more. public outreach campaign that clearly demonstrates the current costs
of waste management and the potential reductions offered by unit
pricing will help to address this perception.
Multi-family housing. Extending direct waste reduction incentives
to residents of multi-family housing can present a challenge. Since
waste generated by these residents typically is combined in a central
4
PART I
location to await collection, identifying the amounts of waste generated
by individual residents in order to charge accordingly can be difficult.
Communities must experiment with rate structures and collection
systems to encourage residents of multi-family housing to reduce waste.
Building public consensus. Perhaps the greatest barrier to realizing
a unit pricing program is overcoming resistance to change, both
among citizens and elected officials. Informing residents about the
environmental and economic costs of current waste generation patterns EDUCATION
can help overcome this resistance and build support for unit pricing.
Careful planning and design of a unit pricing program to meet
specific community needs is the best solution to these potential
difficulties. In particular, an effective public education program
designed to communicate the need for unit pricing and address the
potential concerns of residents will help meet these challenges. (Public
education programs are discussed in detail in Part IV of this guide.)
Types of Communities That Can Benefit

From Unit Pricing
Unit pricing programs work best when tailored to local needs. All types
of communities can design unit pricing programs that will help achieve the
goals of reducing waste generation and easing waste management
difficulties; large, medium-sized, and small
communities in every region of the
country have realized these benefits.
Local officials indicate that unit pricing
programs also work well whether solid
waste services are carried out by
municipal or by private haulers.
As a result, unit pricing has grown

significantly over the last few years. In the
1980s, only a handful of communities in
the United States operated unit pricing
programs. Now, over 1,000 communities
have unit pricing programs in place. By
January 1994, over 1,800 programs are
scheduled to be in operation. In addition,
laws in 10 states currently mandate or
encourage unit pricing programs. Unit pricing is a familiar concept for
businesses. For years, many companies
have been paying for waste removal
services based on the size of their
dumpsters and the frequency of
collections.
PART I
Making a Decision About Unit Pricing

After considering this overview of the benefits and barriers to unit
pricing programs, decision-makers who believe unit pricing could
work in their community can turn to Part II of this guide and begin the
TRADEOFFS planning process. Decision-makers should carefully consider key
factors such as the types of services to offer, the associated costs, the
potential for complementary programs, the level of administrative
change necessary, and the extent to which residents will support or
oppose unit pricing.
6
PART I
questions
& answers
Will this guide tell me what system to use and how to
implement it?
No. This guide is intended to provide essential information about unit pricing and
to help you think about how well such a program would work in your community.
It will provide many suggestions borne of successful programs of all types and
sizes around the country. However, f inal decisions about whether to adopt unit
pricing, what type of system to use, and how to implement it should be made
based on local needs and circumstances.
How expensive is it to implement unit pricing?

The cost of implementing a unit pricing program is directly related to how
complex the selected system is, how it is f inanced, and how different it is from the
current waste removal system. Many communities have implemented unit pricing
with minimal upfront and ongoing costs. Over the long term, communities with unit
pricing programs have generally reported them to be cost-effective methods of
achieving their waste management goals.
Our community has had significant fiscal problems. Would

unit pricing be appropriate?
A community introducing unit pricing may choose to use fees either to supplement
or to replace current revenue sources. While a community with a tight waste
management budget may choose to use unit pricing fees to supplement current
revenue sources, the public may resist such fees as simply an additional tax. Other
communities stress that local acceptance of a unit pricing program is greater if
current taxes, such as general or property taxes, are reduced by the amount of
the new solid waste fees.
PART I
Points to
remember
Unit pricing requires residents to pay for each unit of waste that
they dispose of. This billing arrangement is similar to fees assessed on
other essential services (such as water and electricity), where the
charge is based on usage.
Unit pricing has been effective in reducing the amount of solid waste
disposed of in all types of communities across the country.
Communities using unit pricing in tandem with recycling and

composting programs have found these programs increase each
other’s effectiveness.
This guide is designed to provide basic information about planning

and operating a unit pricing program. Decisions regarding the actual
program you adopt will be based on your community’s unique
circumstances.
8
PART I
Case Studies
All Types of Communities Are Adopting Unit Pricing
Rural areas. Unit pricing is found in a number of rural communities. For exam-
ple, it has been implemented in High Bridge, New Jersey, which has a population
of 4,000, and in Baldwin, Wisconsin, which has a population of under 2,000.
Larger communities. While unit pricing is not yet common in the largest
cities, it has been working successfully in Anaheim, Glendale, Pasadena, and Oak-
land, California; Aurora, Illinois; Lansing, Michigan; Seattle, Washington; and a num-
ber of other communities with populations over 100,000. In addition, state laws in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington either currently or soon will require imple-
mentation of unit pricing programs in communities statewide, regardless of size
(with some exceptions).
County-wide. Unit pricing also can be implemented on a county-wide basis.
Tompkins County, New York; Hennepin County, Minnesota; and King County,
Washington all have implemented unit pricing programs.
Unit Pricing Cuts Down on Waste Volume

Unit pricing can result in dramatic declines in the amount of waste set out for
collection. The Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, noted a 30-percent reduction
in waste volume after implementing a unit pricing program. Seattle, Washington,
reported a decline in waste generation from an average of 3.5 waste cans to 1.7
cans per household per week after unit pricing was launched. This amount was
further reduced to just one can per household per week after complementary
curbside recycling and composting programs were introduced (see the discussion
of complementary programs in Part III).
Most communities, however, cannot delineate what percentage of waste reduc-
tion is directly attributable to unit pricing and what percentage is due to other fac-
tors, such as new recycling programs, consumer education, or even economic
recession. Nevertheless, studies conducted over the last few years indicate consis-
tent waste reductions in unit pricing communities. For example, a study at
Duke University by Dr. Daniel Blume examined 14 cities with unit pricing. The
waste reductions in this study ranged from 18 to 65 percent. The average waste
reduction was 44 percent.
PART II
Building Consensus and Planning
for Unit Pricing
U
nit pricing involves many important decisions
regarding how to perform and pay for solid waste
services. To be sure that their communities are
choosing the best options, many solid waste
agencies have initiated a planning process that helps lay
the groundwork for sound decisions and coordinated
implementation. This process helps clarify the
community’s solid waste needs and goals, identify likely
barriers and methods of overcoming them, and inform and
educate residents about unit pricing and how it can
improve solid waste management in the community.
10
PART II
Setting Goals and Establishing a Unit Pricing Team

Solid waste management can be a confusing business, with success
measured against standards as varied as recycling diversion rates,
total costs, or even quality of media coverage. For this reason, the first
step when planning for unit pricing is to determine the goals of the
program based on a review of your community’s solid waste
management needs and concerns. While goal-setting can at first seem
like an abstract exercise, clearly defined and measurable objectives for
your program are invaluable when deciding which unit pricing
options would work best in your community. Goal-setting can help
build community consensus and facilitate efficient monitoring and
evaluation of the unit pricing program’s progress.
Although you will want to solicit input from local residents and other
interested parties before coming up with a final list of goals, it is useful to
first examine and prioritize goals internally before introducing them to the
community. Consider holding an internal brainstorming session to establish
a preliminary list of goals. This session could last anywhere from one hour
to half a day, depending on the size and makeup of your community, the
issues that need to be addressed in the session, and the needs and
structure of your agency. A shorter, followup session to revisit, refine,
and prioritize goals also might be useful.
Prioritizing goals also is important since the weight that you assign to
goals now will help you design the rate structure for the program. (Setting
rate structures is described in Part III of the guide.) In addition, achieving
TRADEOFFS
every objective on a community’s list can be difficult. Consider the
tradeoffs among program costs, citizen convenience, staffing changes, and
other factors as you prioritize your goals. Circumstances often require
compromise in one area in exchange for progress in another.
Specific goals and objectives can vary significantly among

communities. Examples include:
Encouraging waste prevention and recycling. A community

should set unit prices at levels high enough to encourage households
to reduce waste generation and to recycle and compost. This helps to
HIERARCHY
achieve existing recycling goals and to conserve landfill space.
Raising suf ficient revenue to cover municipal solid waste
management costs. A unit pricing program should bring in enough
revenue to cover both the program’s variable costs and its more stable or
fixed costs. Variable costs, such as landfill tipping fees, are the expenses COSTS
that fluctuate with changes in the amount of solid waste collected.

Fixed costs are costs that change only rarely, such as rent for agency
offices, or that change only after large-scale waste collection changes,
such as the number of collection trucks needed.
B U IL DI NG C O N S E NS U S A N D P L A NN I NG FOR U N IT P R I CI N G 11
PART II
Subsidizing other community programs. A community might
wish to generate revenues in excess of the actual costs for solid waste
collection and then use those funds to enforce antilittering or illegal
Establishing a dumping laws, or to improve its recycling and solid waste infrastructure.
clear set of goals
Once your agency has established a list of preliminary goals, consider
for your unit
setting up a unit pricing team or citizen advisory council to help you
pricing program is
refine and prioritize these goals. A unit pricing team typically consists of
invaluable when
solid waste staff, interested elected officials, civic leaders, and
deciding which
representatives from affected businesses in the community. Team
program options
members may be solicited through advertisements in local newspapers
will work best in
and on radio and television stations. Including these individuals in the
your community.
planning process gives the community a sense of program ownership.
In addition, team members can help other residents in the community

understand the specifics of the program as it evolves and can provide your
agency with valuable input on residents’ concerns about the program.
Members of the team also can serve as a sounding board to help ensure
strong community participation throughout the planning process.
Addressing Barriers
The team or council also can help your agency identify potential
barriers to implementing unit pricing in your community and consider
ways in which these barriers can be addressed. Illegal dumping and
BARRIERS burning of waste is one of the mostly frequently cited barriers to unit
pricing. Yet participants at EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable and
communities with unit pricing programs report
that illegal dumping has occurred prior to
implementing a program and tends to persist at
some level, regardless of the way in which
residents are charged for solid waste
management.
The key is to design a unit pricing program

that significantly deters illegal dumping and
burning. Public education and enforcement
policies are the most effective tools in
addressing this barrier. Informing residents of
the experiences of communities with unit
pricing and setting up fair but aggressive
enforcement policies to respond to incidents of
illegal dumping also are essential.
A unit pricing team composed
of residents, civic leaders, and Other potential barriers to unit pricing include recovering
town off icials can help ensure expenses, covering administrative costs, ensuring that unit pricing is
the development of a not perceived as a rate increase by residents, implementing unit
successful unit pricing program. pricing in multi-family buildings, addressing physical or financial
difficulties for senior citizens, and overcoming resistance to changing
12
PART II
the status quo. (Part III of this guide provides an in-depth discussion of
barriers and specific strategies for overcoming them.)
Once both the municipal solid waste agency and the unit pricing
team or council have evaluated specific goals and barriers, it is time to
unveil the program to the city at large. The team or council might
consider developing a preliminary proposal with several program options.
This proposal can serve as a basis for public discussion and help
illustrate what changes might occur.
Building a Public Consensus

Public education is critical to the planning, design, and
implementation stages of a unit pricing program. In fact, education is the
linchpin holding all of these phases together. While educating the public
EDUCATION
might at first seem unnecessary and expensive, the experiences of
communities that have implemented unit pricing programs indicate that
a good public relations program more than pays for itself.
Such a program is effective at developing a

general consensus among residents on the need
for unit pricing. Community support is vital to the
long-term success of a unit pricing program. In
fact, communities that have implemented unit
pricing programs are nearly unanimous in listing
education and community relations as the most
important elements of a successful unit pricing
program. Public education can combat fears and
myths about unit pricing (such as the fear of
increased illegal dumping) and help avoid or
mitigate many potential implementation problems.
When first reaching out to residents during the

planning stage, don’t be surprised if many
residents react with skepticism to the idea of unit
pricing. Initial opposition is often related to a perception that unit
pricing will result in an additional financial burden. Opposition also In Austin, Texas, solid waste
off icials included school visits in
might be due simply to a natural resistance to change. Resistance to unit
their public outreach program.
pricing is especially prevalent in communities where solid waste
management fees are hidden in general or property taxes.
To counter this opposition, municipal officials can inform residents

of the current difficulties associated with waste collection and
management. In particular, officials can explain the costs to residents of
the current system of waste management. Next, they could present the
goals for improving the management of solid waste in the community. In
this context, officials can introduce unit pricing, discuss its potential for
meeting these objectives, and address any questions and concerns that
residents have expressed about the new program.
PART II
Winning community support for unit pricing often hinges on explaining
how the program can achieve certain critical objectives. Discussions at
EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable revealed that residents tended to support
unit pricing if the program achieved the waste management principles
about which they cared the most. Residents often develop a sense of civic
pride in programs that meet these objectives. Roundtable panelists strongly
recommended that solid waste officials devote a significant amount of
attention to communicating these basic principles:
Equity. The program should be structured so that people who

generate more waste pay more, while residents who prevent waste,
recycle, and compost are charged less.
Waste reduction. The program must significantly reduce the
community’s generation of waste, increase the rate of recycling, and,
therefore, reduce the amount of waste requiring disposal in landfills
and combustors.
At EPA’s Unit Reductions in waste management costs. By helping to alter

Pricing household waste generation patterns, the program should help reduce the
Roundtable, cost of collecting and disposing of the community’s solid waste.
panelists ranked Municipal improvements. The program should contribute to
education and improvements in the quality of life in the community, such as
community resource conservation and land preservation.
relations as the
most important In addition to deciding what information needs to be communicated,
elements of a solid waste officials also should consider how best to reach residents in
successful unit the community. An unspecified change in waste management services
pricing program. scheduled to occur at some future date is not likely to capture a
community’s attention. The following activities represent some of the
ways in which officials can explain the benefits of unit pricing:
Hold public meetings. Interactive public meetings offer solid waste

officials the opportunity to present the case for unit pricing. Such
meetings also give citizens the sense that their concerns are being
heard and addressed in the eventual program.
Prepare brief ing papers for elected of f icials. As both shapers
and followers of public opinion, elected officials tend to be at the center
of public policy debates. Because well-informed leadership can raise
issues in such a way as to attract residents’ interest, solid waste
officials might want to provide elected officials with brief summaries
of the issues associated with solid waste management and the likely
benefits of a unit pricing program.
Issue press releases. Press coverage of a change in the way that a
community pays for its solid waste collection services is inevitable.
Keeping key radio, television, and newspaper outlets well informed
of the reasoning behind the move to unit pricing can make the press a
valuable participant in the decision-making process and prepare the
community for an upcoming change.
14
PART II
Work with retailers. Grocers and other retailers in your
community can help educate citizens by displaying posters and other
information about the new program in their stores. In addition,
retailers can help customers generate less waste by displaying
information about choosing waste-reduced products.
Part IV of this guide explains additional steps that communities can
take to communicate their ideas to the public.
Scheduling Your Planning Activities

Even before the final decision is made to pursue unit pricing, some
basic planning issues can be addressed. Chief among these are
legal/jurisdictional issues and timing. Generally, states extend to local
jurisdictions the authority to provide waste management services and to
charge residents accordingly. During the planning process, however,
many communities have the unit pricing team research the
municipality’s legal basis for implementing a new solid waste service
pricing mechanism rather than risk discovering a problem unexpectedly
during implementation.
Since unit pricing programs often involve a number of steps and

some complex decision-making, consider developing a timeline for
planning, designing, and implementing your program. Based on the
experiences of communities that have successfully implemented unit
pricing, planning for unit pricing should begin at least a year in advance
of your targeted start date. You can establish goals for the unit pricing
program and begin explaining the program to the community from 9 to
12 months before program implementation. Public education should
continue throughout the months prior to the program and, to some
extent, after the program is underway. You can identify the legal
framework for the program at least six months before the start of a
program. A detailed suggested timeline for a unit pricing program is
provided in Part IV of this guide.
PART II
questions
& answers
Everyone agrees we should prevent waste and recycle more.
Why do we need to spend so much time thinking about
specific goals and objectives?
It will probably be easy to get a broad consensus that some things are “good,”
such as saving money or reducing disposal rates. But solid waste management in
general and unit pricing in particular often involve a series of tradeoffs. For
example, a community may decide to sacrif ice some convenience for households to cut
costs or to create a stronger waste-reduction incentive. Establishing goals and priorities
early in the planning process can make it easier to make diff icult choices as they arise.
Why is public input so important? We have already

consulted with many solid waste experts, who know a lot
more about solid waste issues than residents.
Municipal off icials and experts agree—no unit pricing program is going to work if
local residents oppose it. Since improved solid waste management requires a
good faith effort from residents to reduce the amount of waste they dispose of, it
makes sense to include residents as equal partners.
16
PART II
Points to
remember
Establish realistic goals for your unit pricing program that address your
community’s most pressing waste management needs.
Involve the community in the planning process. Representatives from

community organizations can increase acceptance of unit pricing and facilitate
implementation.
Plan for the possibility of illegal dumping or burning. In addition to explaining

other communities’ experiences with illegal dumping, let residents know about
legal alternatives for managing and disposing of solid waste. Also explain that
concrete steps, such as assessing penalties for violators, will be taken.
Public education cannot be stressed enough. Promoting the strengths of unit

pricing and addressing residents’ concerns is critical to the success of your
program.
Provide elected officials with information on the benefits of unit pricing

programs to help them address residents’ concerns. Also, keep local
of ficials informed of decisions made about the program as it evolves.
Be sure to carefully research your legal authority to establish and enforce a

unit pricing program. Based on this research and on the advice of your
municipality’s legal counsel, ordinances may be necessary to establish the program.
Plan ahead by establishing a timeline for your program.
PART II
Case Studies
Three Cities Report on Illegal Dumping
In Mansfield, Connecticut, officials report that illegal dumping did not in-
crease significantly with the introduction of unit pricing. To prevent illegal dump-
ing, Mansfield has relied primarily on public education. When necessary,
however, the solid waste department also has worked with the police department
to track license plates and identify violators.
In Seattle, Washington, unit pricing also has not been associated with an in-
crease in illegal dumping. In fact, 60 to 80 percent of the illegal dumping incidents in
the city are associated with remodeling waste, refrigerators, and construction debris—
waste that the city suspects comes from small contractors who do hauling on the
side and dump the refuse. Seattle officials are considering licensing these haulers or
requiring remodelers to verify that their material has been properly disposed of.
The city of Pasadena, California, reports similar findings. A survey done at

the city’s landfill indicated that Pasadena was disposing of one-third more trash
than was indicated in a waste generation study completed in the city. Pasadena
suspects that this waste is made up of construction and demolition debris
dropped off by small contractors. In the future, instead of contracting with small
individual haulers, Pasadena may require those applying for a building permit to
use licensed haulers to take construction and demolition materials to the landfill.
18
PART III
Designing an Integrated Unit
Pricing Program
T
o this point, this guide has presented an
overview of the major benef its and barriers to
unit pricing, followed by suggestions on how to
def ine the objectives of your program and
begin building a consensus for unit pricing in your
community. This portion of the guide introduces
issues relating to the exact structure of your
community’s unit pricing program. The f irst half of
Part III, “The Building Blocks,” discusses the
advantages and disadvantages of the specif ic
program components and service options from which
you can choose. This is followed by “Putting the
Blocks Together,” a six-step process to help you
design a successful unit pricing program.
DE S I G NI N G A N I N T EG R AT ED U NI T P R IC I NG P RO G R A M 19
PART III
The Building Blocks

While unit pricing is based on the simple concept that households
pay only for the waste they generate, designing a working program
requires that you consider and decide on a range of specific issues. You
may have already examined many of these issues, such as the potential
for complementary recycling and composting programs, the types of
solid waste services to offer, and the means by which you can provide
these services to residents with special needs. During the development of
a unit pricing program, however, viewing these issues in the context of
how they might affect the success of your program is important.
The process of selecting program components and service options can

begin as much as nine months before the start of a program. This part of
the guide points out the kinds of decisions you need to make during this
process, including:
• Choosing a volume-based or weight-based system

• Selecting containers
• Examining pricing structures
• Considering billing procedures
• Determining service options and complementary programs
• Including multi-family buildings
• Accommodating individuals with special needs
Communities also need to consider other factors, such as the
remaining life of existing containers, the cost of container replacements,
the preferences of customers, and the impact of assessing additional
taxes or fees on households. Later in this section of the guide, a six-step
process for designing an actual unit pricing rate structure is presented.
This process should help you tailor a rate structure to local conditions.
Volume-Based Versus Weight-Based Programs

One of the first decisions to be made when designing a unit pricing
program is to determine how solid waste will be measured. Based on your
unit pricing goals, local budgetary constraints, and other factors, you need
to decide whether your system will charge residents for collection services
based on the weight or the volume of waste they generate. The two systems
have very different design and equipment requirements.
Under volume-based systems, residents are charged for waste

collection based on the number and size of waste containers that they
use. Households are either 1) charged directly for waste collection based
on the number of bags or cans set out at the curbside, or 2) required to
purchase special trash bags (or tags or stickers for trash bags) that
include the cost of waste collection in the purchase price.
20
HIERARCHY COSTS BARRIERS TRADEOFFS
EDUCATION
PART III
Under weight-based systems, the municipality weighs at the curbside
the waste residents set out for collection and bills for this service per
pound. The program can either require residents to use standard,
municipally supplied cans or allow them to continue using their own
cans. Weight-based systems offer residents a greater waste reduction
incentive than volume-based
systems since every pound of
waste that residents prevent,
recycle, or compost results in
direct savings. This is true no
matter how much or how little
waste reduction occurs. In
addition, residents can easily
understand this type of system
and perceive it as fair.
Weight-based systems also provide
a more precise measurement of
waste generation than
volume-based systems.
On the other hand,

weight-based systems tend to be
For its weight-based unit
more expensive to implement and operate than volume-based systems
pricing program, the city
because special equipment is required and more labor typically is of Farmington, Minnnesota,
necessary to handle the more complex billing system. In addition, some has invested in collection
of the equipment used to weigh the waste, record the data, and bill the trucks that weigh the
customer is still experimental. Startup costs for these systems can waste as it is lifted . . .
include truck-mounted scales for weighing waste and some type of TRADEOFFS
system (such as bar-coding on waste cans) for entering this information

into a computer for accurate billing.
While volume-based systems are less costly to set up

and operate, a potential disadvantage associated with these
systems is that residents might be tempted to compact their
waste. Some residents will compact more than others,
perhaps even using mechanical compactors. This reduces
the ability of unit pricing to offer more equitable charges
for waste collection services and complicates the task of
identifying the impact of unit pricing on the community’s
rate of solid waste generation. Additionally, depending on
the system chosen, there can be less of an incentive to
reduce waste since such reductions might not translate
into direct savings for the resident.
Although over 1,000 communities nationwide have unit pricing . . . and record the weight and
programs in place, very few have fully implemented weight-based resident information on an
programs. Accordingly, the remainder of this guide focuses onboard computer
predominantly on the process of designing and implementing a for later billing.
volume-based unit pricing program.
PART III
Container Options
Communities that decide to design a
volume-based unit pricing program must consider
the type and size of waste collection containers on
which to base their rate structure and billing system.
Keep in mind that choices about containers, rate
structures, and billing systems all go hand in hand.
In some cases, container type will dictate the rate
structure and billing system. In other cases, an
established billing system (that cannot be drastically
overhauled) can govern container type and rate structure.
Austin, Texas, provides A unit pricing program can be designed around the following container
residents with either 30-,
options:
60-, or 90-gallon cans as
part of its unit pricing
Large cans. Under this system, households are provided with
program.
single, large waste cans, often with a capacity of 50 or 60 gallons.
Each household is then charged according to the number of cans that
they use.
Small or variable cans.This system uses a set of standard,
graduated can sizes, often ranging from approximately 20 to 60
gallons in capacity. Typically, these systems operate on a subscription
basis, under which residents choose in advance the number and size
of cans they wish to use.
Prepaid bags. This system uses colored or otherwise distinctively
marked standard-sized trash bags, typically 20 to 30 gallons in
capacity. Residents purchase the bags from the solid waste agency
through outlets such as municipal offices and retail stores. Only
waste that is placed in the bags is collected.
Prepaid tags or stickers.Residents purchase tags or stickers
from the solid waste agency and affix them to their own trash bags.
The tag or sticker specifies the size of bag it covers.
Each system has its own specific advantages and disadvantages related
to such issues as 1) offering a system that residents view as equitable;
2) creating as direct an economic incentive for waste reduction as possible;
and 3) assuring revenue stability for the solid waste agency. Other issues
to consider when weighing the pros and cons of different container types
include simplicity of billing, compatibility with existing waste collection
services, ease of collection for work crews, sanitation and aesthetics,
budgetary constraints, and community solid waste goals.
The primary benefit of a single, large container size is revenue

stability. When communities use large containers, the number of cans set
out each week tends to remain fairly constant, and so do revenues. The
primary disadvantage associated with this container choice is that
households that don’t generate much waste have no economic incentive
22
PART III
to reduce waste. Such households are billed the same amount
whether they fill a 60-gallon can halfway or completely.
Conversely, the principal benefit of using variable can sizes

is that even modest reductions in waste generation (for example,
one less 10-gallon waste container) can clearly translate into
savings. A disadvantage of variable cans is that they can be
inconvenient for customers who generate large volumes of waste.
In addition, to realize savings from reduced waste generation,
households must request a change in the number of cans for
which they are being billed. The solid waste agency might need
to establish an inventory and distribution system that could be
expensive to set up and maintain. Additionally, billing for this
method can be more complex in some communities.
Like variable cans, prepaid bags encourage greater waste

reduction than large cans if the bag size is configured so that
residents that generate less waste pay less. Additionally, since
residents pay for waste collection through the purchase of the
bags, there is no billing, which means this type of system is
relatively inexpensive to implement and maintain. The primary
disadvantage associated with bags is that there is greater revenue
uncertainty than with can systems. An individual might, for
example, buy several months’ worth of bags at one time and then
none for many weeks. Also, semiautomatic collection vehicles
that require residents to use a rigid container might not be able
to adapt to bag collection. Bags also can tear or be torn open by
animals, resulting in scattered trash. Large, clearly
marked tags and
Prepaid tag or sticker systems offer many of the same advantages as stickers will help
bag systems. Chief among these is that such systems directly encourage eliminate confusion and
waste reduction, since different stickers can be used to identify different speed curbside waste
amounts of waste “set-outs” (the waste residents set out for collection). collection.
This means, however, that the solid waste agency must establish and
enforce size limits for each type of sticker. As with bags, waste collection
is paid for upfront, so no billing needs to be done. Also like bags,
stickers or tags offer less revenue stability. In addition, stickers can fall
off in rainy or cold weather, and both tags and stickers can be
counterfeited or stolen.
The advantages and disadvantages of each of these container options

are described in more detail in Table 3-2 at the end of this chapter. You
don’t have to be locked into one type of system, however, if you plan for
the possibility of change. Some communities conduct a pilot program in
one part of the municipality before implementing unit pricing
communitywide. In this way, difficulties can be worked out early in the
process, when modifications are still relatively easy.
PART III
While the details of the pricing structures used in unit pricing
programs can vary greatly according to local conditions and needs, four
basic types are currently in use. These pricing structures are described
below.
Pricing Structures
The main consideration in choosing among the types of pricing
structures is their impact on the stability of the community’s revenues
TRADEOFFS
and on residents’ waste reduction efforts. In addition, some pricing
systems are more complex than others to administer.
1. The proportional (linear) rate system is the simplest rate

structure. It entails charging households a flat price for each container of
waste they place out for collection. This rate structure provides a strong
incentive for customers to reduce waste. It also is easy to administer and
bill. Careful consideration is often required, however, to select a price per
container that avoids cash flow difficulties that can hinder a new
program. While setting too high a price will increase resistance to unit
pricing, setting too low a price may cause periodic revenue shortfalls (and
can lessen the waste reduction incentive). In addition, when setting rates,
decision-makers should assume that some level of waste compaction will
occur. They also should plan for success, since as people begin to reduce the
amount of waste they set out, the solid waste agency will see a corresponding
drop in revenues paid for waste collection.
Weighing the Tradeof fs When Setting Pricing Structures

Decision-makers considering such issues as container choices, rate structures,
and service options quickly realize that all of these choices are closely related.
Decisions in one area will influence, or even determine, how your community
responds to the remaining choices.
When considering container options, for example, a smaller community with
fewer resources might favor a bag-based system because of its generally lower
implementation and administrative expenses. Such systems, however, have the
potential for revenue gaps that the community might not be able to bridge. As a
result, a community might prefer a two-tiered or multi-tiered rate structure,
whose base fee would help prevent such instability.
By contrast, a larger community interested in providing a stronger incentive to reduce
waste might favor a proportional or variable container rate and higher per container
fees. To avoid significant revenue fluctuations, such communities might choose a
can-based subscription system that ensures a steady cash flow.
There is no one best approach to unit pricing. Throughout the design process, you
will need to determine the specific combination of container choices, rate
structures, and service options that will maximize efficiency and enable your
community to meet its solid waste goals.
24
PART III
2. With a variable container rate, a different rate is charged for
different size containers. For example, a solid waste agency might charge
households $2 for every 60-gallon can of waste set out and $1.25 for
every 30-gallon can. While this system creates a strong incentive for
residents to reduce waste, it requires that communities carefully set their
rates to ensure revenue stability. Because different rates are charged, this
system can be complicated to administer and bill.
3. Both of these systems use a per-container fee to cover the fixed

and variable costs associated with a community’s MSW management.
Other unit pricing rate structures address fixed and variable costs
separately. Two-tiered rate systems assess households both a fixed fee
and a per container fee. Under this system, a monthly flat fee is set for
solid waste services to ensure that fixed costs are covered; a separate,
per-container charge is then used to cover the variable costs. In
Pennsburg, Pennsylvania, the solid waste agency charges residents a flat
$65 per year plus $1 per 30-gallon bag of waste placed at the curb for
pickup. This system provides more stable revenue flows for the
community but offers less waste reduction incentives than proportional or
variable container rates. Some communities use the two-tiered rate
structure as a transition system. Once decision-makers are able to gauge
customers’ response to unit pricing, a proportional rate structure could
be introduced to encourage greater waste reduction.
4. Multi-tiered rate systems charge households a fixed fee plus

variable fees for different container sizes. For example, a community might
charge a basic $10 monthly service fee plus $2 per 60-gallon can, or $1 per
30-gallon bag. This rate structure offers similar advantages to two-tiered
rates and also encourage waste reduction. This type of rate structure is the
most complex, however, and could be difficult to administer and bill.
Table 3.1.
Pricing Options
System Rate
Proportional (linear) Flat rate per container
Variable container Different rates for different size containers
Two-tiered Flat fee (usually charged on a monthly basis)
and flat rate per container
Multi-tiered Flat fee (usually charged on a monthly basis)
and different rates for different size containers
PART III
Billing and Payment Systems

Traditional solid waste programs typically assess households a fixed
fee, raised through property taxes or periodic equal billing of all
households. Unit pricing programs use various billing/payment systems,
such as direct payment for containers, actual set-outs, and payment for
advance subscriptions.
With a direct payment system, residents pay for solid waste services
by purchasing bags or tags from the solid waste agency. Containers can
be sold at the courthouse or city hall, at local retail stores, or at the
hauler’s office. Care should be taken to ensure that a sufficient number of
easily accessible outlets are available for residents.
Under subscription systems, residents notify the solid waste agency

of their “subscription level,” or the number of containers they anticipate
setting out each collection cycle. The customer is then billed on a regular
basis for these containers. If customers are able to reduce the amount of
waste they generate, they can select a lower subscription level and save
money. In many programs, these subscription fees are set at a level that
covers the purchase of a designated number of additional bags or cans for
any waste that a customer disposes of above their subscription level. This
system offers fewer fluctuations in revenues, although the waste reduction
incentive is lower 0because residents who reduce their waste generation rate
only receive a reduction in their waste collection bill after requesting the
municipality to change the number of cans for which they pay.
An actual set-out system bills customers based on the actual number

of containers set out for collection. This approach requires the hauler to
count the number of bags, tags, or cans set out and to record the
information so that households can be billed later.
To address citizens’ concerns about “hidden” or “double” fees, some

communities that implement unit pricing either reduce the household
tax rate commensurate with the unit pricing fee or decide not to raise the
tax base proportionately with the revenues received from unit pricing.
Meet with the citizens advisory council to work out the details for a
pricing system geared to your local needs and circumstances.
Accounting Options
Regardless of how they collect payment, most communities tend to
manage the finances of their solid waste activities as one item in the
municipal budget. A few communities, however, are using alternative
accounting approaches to complement their unit pricing programs. One
COSTS such approach is the use of “full cost accounting.” Using full cost
accounting enables a community to consider all costs and revenues
associated with a task such as solid waste management, including
depreciation of capital costs, amortization of future costs, and a full
accounting of indirect costs. This method can help a community
26
PART III
establish a unit pricing rate structure that will generate the revenues
needed to cover all solid waste management costs.
Another approach that can be used in conjunction with a unit pricing

program is the development of an “enterprise fund.” Also referred to as
special districts, enterprise funds are entities that can be used to
separately manage the finances of a municipality’s solid waste activities.
In this way, the costs and revenues of unit pricing are accounted for
under a separate budget, enabling a community to better anticipate
revenue shortfalls and, when appropriate, invest surplus revenues in
beneficial waste management projects that can reduce the cost of MSW
management in the future.
Program Service Options

The next step is to determine which solid waste services are most
important to residents. Successful programs offer an array of solid waste
services that citizens need and appreciate. The goal-setting process
described in Part II of this guide identifies many of these services.
Offering different services does add layers of complexity to a unit

pricing program, especially to the billing component. Yet providing such TRADEOFFS
service enhancements greatly increases overall citizen acceptance of the
program. A carefully selected and priced service array allows a
community to offer premium municipal solid
waste services to households that want them,
while generating sufficient revenues to support core
solid waste collection services. The following
sections highlight some of the most popular service
options, many of which are complementary to basic
trash removal.
Complementary Programs
Complementary programs are those that
enhance the unit pricing program and encourage
residents to prevent and reduce waste. The most
common complementary programs are 1) recycling
and 2) collection of yard trimmings for
Providing a recycling
composting. Providing recycling and composting collection services
program in conjunction
enables both types of programs to reach their maximum effectiveness. In with unit pricing can
fact, in many cases, recycling and composting are major contributors to the further decrease the
success of a unit pricing program. amount of waste your
community must dispose of.
Many communities already have some type of curbside collection or
voluntary drop-off recycling program in place. Linking recycling and
composting with unit pricing provides customers with an environmentally
responsible way to manage their waste. In addition, since the cost of
these programs can be built in to unit pricing fees, communities can
recover these expenses without creating an economic disincentive to
recycle. The extent of the recycling program is an important factor, as
PART III
well. A community will more fully realize the
benefits of offering recycling in tandem with
unit pricing if the recycling program is geared to
collect a wide range of materials (although the
availability of local markets can constrain the
types of materials a community can accept).
Providing for removal of yard trimmings

such as leaves, branches, prunings, and grass
clippings, and promoting backyard composting
and “grasscycling” (leaving grass trimmings on
the lawn), also will enhance the unit pricing
program. For example, the community of
Austin, Texas, mixes the yard trimmings it
collects from residents with sewage sludge to
produce compost called “Dillo Dirt,” which is
sold to nurseries as fertilizer, and Durham,
Complementary programs also North Carolina, makes landscaping mulch from
can benefit from a strong public brush. Distributing “how-to” materials can help increase the amount of
education effort. organic waste residents compost, and some municipalities even provide
their residents with free compost bins.
In communities where weekly recycling or composting is too costly,

curbside collection can be scheduled every other week or once a month.
COSTS
In addition, municipalities can encourage haulers to provide recycling
services by including a risk-sharing clause in their contracts. Such
clauses require the municipality to share with the hauler the risk of
fluctuations in the price of recyclable materials. If a recycling company
requires payment to process a certain collected material whose value had
dropped substantially, for example, the hauler and municipality would
bear these costs together. Some communities, however, might not feel
their budget would allow them to incur additional, unexpected costs.
Backyard Collections
Backyard collection of waste and/or recyclables can be considered as a
service enhancement that complements a unit pricing system. With this
service, haulers remove residential waste and recyclables from backyards,
garages, or wherever residents prefer, rather than requiring them to haul the
material to the curb. Residents might pay extra for this service. When
setting a price for backyard collection services, a community should
consider costs to collect waste from the curb, transport it, and dispose of it.
The higher charge for backyard waste removal should reflect the added
municipal resources required for such a service.
Curbside Collection of Bulky Items

Curbside collection of large items, such as refrigerators and other
major appliances, is another service that complements basic trash
removal. In some communities with unit pricing, residents pay extra to
28
PART III
have bulky items picked up and disposed of by the municipality. The
disposal of bulky items, which cannot fit into most unit-pricing programs’
cans or bags, can be charged for within a unit pricing system by using
printed stickers or tags that are attached to the item. To establish fair prices,
the solid waste agency can use the same collection, transportation, and
disposal cost considerations that apply to establishing prices for standard
unit pricing waste collections. The price could be set in advance of
collection, based on the owner’s description of the item, or after collection,
based on the collection agency’s observations.
Multi-Family Housing
One of the biggest challenges for communities implementing unit
pricing is how to include multi-family (five units or more) residential
structures into the program. Such buildings can house a large portion of BARRIERS
the population, particularly in densely populated areas. Because waste
often is collected from residents of such structures per building, rather than
per unit, it might be difficult to offer these residents a direct economic
incentive to reduce waste with unit pricing. To compound this problem,
because many multi-family buildings receive less convenient recycling
services than single-family housing units, residents of multi-family
buildings might have fewer avenues for waste reduction.
There are several possible options to resolve multi-family barriers.

One option is to have the building manager sell bags or tags to each
resident. When households use these tags or bags, those that generate
more waste end up paying more for waste collection. Problems arise
Tips for Accommodating Residents of Multi-Family Households

A number of ideas were presented at EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable to help extend to
residents of multi-family households the direct economic incentives inherent in unit
pricing. One suggestion was to request that building managers pass on trash collection
savings to residents in the form of cash rebates, rent reductions, or some free building
services, although the impact of the incentive would be diluted since it is spread over
all the tenants in the building.
New technologies, such as a bar code reader to identify the tenant and a scale at the
bottom of the chute to record the weight, also were suggested as possible solutions.
These technologies offer the potential for accurately recording the exact waste
generation for each tenant.
In addition, building codes for new and renovated buildings could be amended to
require the installation of separate chutes for recycling and for garbage disposal.
Residents also could be required to use a trash token or some type of identifying
code to gain access to a garbage chute.
PART III
when households do not comply with this system, however. In many
cases, residents can easily place waste in the building dumpster without
paying for a bag or sticker. Another approach is to modify the system of
placing waste out for collection in multi-family buildings. For example,
dumpsters or garbage chutes could be modified to operate only when a
magnetic card or other proof of payment is used. Such modifications can
be expensive, though. Communities with unit pricing systems in place are
experimenting with other possible solutions to the multi-family barrier. If
extending unit pricing service to multi-family buildings is a concern in
your community, consider contacting other cities or towns that have
addressed this issue for additional ideas. (A listing of these
communities is provided in Table 3-2 at the back of this section.)
Residents With Special Needs

Many communities considering unit pricing are concerned about the
special needs of physically limited or disabled citizens and those living
on fixed or low incomes. For example, some senior citizens and disabled
residents may be physically unable to move trash containers to the curb.
Communities may wish to consider offering such residents backyard
collection services at a reduced rate or at no extra charge. Such special
considerations should be factored in to your unit pricing rate structure.
While the fees associated with unit pricing could represent a

potential problem for some residents, unit pricing systems can be
structured to allow everyone to benefit. To provide assistance to
residents with special financial needs, communities can reduce the
per-household waste collection charges by a set
amount, offer a percentage discount, or provide
a credit on the overall bill. In some cases,
communities with unit pricing programs offer a
certain number of free bags or stickers to
low-income residents. Some communities
charge everyone equally for bags or tags but
reduce the base service charge for low-income
households. Assistance also can be offered
through existing low-income programs,
particularly other utility assistance efforts.
These techniques allow low-income

households to benefit from some assistance while
retaining the incentive to reduce their bill for
In some communities, waste services by practicing source reduction, recycling, and
backyard collection can be composting. Communities will need to determine how to identify the
arranged as a service for amount of assistance they will offer based primarily on the program’s
disabled or elderly residents. anticipated revenues. As a basis for establishing eligibility for assistance,
some communities with unit pricing programs use income criteria such as
federal poverty guidelines.
30
PART III
Table 3-2 .
Advantages and Disadvantages of Unit Pricing Container Systems
System Communities
Option Advantages Disadvantages Using This System
Revenues are fairly stable and easy to Cans often have higher implementation Hennepin County, MN
forecast. costs, including the purchase and
distribution of new cans. Seattle, WA
Unlike bags, cans often work well with
semiautomated or automated Customers have a limited incentive Anaheim, CA
collection equipment (if cans are to reduce waste. Since residents are
chosen that are compatible with this usually charged on a subscription King County, WA
equipment). basis, there is no incentive not to fill (in unincorporated areas)
cans already purchased. In addition,
If residents already own trash cans of no savings are possible below the Marion County, OR
roughly uniform volume, new cans smallest size trash can.
might not be required. Pasadena, CA
Relatively complex billing systems are
Cans may be labeled with addresses to needed to track residents’ selected Glendale, CA
assist in enforcement. subscription level and bill accordingly.
Oakland, CA
Cans prevent animals from scattering Complex storage, inventory, and
the waste. distribution systems are required to Bellevue, WA
provide new cans to households that
change their subscription level. Santa Monica, CA
A method of collecting and charging Duluth, MN

for waste beyond subscription levels
and for bulk waste collections needs Richmond, CA
to be established.
Walnut Creek, CA
At the outset, residents may find it
difficult or confusing to select a Santa Clara, CA
subscription level.
Auburn, WA
Nonautomated can collections tend
to require greater time and effort Hastings, MN
than collecting waste in bags.
PART III
Table 3-2 (continued).

System Communities
Residents find bag systems easy to Greater revenue uncertainty than Grand Rapids, MI
understand. with can-based systems, since the
number of bags residents purchase Reading, PA
Bag systems might offer a stronger can fluctuate significantly.
waste reduction incentive than can Lansing, MI
systems because fees typically are If bags are sold in municipal offices,
based on smaller increments of waste. extra staff time be will need to be St. Cloud, MN
committed.
Accounting costs are lower than with Darien, IL
can systems, since no billing system is Residents might view a requirement
needed. to buy and store bags as an Carlisle, PA
inconvenience.
Bag systems have lower distribution, Quincy, IL
storage, and inventory costs than can Bags are more expensive than tags
systems when bags are sold at local or stickers. Oregon, WI
retail establishments and municipal
offices. Bags often are incompatible with Fallbrook, CA
automated or semiautomated
Bag collections tend to be faster and collection equipment.
more efficient than nonautomated
can collections. Animals can tear bags and scatter
trash, or bags can tear during lifting.
Bags can be used to indicate that the
proper fees have been paid for bulky Unlike cans, bags are not reused,
items or white goods, since fees for adding to the amount of solid waste
pickup of these items (above the entering the waste stream.
subscription level) often are assessed
by communities. Communities can
ask residents to attach a certain
number of bags to the items according
to the cost of disposal (for example,
two bags for a couch and three bags
for a washing machine).
32
PART III

System Communities
Tag and sticker systems are easier and There is greater revenue uncertainty Tompkins County, NY
less expensive to implement than can than with can-based systems, since the
systems. number of tags or stickers residents Aurora, IL
purchase can fluctuate significantly.
Residents often find tag or sticker Grand Rapids, MI
systems easier to understand. To avoid confusion among residents,
the municipality must establish and Lansing, MI
These systems offer a stronger waste clearly communicate the size limits
reduction incentive than can systems allowable for each sticker.
because fees are based on smaller
increments of waste. If tags or stickers are sold in municipal
offices, extra staff time will need to be
Accounting costs are lower than with committed.
can systems, since no billing system is
needed. Residents might view a requirement
to buy and store stickers or tags as an
Selling tags or stickers at local retail inconvenience.
establishments and municipal offices
offers lower distribution, storage, and Tags and stickers often do not adhere
inventory costs than can systems. in rainy or cold weather.
The cost of producing tags or stickers Extra time might be needed at curb
for sale to residents is lower than for for collectors to enforce size limits. In
bags. addition, there may be no incentive for
strict enforcement if haulers are paid
Stickers can be used to indicate based on the amount of waste collected.
payment for bulky items or white
goods, since fees for pickup of these Stickers left on trash at curbside could
items (above the subscription level) be removed by vandals or by other
often are assessed by communities. residents hoping to avoid paying for
waste services.
Tags and stickers are not as noticeable

as bags or other prepaid indicators.
PART III
Putting the Blocks Together
Now that you have identif ied the components of unit pricing programs in
general, you are ready to design a program that meets your community’s specif ic
needs and goals. “Putting the Blocks Together” presents a six-step process that
can assist you in designing and evaluating your preliminary rate structure. This
process should begin approximately six months before the start of your program.
Performing the Six-Step Process...

As you are completing these steps, be sure to keep a few basic objectives in
mind:
Raise sufficient revenues to cover fixed costs and variable costs.
Possibly raise revenues beyond the cost of the program to cover other
waste management costs. These revenues might be used for antilittering cam-
paigns or to discourage illegal dumping.
Send clear price signals to citizens to encourage waste reduction.
Charge appropriate fees to cover the costs of 1) recycling and other com-
plementary programs, 2) providing services (such as backyard collection)
for physically limited or disabled people, and 3) any discount pricing pro-
vided to low-income households.
Compile accurate MSW baseline data to be used when evaluating your
unit pricing program.
Design a program simple enough to keep administrative costs low and to
make it easy for people to participate in the program, thereby reducing both
their waste generation and their waste collection bill.
Also, don’t forget to consider your unit pricing goals, community-specific
conditions, and the most promising suggestions from municipalities with ex-
isting unit pricing programs to ensure a program tailored to the waste man-
agement needs and concerns of your community.
34
P U T T I N G T H E B LO C K S TO G E T H E R PART III
1
STEP
Demand:
Estimate Total Amount of Waste Generated in the “Steady-State”
Because the amount of waste your community generates affects the level of resources
(including trucks, labor, and administrative support) required to manage it, you need
to accurately estimate what the community’s waste generation rate will be after your
unit pricing program is fully established. This period is referred to as the “steady-state.” In
the steady-state, residents have accepted unit pricing and reduced their waste generation
rates accordingly, and the municipality’s waste management operations have adjusted to
new, lower waste collection requirements.
TRADITIONAL
SYSTEM Transition Period S T E A DY- S T A T E
Planning Implementation Program Monitoring
Ensuring that the revenues received under the unit pricing program will cover the
program’s costs is a critical factor for most communities. As a result, accurately
estimating the amount of waste collected in the steady-state is an important first step in
determining how much money unit pricing will actually generate. To develop such an
estimate, perform the following calculations:
➧ Current demand. Using your waste hauling records, estimate the amount of waste
collected from residents last year.
➧ Community growth. Next, estimate the population growth trends and other
demographic patterns in your community. Use this information to estimate the demand
for waste management services over the next one or two years. This information can
be developed in several ways; the box entitled “Forecasting Community Growth Trends”
on page 31 discusses some different approaches. (Note: If you are planning special
programs for low-income, elderly, or multi-family households, you should estimate the
population trends of these residents or households as well.)
➧ Impact of unit pricing. Then, estimate the likely impact (i.e., household
responsiveness) of unit pricing on this demand for waste services. Other communities with
unit pricing programs in place might be a good source of information on the degree of waste
generation reduction to be expected. Some communities have achieved 25 to 45 percent
reductions in waste generation rates, depending on such factors as the use of complementary
programs, the design of the unit pricing rate structure, and the effectiveness of the public
education effort. Be sure not to underestimate the potential success of your unit pricing
program, especially if strong public education and complementary programs are planned.
Underestimating waste reduction will cause you to overestimate potential revenues.
PART III
Use this information on current demand, community growth, and the impact of unit pricing
to estimate the total amount of solid waste you expect will be generated once the unit
pricing program has been established.
Forecasting Community Growth Trends

Forecasting trends in the growth of a community’s population is an important step in accurately
estimating the amount of waste generated under an ongoing unit pricing program. Typically, the
degree of sophistication a community brings to this process will vary with the information and
resources available.
For example, if your community is small and you expect no change in population trends, per
capita waste generation, and commercial or industrial growth, you could use a simple trend
analysis to forecast growth. Your estimation of current waste generation amounts might be based
on a waste characterization assessment, historical records from collection services and disposal
facilities, or estimates based on similar communities’ analyses. Extending these trends can
provide an estimate of future demand for solid waste services. If you base your estimates on
other communities’ analyses, be sure to choose communities that are similar to yours in size,
population, income distribution, urban/rural distribution, and economic base. In addition, using
the most recent analyses available will increase the accuracy of your estimation.
In contrast, if your community is large and you expect a change in current trends, you probably will
need to use a sophisticated forecasting equation that will account for all the variables you identify.
Your solid waste agency may have collected data on a number of factors that previously have
influenced the amount of waste generated by the community (such as housing construction, plant
closings, household income, economic growth, and age distribution of the population). You could
base projections of future demand for solid waste services by introducing these data into your
2
STEP
Services:
Determine the Components of Your Unit Pricing Program
After clarifying your community’s goals and considering the pros and cons of the unit
pricing program options described earlier in this section of the guide, you will be ready to
determine the methods your solid waste agency will use to collect waste from residents and
other details of your unit pricing program, including:
➧ Containers. After considering their practical implications, decide whether your unit
pricing program would be most effective using cans, bags, tags or stickers, or some type
of hybrid system. Determine the volume of the containers to be used.
➧ Service Options. While most unit pricing programs will include curbside collections,
decide whether your program would benef it from such additional services as backyard
collections and picking up bulky items such as white goods.
36
➧ Complementary waste management programs. If your community is not
already operating programs like recycling or composting, consider whether you might
implement them to enhance the effectiveness of your unit pricing program and to help
meet other community goals.
➧ Residents of multi-family buildings and low-income residents. Determine how

your community plans to extend the economic benefits of unit pricing to residents of
multi-family buildings and deal with the needs of low-income residents and the elderly.
3
STEP
Costs:
Estimate the Costs of Your Unit Pricing Program
Having determined the structure of your program and the services to include, list all
associated costs. Categories of costs can include:
➧ Start-up costs. Estimate the one-time costs your community will incur when
implementing the unit pricing program, such as training personnel, purchasing new
containers, and designing and implementing a new billing process.
➧ Ongoing costs. Estimate the costs your program will incur on an ongoing basis. These
costs include variable costs (such as landfill tipping fees) and more stable or fixed costs
(including rent and utilities for agency offices and office supplies) that remain relatively
constant despite fluctuations in the amount of waste collected. Be sure to consider any extra
costs from providing special services to certain groups. (Some communities might find it
useful to employ full cost accounting procedures to better understand the exact costs of
the different projects planned as part of the unit pricing program.)
4
STEP
Rates:
Develop a Tentative Unit Pricing Rate Structure
Having determined the components of your program, you can now set a tentative rate
structure. At this point, the rates should be considered merely rough estimates to be
revised and refined in light of the overall revenues they will generate and how acceptable
the costs will be to residents. The rates you start with can be borrowed from the figures
used by neighboring unit pricing communities offering similar services or adapted from
price ranges found nationally. As you work through the remaining steps in the process of
setting a rate structure, you can determine whether the rates are appropriate and make
adjustments accordingly. Be sure to specify any lower rates that you plan to make available to
some portions of your community (such as discounts for low-income households).
PART III
5
STEP
Revenues:
Calculate the Revenues From Unit Pricing
You now have the information needed to estimate the revenues that your unit pricing
program will generate once it has been established and residents have adjusted their
waste generation rates accordingly. Divide the total amount of waste generated per
month in the steady-state (estimated in Step 1) by the volume of containers, such as bags
or cans, you established in Step 2. This provides an estimate of the number of containers
of solid waste you expect to collect per month. Then multiply the estimated number of
containers by the unit charge you have tentatively established in Step 4. This yields an
estimate of the total revenues per month generated under unit pricing.
Depending on the number of services offered and the unit pricing structure itself, these
calculations can be simple or complex! For example, communities using cans of varying
sizes and offering additional services (such as backyard waste collection) must estimate
the revenues produced by each component of their solid waste program. In addition, if
low-income households are subsidized under your program, be sure to calculate the size
of the subsidies and subtract from the expected revenues.
6
STEP
Balance:
Evaluate and Adjust Your Preliminary Unit Pricing Program
For most communities, comparing the anticipated costs of their unit pricing program
(Step 3) against expected revenues (Step 5) will provide the critical indication of whether
the program is viable. (It is important in this step to be able to rely on accurate baseline
data for gauging the viability of your program.) If this comparison indicates that the
costs of your unit pricing program might not be fully covered by its revenues, you need to
review both the design of the program (Step 2) and the rates you plan to charge (Step
4). Several revisions of program options and rate structures may be required to achieve
a unit pricing program that most closely meets the goals established by the
community in the planning phase (see Part II).
Once you feel that your program strikes a working balance between costs incurred for
services provided and the prices residents will be charged, it might be appropriate to
submit the program design to other municipal officials or community leaders for
additional input. This process of review and comment can continue until a balanced
program agreed upon by community representatives has been established.
38
0 The Six Steps in Action:

Designing a Rate Structure for Community A
To illustrate the steps in action, we will follow Community A, a hypothetical town, as it designs
a rate structure for its new unit pricing program based on its own particular goals and concerns.
Estimating waste generation rates. Community A’s records show that it collected
480,000 cubic yards of solid waste from its residents last year. Municipal officials realize
that the population of the town is likely to increase next year after a large multi-use
building complex is completed. Based on population projections prepared by town
planners, officials estimate that, at the current rate, residents will generate nearly
600,000 cubic yards of solid waste annually two years from now. Within this two-year
period, however, officials hope their unit pricing program will have reached its
steady-state and residents will be generating less waste. Using data from three nearby,
demographically similar towns that have established unit pricing programs, municipal
officials estimate that two years after implementation of the unit pricing program the
community will generate about 410,000 cubic yards of waste annually.
Establishing rates. At this stage in the design process, municipal officials in Community
A decide to use the median rate of the prices charged by other communities across the
country ($1.75 per 30-gallon bag). In addition, this rate is very close to the price adopted
by the three nearby unit pricing communities for their 30-gallon containers.
Calculating revenues. Dividing the annual amount of solid waste Community A expects
to generate in the steady-state (410,000 cubic yards) by the size of their waste container
(30 gallons or 0.15 cubic yards) shows that the municipality can expect to collect over
2,733,000 bags each year. By multiplying this figure by the price per bag ($1.75), officials
calculated that Community A should receive about $4,780,000 in revenues from its unit
pricing program each year.
Calculating costs. Community A estimates that the annual steady-state cost of its
program will include approximately $1,000,000 in f ixed costs, such as public education
efforts, computers and other office materials, and enforcement efforts, and
approximately $2,700,000 in tipping fees and other variable costs. Combining these
figures produces an annual steady-state cost of approximately $3,700,000 for the
program. Additional start-up expenses also would be incurred.
Comparing costs and revenues. While recognizing that their program must cover the
town’s waste management costs completely, officials in Community A agreed the town
should cover any start-up costs that exceeded revenues during the initial transition period.
Therefore, when a comparison of the expected revenues against the costs of the unit
pricing program showed that the program would generate excess revenues, municipal
officials decided to lower the price charged per bag to $1.35. This new price would yield a
projected $3,690,000 annually, closer to the town’s actual costs of maintaining the program.
PART III
Balancing Costs and Revenues
Costs
A community can select from an impressive array of service
options when mapping out a unit pricing program. After estimating
the demand for services in STEP 1, communities can plan for the
services they will offer in STEP 2. Some communities will want to
offer services such as backyard collections, comprehensive
recycling programs, and assistance to residents with special needs.
Bear in mind, however, that while these projects can help promote
source reduction and increase citizen enthusiasm, they also can
increase the cost of your program significantly. Use STEP 3 to help
estimate the costs of the services you are planning to offer.
Revenues
The flip side of costs is revenues. Unit pricing
allows communities to generate the revenues
needed to pay for solid waste management services
under the new program. In fact, when developing a
rate structure in STEP 4 and calculating the
resulting revenues in STEP 5, communities might
decide to set prices at a level above the cost of
their unit pricing program. This would further
encourage source reduction among residents and
ensure that revenues could cover any shortfalls.
Since residents will only support a program they
feel charges a fair price for solid waste services,
however, there are limits to this strategy.
Balance
To be successful over the long term, your unit
pricing program will need to carefully balance the
services you want to include against the revenues
that residents provide. The exact formula will
depend upon local conditions. Use STEP 6 to
help you compare the costs of your planned
program against anticipated revenues. Keep
revising your rate structure until you feel that you
have a program that offers the services you need
at a price residents can support.
40
PART III
questions
& answers
How small should our smallest can or bag be?
Unit pricing communities agree that planning for success is important during
the design process. Some communities have found that cans as small as 10 to
20 gallons are needed! For example, Olympia, Washington, offers residents a
10-gallon can and Victoria, British Columbia, uses a 22-gallon can as the base
service level. A number of communities using large containers (such as
60-gallon cans) are f inding that these containers are too large to offer
customers meaningful incentives, but purchasing and delivering new, smaller
cans later in the program is very expensive. In the short run, a broader range
of service can be provided by using several smaller cans. This also helps keep
the system f lexible for future changes.
What pricing rates are communities charging?

For bag systems in the Midwest and Pennsylvania, communities charge about
$1 to $2 per 30-gallon bag. For variable can programs in the Northwest and
California, towns charge $9 to $15 for the f irst level of service (20 to 40
gallons), with charges for additional cans of service ranging from 30¢ to $15.
We have an existing variable rate can program. How can

we increase the incentive for waste reduction?
The key change to make is to base your billing on actual set-outs rather than
using a subscription approach. Offer smaller cans to encourage waste reduction,
and consider a bag-based system. Upgrading composting and recycling options
(including plastics collection, for example, if you don’t already) also will provide
an incentive for customers to reduce waste. Communities also universally state
that education is critical to helping customers understand and work with the
system. Finally, consider a weight-based program. You might f ind that the cost of
implementing this type of program is not prohibitive and that it can work in
tandem with your existing cans.
How can we improve source separation of recyclable

materials?
Some residents may tend to be sloppy about source separation regardless of
the type of solid waste pricing system. As people learn to reduce their costs by
recycling more, however, they may become more inclined to introduce
nonrecyclables in their recycling bins. Many communities have found the best
solution is a good education and enforcement program that creates a sense of
ownership among residents, supported by peer pressure against such
behavior. Some also impose a small charge for recyclable materials in their
rate structure design.
PART III
Points to
remember
Remember that container options, complementary programs, rate
structures, and billing systems are all interrelated. As you consider the
different options, keep in mind the need to cover costs, keep the system
simple and convenient, encourage waste reduction, and minimize
administrative burdens on your agency.
Tradeoffs must be considered as you make decisions about rate structures

and program options. Balance, for example, the need to generate
revenues against providing incentives for waste reduction.
Consider complementary programs, such as recycling and collection of

yard trimmings, to increase the effectiveness of unit pricing.
Consider how to ensure that unit pricing’s economic incentives to reduce waste
can be extended to residents of multi-family housing in your community.
Design your program to be flexible enough to allow for groups with

special needs. Discount pricing or assistance programs might be
necessary to ensure that the program encourages waste reduction without
imposing physical or financial burdens on handicapped or low-income
members of your community.
Refer back to your unit pricing goals when making rate structure
decisions. While information from other communities with unit pricing
programs is helpful, your own community’s solid waste concerns should be
the overriding factor.
42
PART III
Case Studies
Establishing a Rate Structure
A View From Seattle
Unit pricing structure. Seattle has established a two-tiered, variable subscription
can unit pricing program. To ensure support for the program from our City Council and
residents in general, we needed to design a program that keeps rates low and revenues
stable. To accomplish this, Seattle chose to adopt a two-tiered rate structure. The
mandatory base charge (called a minimum charge) is $5.85 a month. We also charge
$15 for each standard size (30-gallon) can per week. The Council pushed for this
structure, believing it would keep overall rates down and send a strong environmental
message to the community at the same time. There tends to be broad support for the
single price per can.
We also have introduced smaller can sizes. About 30 percent of our customers use minicans
(19-gallon capacity), which cost $11.50 per week, and we soon will be providing microcan
service (a 10-gallon container) for $9.35 per week. After talking with customers and
observing their waste disposal habits, we found a lot of customers could fit their waste into a
micro can. We expect about 10 percent of all customers to use the micro cans.
Complementary services. After electing to collect yard trimmings as part of our
program, we decided to set a flat fee of $3 per household per month for this service,
believing that a more complicated system would only make the program’s
administration prohibitively costly. We offer bulky item pick-up for $25 per item. The
price was set to cover hauling and administrative costs.
For waste that is generated above the subscription level, residents must attach a trash
tag, marketed through local retail outlets, to garbage bags. The trash tag system has
been one of our less successful programs, partly because customers just don’t know
about it. In addition, our haulers do not always enforce the tag system. Since they get
paid per ton of waste they pick up, they have no incentive to leave the waste at the
curb. We estimate we forfeit anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million dollars a year on
fees not paid on this additional waste.
Tags and Stickers

A View From Illinois
One of the major advantages of tags and stickers is that, since residents pay for them at
various outlets in the community, there is no billing at all. They also are applicable to different
types of services, containers, and waste, and they are easy to purchase and hold on to until
needed. Multiple tags or stickers can be used on bulky waste items, too.
Tags and stickers also are easy for collection personnel to use. Since every second they
spend at a stop costs money, the more data collection or enforcement that a community
PART III
requires haulers to perform per stop, the less likely they are to do it. In addition, the
tags and stickers are still useful even in cases where collection personnel can’t read or
write .
But tags and stickers are not perfect. The hauler might not be able to find them.
People can steal them off other residents’ garbage bags and put them on their own
bags. A special problem for stickers is that they can fall off in rainy or cold weather.
Furthermore, people may buy a large number of tags in January, and then none for
the next several months. Not only does this create an uncertain revenue supply, it also
makes predicting solid waste volume very difficult.
Experience With Weight-Based Systems

A View From Farmington, Minnesota, and Seattle, Washington
In Farmington, Minnesota, we worked for two years to develop and implement a
weight-based unit pricing program for our town of 5,000 residents. Our new system
uses fully automated trucks that require just one person per truck to hoist and weigh
the garbage can. The truck’s weighing system reads a bar code on the can that
identifies the resident’s name and address. The truck then empties the can and the
information is fed automatically into the billing system through an onboard computer.
This provides a reliable system for charging residents for waste collection by weight.
One issue we have to resolve is establishing an appropriate regulation for the weighing
mechanism used in our system. After Minnesota’s Weights and Measures Agency
decided it did not have the authority to verify the scales on the trucks, the state
legislature adopted standardized weight and measure legislation establishing regulations
covering weighing equipment for garbage collection trucks. One issue that remains,
however, is that the degree of calibration required is too precise (the same as that for
grocery store scales). We are now in the process of petitioning for changes to make
the regulation more consistent with practical needs.
In Seattle, Washington, we tested two different weight-based systems: a
hand-dumped weight-based system and a semi-automated weight-based system. The
hand dump system, designed around a “hook scale” and a bar code, was tested over
the course of three months. The collector hung the can on the hook and used a
scanner on the bar code. The weight and number were recorded in a portable
calculator-sized computer and downloaded to a personal computer for calculating and
mailing mock bills to customers. The second system we tested during a six-week trial
used a retrofitted semiautomated tipping arm and a radio-frequency tag. The weight
and customer identification number were automatically recorded during the dumping
cycle. Both approaches worked extremely well. The first system took about 10 percent
longer for collection; the second system operated exactly as the standard semiautomated
variable can system and took no extra time. Surveys of customers participating in the
hand-dump system trial showed that it was very popular. Participating residents reduced
waste 15 percent by weight over the course of the testing.
In our research, we found that with the weight-based system, there are advantages to
customers buying their own containers. The cost is lower and, if the garbage is
hand-dumped, you do not need standardized containers. Under a semiautomated
system, however, you might have to require customers to buy specific containers.
44
COSTS
HIERARCHY
EDUCATION
TRADEOFFS
BARRIERS
PART IV
Implementing and Monitoring
Unit Pricing
H
aving carefully planned and designed a unit pricing
program that best ref lects the needs and concerns of
your community, you can now get started.
Implementing a unit pricing program is an ongoing
process, requiring persistent attention to a wide range of
details. This part of the guide focuses on the central issues
concerning unit pricing implementation, including public
education, accounting, and administrative changes. Suggestions
also are included for collecting data and monitoring the
program once it is in place.
There are two distinct schools of thought about the timing of

unit pricing implementation. One maintains that unit pricing
should be implemented within a specif ied time frame and that
rate adjustments, complementary programs such as recycling,
and any other changes be made all at once. The other believes
that households respond better when they are asked to make
changes in small, manageable increments over time.
The f inal decision about which path to follow is a local one

based on the views of your agency, the local government,
community organizations, and the households themselves. In
most towns, residents will prefer to modify their habits as
infrequently as possible. In this case, it might be easiest to
implement a package of changes all at once, rather than ask
for a series of adjustments six months apart.
I MP L EM E N T IN G A N D M ON I TO R I N G U N I T PR I CI N G 45
PART IV
Implementation Activities
Many tasks need to be performed during unit pricing
implementation. While the exact activities vary from community to
community based on program design and local conditions, certain tasks
pertain to nearly all unit pricing programs. These include conducting
public relations and reorganizing your solid waste agency’s
administrative office. (Both of these activities are discussed in detail
below.) Other common tasks include:
Establishing legal authority. Generally, to implement a unit

pricing program, your solid waste agency needs the authority to set
and approve waste collection rates and bill accordingly, establish an
ordinance mandating the use of the waste collection service, establish
penalties for illegal dumping, and spend solid waste agency funds for
activities beyond those associated with traditional solid waste
management services (for example, public education). If your
community lacks the authority to implement and enforce any portion
of the unit pricing program, the first step will be to draft the
necessary ordinances in consultation with your legal counsel.
Procuring containers. You also will need to purchase the
necessary waste containers, bags, tags, or stickers for the program.
Once the size and design specifications are established, you can seek
vendors for the required materials. In some cases, a request for
proposal (RFP) might be placed to solicit competing bids from several
vendors. This can help you procure the necessary materials at the
least cost to your agency. After a vendor is selected and an order
placed, storage and distribution plans will be needed. In particular,
communities planning to use local retailers to distribute bags, tags, or
stickers should identify and negotiate with local merchants to arrive
at a mutually beneficial arrangement. Communities developing a
can-based system will need to inform residents of the can options,
have residents select the number and size of cans they will use (if a
variable can system is used), and distribute the cans to all residents.
Assisting groups with special needs. If your community is
planning to assist residents with special needs, such as multi-family,
low-income, physically handicapped, or elderly residents, you will
need to develop a list of qualification criteria. In addition, you might
need to devise special applications and train staff to review cases.
Procedures should be established for resolving any disputes or
complaints that could occur during the review process. If you are
planning to include multi-family residents in your program, consider
planning and conducting a pilot program before you switch to unit
pricing. In this way, different systems and technologies can be tested
prior to launching the actual program.
46
PART IV
Establishing complementary programs. If you
have decided to launch or expand recycling or
composting efforts, bulky waste collections, or
other complementary programs in conjunction with
your unit pricing program, you will need to
coordinate the many steps involved in establishing
these programs. Depending on the resources
available and on local conditions, these steps could
include purchasing or modifying existing
equipment, hiring and training collection staff,
identifying local markets for recyclables, and
contracting with buyers.
Ensuring enforcement. Enforcement procedures
could be established to address the possibility of
illegal dumping or burning of waste, “borrowing” of
tags or stickers from neighbors’ bags, or nonpayment
of fees. If necessary, enforcement staff can be hired and
procedures developed for investigating incidents. In To ensure a successful
many cases, these inspectors will need to receive training, recycling program,
team members will
equipment, and facilities. Establishing special collections for certain
need to coordinate
wastes (such as bulky items or materials such as paints, pesticides, and carefully the collection
other items considered household hazardous waste), combined with and marketing of
fines for violations, can help prevent illegal dumping or burning. Also, recovered materials.
to help instill an environmental ethic in the community which can
further reduce the potential for illegal dumping, consider establishing
regular citizen cleanups, “adopt-a-highway” projects, and other
programs that will gather residents together and focus their interest on
maintaining and improving their community. BARRIERS
Public Education and Outreach

As discussed in Part II, public outreach during the planning and
design stages enables decision-makers to learn more about residents’
waste management needs, to inform them of the benefits of unit pricing,
to solicit input on the goals of a unit pricing program, and to get EDUCATION
feedback on a tentative rate structure. Such efforts are essential for

building support among residents for unit pricing.
During the implementation phase, the public outreach program should

have two goals: 1) to build on earlier efforts to increase public acceptance of
unit pricing and 2) to provide residents with the detailed information they
need to understand and participate in the new program. Participants at
EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable agreed that well-informed residents are
easier to serve and more likely to be satisfied with the new program.
Building public support and providing program specifics typically begins
approximately three months before program implementation. These
activities are often continued in varying degrees throughout the program.
PART IV
The first step is to determine the scope and content of your
community relations effort. All such efforts need to convey to residents
the exact structure of the new unit pricing program. Be sure to relate all
essential information, including:
• The types and costs of all services offered under the new
program.
• The schedule for collections.
• The means by which fees will be collected.
• The methods or outlets for purchasing cans, bags, tags, or
stickers.
• The penalties for noncompliance.
When imparting this information to the community, make sure that
all instructions are clear and simple. Explain
any unit
pricing concepts that residents might not
understand. If you are producing written
materials, consider translating the text into
more than one language, depending on the
makeup of your community. Use
illustrations whenever possible to convey
key concepts. Sometimes local copying shops
or printers will donate their services to help
produce these materials.
Also, be sure to discuss the waste

management goals for the community and
show how the new unit pricing program will
help meet those goals. If you had organized a
citizens advisory council or an informal
gathering of community or civic groups to
help you with public outreach during the
planning stage, you might reconvene this
group to plan your implementation outreach
efforts. Such a group can help you develop an effective message and
As part of its public outreach
program, Seattle’s Solid Waste ensure that you reach all segments of the community.
Utility is conveying important
Offer citizens information on how to alter their purchasing and
information about unit pricing
using a series of engaging behavior patterns to prevent and reduce waste. Tips on waste prevention
pamphlets. options, such as reusing containers, renting seldom-used equipment, and
donating unwanted items, are useful. Encouraging residents to purchase
recyclable items and goods with recycled content also is important. In
addition, the message is likely to have a greater impact if information on
additional benefits, such as saving energy and preserving natural
resources, is provided. If residents make the program’s goals their goals
too, they are more likely to make long-term behavioral changes.
48
PART IV
There are many ways to convey the specifics of the program to the
community. While the solid waste agency will need to decide which
methods to use and how often to repeat the message, some avenues to
consider include:
• Introducing the program with a flyer or letter from a local official or

recycling coordinator.
• Enclosing inserts in utility bills that discuss the program and answer
common questions. Direct mailings to households also can be used.
• Developing posters or flyers for distribution in stores, libraries,
schools, and other public places around the community. Retail
stores will be especially valuable if your program uses bags, tags, or
stickers that are distributed though retail outlets. You can leave
flyers, posters, newsletters, and other materials with these stores,
and ensure that the retailers themselves are familiar with the
program.
• Producing newsletters that discuss the need for the program, answer
questions, and provide updates about the program’s progress.
• Establishing a telephone hotline to provide residents with
immediate answers to their questions.
Drafting press releases and developing media spots for radio or cable
television. Through the media, you can reach a broad range of residents.
Additional outreach techniques can be employed based on your

community’s particular conditions. For example, if you feel that a
specific group of residents, such as senior citizens, are not receiving
enough information to participate effectively, you might consider
reaching out to senior centers, local churches, and other institutions to
ensure that everyone is familiar with unit pricing.
Some solid waste agencies opt to conduct public education

campaigns using existing inhouse staff. Others hire one or more qualified
individuals to conduct these activities or pay outside consultants to
perform public outreach. This decision is typically based on the size of
your community, the scope of your program, and the available resources.
Keep in mind that public outreach is an ongoing process. A

consistent flow of information, designed to answer questions, receive
input, and communicate any changes made to the program after it has
been implemented, will help maintain interest in the program. In
addition, an ongoing campaign can continue to inform and educate
citizens about new ways to prevent or reduce waste.
PART IV
Reorganizing Your Solid Waste Agencys

Administration
Depending on their current structure and the scope of the new unit
pricing program, some solid waste agencies will not have to make
significant changes in the way they administer solid waste collection
services. Such communities can switch to unit pricing using only some
overtime work from existing employees. Other programs, however, could
require new administrative and accounting systems and staff to handle
the changes in billing, tracking costs and revenues, managing operations,
and maintaining customer relations. In some cases, larger communities
planning more complicated unit pricing systems have found it
worthwhile to hire analytical, financial, and customer service staff to
handle both the transition and ongoing requirements of the program.
Getting Your New Administrative Of f ice On Line

The keys to transforming your solid waste agency’s administration into
an efficient team capable of handling its new responsibilities are:
Anticipating the level of expertise that will be necessary, both during pro-
gram implementation and ongoing operation.
Giving funding priority to areas that hold the greatest opportunity for sav-
ings or pose the greatest risk of financial problems.
Meeting temporary needs during the transition with temporary help,
rather than locking into a level of employment that proves excessive in the
long run.
While the process of reorganizing an administrative system for a new

unit pricing program can seem daunting, performing the switch as a
series of steps with clear objectives in mind will help make the process
manageable. Generally, communities with unit pricing programs have
found that the process of reorganizing the administrative office should
take place between three and six months before the start of the program.
The first step is to define the new responsibilities the administrative

office must assume once the program has reached its steady state, as
described in Part III. Consider all the functions, such as public relations,
customer service, economic analysis, financial management and tracking,
and enforcement, that the office will need to perform. With steady-state as
the goal, try to create a new office that matches these needs rather than
accommodate your goals to the skills that are available. After establishing
50
PART IV
the functions and related skills required of your new administrative
office, you should then begin to reorganize the office to meet these
responsibilities.
During the process of defining new responsibilities, remember that the

unit pricing program will change the administrative office’s functions
significantly. The office will be operating a revenue recovery system that
pays for the work of the solid waste agency, rather than justifying funding
levels to the municipality’s budget office. The office will find it has an
unprecedented level of influence on customers’ behavior through the price
signals it sends. This brings additional responsibility for the proper design
and management of these price signals. Managing these new functions
requires the office to have access to a range of skills, including:
Economics. Developing the unit pricing rate structure and related

forecasts of revenues, costs, and total community use of waste
collection, recycling, and composting programs. COSTS
Public relations. Developing outreach and education activities and

managing customer service representatives. This function includes
interaction with the general public, as well as local interest groups,
elected officials, and the news media.
Financial and logistical management. Billing households or
collecting revenues from the sale of bags, tags, or stickers; developing
debt management strategies; managing cash reserves; and developing
a distribution system for the program’s cans, bags, tags, or stickers.
Enforcement. Ensuring that households pay for the level of solid
waste services they receive.
In addition, several important suggestions were offered during EPA’s
Unit Pricing Roundtable for organizing your administrative office’s
financial operations. Be sure to establish access to a cash reserve to help the
office cover periods of unanticipated revenue reductions. Repeated
instances of revenue shortfalls, however, could signal an imbalance
between the services offered and your program’s rate structure.
Preparing existing administrative staff for the changes that will result
from the switch to unit pricing is another important step. While the change
initially might not be viewed positively by all employees, conveying the
HIERARCHY
positive aspects of the switch might help ease concerns. In addition to the
reorientation of the office away from traditional collection and disposal
services to a new emphasis on waste prevention, recycling, and
composting, employees should be informed of the opportunities for staff
training and development in new areas, such as public relations and
customer service, that the new program will create.
Furthermore, when organizing the new office, communities should be

aware that expanding the administrative office requires a delicate
balancing of resources: while allocating too much funding to the office TRADEOFFS
could cut into the savings that unit pricing programs offer, underfunding
the office can result in inefficiencies and poor revenue recovery. This is
PART IV
particularly true during the implementation and transition periods,
before the unit pricing steady-state has been reached. During this period,
using temporary labor or employees on loan from other municipal
agencies might help to cover short-term budgeting, analytical, and other
tasks.
Developing a Schedule
Organizing the many steps involved in planning, designing, and
implementing a unit pricing program into a clear schedule is an essential
step for most communities. While the exact schedule of steps should be
viewed as flexible, establishing an overview of the entire process will
help eliminate the possibility of any serious omissions. Table 4-1
presents a detailed timeline for your reference. (The dates listed on the
timeline represent the number of months before or after program
implementation each step should be initiated. Program implementation
is defined as the date on which actual service changes begin.)
While the dates have been established based on the experiences of a

number of communities with unit pricing programs in place, local
conditions and needs will inevitably affect the exact timing of your
program’s development. Many factors affect how you adapt this timeline
to your community’s needs, including equipment changes, contractual
changes, financing requirements, and employment, as well as political
factors (such as the nature and structure of the local political process and
the potential existence of a perceived solid waste crisis). In most cases,
the level of political support is the most important variable, routinely
cited by communities as responsible for either significant delays or rapid
progress in the implementation of their unit pricing programs. Most of
the remaining steps can be conducted fairly routinely in 3 to 12 months,
depending on system choices, size of the community, and types of solid
waste collection and administration systems in place.
Program Monitoring and Evaluation

As solid waste management has grown more challenging in recent
years, local officials are finding that they have greater freedom to
develop and implement new systems for managing waste. At the same
time, however, their efforts also are subject to a higher level of scrutiny.
Within the context of tightening municipal budgets and increasing
demands for city services of all types, local officials must be able to
discuss budget needs and priorities in a compelling way, using reliable
data to support their case. Specifically, a thorough process of collecting
and analyzing data about the performance of the unit pricing program will:
52
PART IV
• Provide the facts about the cost-effectiveness of the unit pricing
program that local officials need to justify the current budget.
• Enable planners to justify future budget
needs by demonstrating that the new
spending on the program could in fact
save money in the long run.
• Help reassure bond rating agencies of
the cost-effectiveness of the unit pricing
program, thereby reducing the cost of
financing it through bond sales.
• Allow planners to accurately compare the
performance of any complementary
programs, enabling them to reallocate
resources among the programs to increase
the overall effectiveness of unit pricing.
• Generate concrete, understandable, and
accurate information that can help other
communities considering unit pricing.
Moreover, this data will enable solid waste agency planners to adjust Collecting and analyzing unit pricing
the unit pricing program to unforeseen circumstances, ensuring that the data will help the solid waste agency
effort and attention paid to planning, designing, and implementing the adjust its program to changing
program will not be wasted. Typically, program monitoring and evaluation circumstances.
begins about six months before the date of unit pricing implementation,
when information on the old waste management system is gathered. These
data will act as a benchmark against which the progress of the unit pricing
program can be measured. Monitoring and evaluation begins as soon as the
new program is launched and continues throughout the program.
Data collection is the first step in program monitoring and

evaluation. While the exact types of data a community collects will vary
from one area to another, most municipalities track:
• Changes in the community’s waste generation rate

• Costs incurred, both in starting up and in operating the new program
• Revenues received under the program
Communities often begin by collecting data on the amount of waste
disposed of, recycled, and composted before and after the program’s
implementation. Estimates of the amount of material illegally dumped can
be calculated as well. To allow for a more comprehensive analysis, the
waste generation rates can be tracked by month and year, and, if possible,
by origin and destination. In addition, the data can be further broken down
by facility, customer group (such as residential, multi-family, commercial,
or industrial), and program (for example, drop-off versus curbside services).
To gain a more accurate picture of the impact of their program, some
communities also estimate the amount of waste that would have been
generated in the absence of the unit pricing program.
The specific costs that a community might want to research include

disposal costs and tipping fees; new administrative costs, including public
PART IV
relations, billing and invoicing, inventory and distribution of bags, tags or
cans, and additional customer service staff; and direct program and service
costs such as wages, supplies, consultant services, and postage. Costs for
monitoring and cleaning up illegal dumping can be included as well.
COSTS
In addition, to increase the usefulness of cost data, communities
might want to attribute different expenses to specific components of unit
pricing (such as administrative labor or container costs) and track these
separate cost categories by month and year. Be careful, however, to
distinguish between short-term expenses and long-term investments for
needed facilities and equipment. During this process, take care to
separate transition and startup expenses from the ongoing operational
costs of unit pricing. If possible, initial capital costs should be allocated
over time and across programs. Collecting data on the revenues resulting
from unit pricing tends to be simpler. Communities typically track
revenues by type of program and customer category.
To closely track a new unit pricing program, communities also might

want to develop data on the number of subscribers or participants,
broken down into type of service and program; the service and
subscription levels (if a variable can program is used); the inventories of
bags or tags held by distributors or manufacturers; the weight of
containers set out (if possible, through surveys); and the numbers of
phone calls and letters and the issues raised.
Program evaluation can yield misleading results, however. To help

avoid some common data collection and evaluation mistakes, panelists at
EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable recommended avoiding focusing on
participation rates as a measure of success. While a study of
participation levels can help guide program modifications, they are not
useful for gauging overall progress since they do not address cost issues
and tend not to distinguish between casual and committed participants.
Likewise, panelists recommended that communities also consider factors
beyond overall waste reduction when evaluating a program. For
example, intangible issues, such as dissatisfaction with the program
among residents of multi-family buildings, would not be reflected in an
analysis that focused exclusively on waste reduction numbers.
Tips for Data Collection and Program Monitoring

Get data from several different angles if possible (for example, waste quan-
tity generation rates for both collection services and disposal facilities).
Don’t simply accept the numbers as they are generated. Consider the
possibility that factors such as underlying shifts in categories, definitions,
or reporting might affect the accuracy of the results.
Be sure to carefully track costs. Without accurate and attributable data,
the impact of your cost-effectiveness evaluation will be reduced.
54
PART IV
Table 4-1.
Schedule of Implementation Activities
Months Prior to or Following Program Implementation
Implementation Activities 9 6 3 0 3 6 Ongoing
Customer Relations
P ublic outreach
Brief management and elected officials X
Conduct focus groups on rate program design X X
and issues
Develop information materials for council and press X
Hold council hearings and public hearings X
P ublic relations/education
Issue RFP for public relations firm, if needed X
Design educational materials, bill stuffers X
Review/refine educational materials X X
Produce educational materials X X
Distribute educational materials X X
Cust ome r ser vice staf f
Request customer service representative (CSR) X
computers and workspace, if needed
Advertise for CSRs X
Obtain and install CSR computer equipment X
Hire and train CSRs X
Release temporary CSRs X
Planning and Analysis

Hire rates analyst (part- or full-time) X
Determine rate setting procedure and calculate rates X
Refine rate structure X X
PART IV

Containers and Enforcement

Bags, tags, or stick ers
Set specifications for sticker or bag and design logo X
Issue RFP for sticker or bag manufacture X
Select manufacturer X
Negotiate with retail outlets for sticker or X
bag distribution
Finalize sticker or bag distribution plans X
Begin selling stickers or bags in stores X
Design error tags X
Cans
Issue RFP for can purchase and distribution X
Decide on can size and purchase containers X
Have residents select can size X
Distribute cans X
Replace lost, stolen, or wrong-sized cans X X
Enf orcem ent
Establish preliminary enforcement procedures X
Request equipment and facilities for inspectors X
Finalize enforcement procedures X
Train inspectors X X
Release temporary inspectors X
Special Groups
Negotiate with welfare agencies X
Develop exemption/discount criteria X
Determine responsible office X
Create procedures for qualification, disputes, etc. X
Finalize criteria and procedures X
Train inspectors or qualifiers X
Conduct qualifications X
56
PART IV

Multi-Family Planning
Evaluate level of multi-family need X
Evaluate multi-family pilot options X
Conduct pilot program, if appropriate X X
Changes to Other Programs

Determine which complementary services to offer X
Decide funding source for new and existing X
complementary programs
Modify unit pricing program to cover these costs, X
if necessary
Modify diversion program contracts and X
procedures as necessary
Ordinances
Draft final ordinances for new program X
Draft ordinances, as necessary, for illegal dumping X
and burning, recycling, and special collections
Enact ordinances X
Data Collection
Analyze information needs and design reporting X
procedures
Finalize procedures X
Conduct baseline data collection X X
Begin postimplementation data collection X X
Conduct data analysis and program modification X X
PART IV
questions
& answers
Is it really necessary to explain the new program repeatedly
through so many different avenues?
Not all citizens f ind garbage fascinating, nor will they immediately understand the
reasons for a new waste management program. Explaining a new program more
than once is not rude or insulting—it’s a courtesy to people who would like to
participate but have other things on their minds. Also, because unit pricing
requires that residents pay attention to details such as labeling waste containers
with stickers or buying bags from the municipality, hearing the message several
times increases the chance that all residents will get the information they need.
Does unit pricing require us to completely reinvent our solid

waste agency?
It does require a signif icant review of your agency’s goals and structure. But this
examination of new needs and existing employees could lead to the discovery of
some previously untapped skills in your agency.
Do I really need to follow this detailed timeline? Half the

items in it are not likely to come up in our community.
Select what you need from the timeline. The timeline lists the many possible kinds
of new activities that a unit pricing program could require. It is designed to help
solid waste off icials think about specif ic activities, thereby supplementing the
broad concepts that are stressed elsewhere in this guide.
Our municipality is on a tight budget. Do we really need to

spend money on data collection and monitoring?
While many of your unit pricing decisions face budgetary constraints, data
collection is essential for planning and for ensuring cost-effectiveness. The right
kind of information can show which types of unit pricing program and rate
modif ications can best meet the community’s needs over time.
58
PART IV
Points to
remember
Be sure your public education campaign uses a consistent,
simple message that clearly communicates the goals of the
unit pricing program.
To ease the administrative transition, clearly define the

responsibilities of the office, the level of expertise that will be
necessary, and any new staff that need to be brought on.
Give funding priority to areas that hold the greatest risk of

financial problems or hold the greatest opportunity for savings
through effective management of limited administrative budgets.
Establish a f lexible schedule for your unit pricing program that

reflects the political, technical, and economic concerns and issues
in your community.
Be sure to evaluate your program’s progress periodically, including

collecting and analyzing data on waste generation rates, costs and
revenues, and the attitude of residents toward the program.
To improve your data collection, make providing numbers part

of the contract (or franchise or license agreement) with your
haulers. Ask for monthly reporting, and provide forms and
definitions to ensure you receive the information you require.
PART IV
Case Studies
Public Education
A View From Austin, Texas
While Austin, Texas, is a very environmentally aware community, our Environ-
mental and Conservation Services staff realized that behavior does not always cor-
respond to stated attitudes. To give our new unit pricing program a good chance
of success, we realized a strong public outreach program was needed. Since unit
pricing terms such as “variable rates” and “volume-based pricing” are not particu-
larly user-friendly, our first challenge was to come up with a name that would con-
vey the nature of the new program to city council members, customers, and our
own solid waste service workers. The name we came up with was “Pay-as-You-
Throw,” which has economic as well as environmental appeal.
Then, we initiated a pilot program beginning with a three-phase marketing plan to
reach out to the 3,000 participating single-family households. In the first phase, the
Preimplementation Phase, we worked very hard to sell the program in the commu-
nity. We lined up support from interest groups, asked city council members to talk
about the program, and encouraged the media to write positive editorials.
During the second phase, the Implementation Phase, we had a more specific chal-
lenge. We have had curbside recycling in Austin since 1982 and good experiences
with recycling behavior. With a well-established recycling program, however,
when we brought the program to the pilot households, people were asking “Why
do we need to do this when we’re already recycling?” Our biggest challenge was
to inform people about the need to further reduce waste and encourage them to
use our unit pricing program in conjunction with recycling. After implementation,
we learned from both attitudinal surveys and from direct observation of recycling
bins that recycling had increased from 50 to 80 percent in some neighborhoods
when unit pricing was introduced.
The third phase of our public outreach program was the Maintenance Phase.
Once the program was in place, we realized it was important to continue trying
to raise awareness. It was during this phase that we introduced what became our
single best educational tool—a brief, colorful newsletter included with each gar-
bage bill. Called “Waste Watch,” the newsletter contains features on the garbage
collectors, dates of the brush/bulk pickup in each neighborhood, discussions
about our unit pricing goals, and other features. We knew that only 15 to 25 per-
cent of our customers read the usual utility inserts. However, after we provided
more sophisticated information in an appealing format, our survey results showed
a rise in readership.
60
PART IV
Administration Staffing
A View From Darien, Illinois
Darien, Illinois, with a population of 21,000, moved from a franchise flat-fee sys-
tem to a franchise sticker system in May 1990. Their administrative staffing needs
were unchanged: one person from the city oversees the activities of the franchise
hauler. City council members and existing staff put in overtime to develop details
of the new system and negotiate with the hauler during the implementation proc-
ess. The hauler has reported some increased accounting complexity but no in-
creased staffing needs. Research indicates that this level of small, temporary
increases in administrative needs during implementation of a new or revised unit
pricing program is typical of many smaller communities.
Administration Staffing
A View From Seattle, Washington
The Seattle Solid Waste Utility, an enterprise fund, operates a variable can sub-
scription system with recycling fees and other charges embedded in the collection
rates. Billing is performed in cooperation with the Seattle Water Department at a
cost to the Seattle Solid Waste Utility of $1.9 million per year.
To manage this program, the utility employs two rate-setting staff, four finance
staff, and three accountants. Another $15,000 to $20,000 per year is spent on
consulting services, mostly to assist with setting rates. Additionally, Seattle’s 22
full-time customer service representatives and 9 refuse inspectors help to meet
the service and enforcement needs of the new program.
APPENDIX A
EPA’s Unit Pricing
Roundtable Discussion:
Questions & Alternatives
T
his appendix presents a selection of proceedings from
EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable, held in December 1992.
These proceedings include descriptions of different
programs from around the country, experiences of solid
waste off icials who have spearheaded unit pricing programs, and
ideas on managing program costs and challenges. The discussions
provided in this appendix are organized around a number of
specif ic questions and are divided into four general sections:
• Getting started
• Exploring program options, issues, and experiences
• Integrating unit pricing and complementary programs
• Accommodating groups with special needs
The f irst section explores issues involved in starting a unit pricing
program, such as education, communication, and changing the
status quo. The second section compares the essential components
of a unit pricing program, including container choices, pricing
models, and billing systems. It then moves on to f inancial issues,
including cash flow and enterprise funds, and discusses enforcement
issues. The third section focuses on integrating unit pricing and
complementary programs, such as yard trimmings and household
hazardous waste collection programs. The last section shares some
of the Roundtable proceedings on accommodating groups with
special needs, such as senior citizens, large families, and
low-income households.
A PP E N DI CE S 63
APPENDIX A
Getting Started
Changing the Status Quo
How do you convince citizens that unit pricing is a good idea in the first place? That has
been a real obstacle.
Seattle, WA: I think getting some good public support by working on it early is very important.
Contact not only recycling groups but also community councils, people whom you
might not expect to be big advocates of a unit pricing program.
State of IL: The public opposition question comes up for communities that currently pay for their
garbage collection out of general taxes (e.g., property taxes). In a sense, that’s a hid-
den cost, and people perceive garbage collection as a free service. But if they have a
monthly bill (instead of paying through property taxes, for example), they know that
garbage collection costs something and there’s “no free lunch.” Then, in moving to
a unit pricing program, they can actually see that the cost of garbage collection
comes down. Whereas if the cost s are hidden as proper ty tax or general
Unit Pricing Roundtable Participants

The EPA-sponsored Unit Pricing Roundtable was moderated by Jan Canterbury of the EPA Office
of Solid Waste and attended by over a dozen individuals who have been involved in successful unit
pricing programs. The participants included:
Nancy Lee Newell of the City of Durham, North Carolina
Peggy Douglas of the City of Knoxville, Tennessee
Barbara Cathey of the City of Pasadena, California
Bill Dunn of the Minnesota Office of Waste Management
Nick Pealy of the Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Washington
Jody Harris of the Maine Waste Management Agency
Jamy Poth of the City of Austin, Texas
Jeanne Becker of Becker Associates, Illinois
Lisa Skumatz and Cabell Breckinridge of Synergic Resources Corporation (SRC)
Lon Hultgren of the Town of Mansfield, Connecticut
Greg Harder of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Thomas Kusterer of the Montgomery County Government, Maryland
Robert Arner of the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission
64
APPENDIX A
revenue, then no matter how far waste collection costs drop, they see unit pricing as
an added cost.
State of MN: What I have found in Minnesota, and it’s true with a lot of waste issues, is that we
have the true believers and then we have the skeptics. The two groups are pretty
much cemented before the discussion even begins. So, how do you get them to move?
I’m not sure. But mandates at either the state, county, or city level can work.
SRC: Maybe one of the ways to help get past public opposition is to work with members of
citizen groups or “green groups” to start a groundswell of support for the program.
Have some success stories from other communities. This can help make it so that the
politicians supporting unit pricing are going with the tide rather than bucking the system.
Citizen Education
Did you use ad hoc citizen advisory groups, focus groups, surveys, and things of that sort
before you got started?
Austin, TX: Yes, in fact, the way we introduced the program (this takes a lot of leg work but is
extremely important) is that we contacted neighborhood and civic associations, as
well as our recycling block leaders. Just coming up with the list of associations was a
task. We produced an eight-minute video on unit pricing and played the video at the
neighborhood meetings. We had real people talking about what was about to hap-
pen. We got a lot of feedback by showing that tape. We carried out two focus group
surveys, including one on larger families, an issue that many people want to hear
more about. We experimented with soliciting feedback that was recorded on a tele-
phone voice mail system. This is effective because, believe it or not, people are not
that hesitant to record their views. It is also cost-effective, since we use the telephone
answering tree for our other programs as well. The voice mail is a call-automated sys-
tem, so the caller presses “7” to f ind out when our brush pick up date is or “2” to
f ind out how to exchange carts. Many of the questions asked are just that simple. As
you review your communications and outreach system, it makes sense to look into
voice mail.
Costs of Public Education

How much money was budgeted for unit pricing education? Also, in developing your outreach
efforts in-house, how many staff members did you devote to education and public relations?
Austin, TX: Our educational costs ranged from $6 to $8 per household per year in the early
years. Most of those costs were start-up costs. We saved a lot of money by doing all
of our work in-house—designing a user-friendly name and a regular way of communi-
cating in our pilot program. However, this in-house approach meant that we were con-
strained from using mass media such as TV and radio. We did not have the capacity
to develop a TV commercial that said, “Here is how you participate in the new pro-
gram.” I really doubt that many communities phasing in their unit pricing program
will f ind a mass media program useful because unit pricing can require a com-
plex explanation. Instead, we use mass media only with our generic recycling and
A PP E N DI CE S 65
APPENDIX A
yard trimmings messages—simple messages such as “Either leave it on the lawn or compost
it.” We had three full-time staff members for education. One person was assigned to pub-
lic relations, another was a graphic artist that participated in many things, and I was the
planner. Also, we utilized volunteers (such as recycling block leaders or neighborhood
association presidents) who provided the leg work in getting the word out. You would be
surprised how interested the volunteers are in doing something. We produced our video
out-of-house because we didn’t have the necessary cameras.
Seattle, WA: Seattle spends $3.25 per household per year on public education, but that is actually
high because a portion of that money goes to educating commercial and transfer sta-
tions. So it’s probably under $3. But if you can piggyback some of these things, you
can reduce your costs even further. Postage is very expensive, so if you can tag post-
age for the unit pricing message along with something else, it’s even cheaper.
Pasadena, CA: I’d like to emphasize that it is absolutely key to put yourself on the f iring line with the
customers. They pay the fees. When we went to the community we assured them,
“We’re not taking anything away from you. We are giving you the opportunity to
have more control over your costs. You cut your trash down, you cut your trash bill
down.” You need to listen, take the abuse, but then once the people actually experi-
ence the program, they become converts, they don’t want to go back. Either you take
the time up front to educate, or you take it later with operational diff iculties once
the program is underway.
Getting Ready for Unit Pricing

What about communities that don’t have unit pricing now?
Knoxville, TN: My fear is that a lot of what’s being discussed here may be diff icult to apply to most
cities in the South. In Tennessee, for example, we did a needs assessment of all the
counties, and we found, f irst of all, that the waste composition was very different
from the rest of the country. Only about 25 percent to 35 percent of the total waste
stream was residential. Also, there is no city-wide curbside recycling, very little yard
trimmings recycling, no household hazardous waste collection, and only one regional
materials recovery facility. In addition, our landf ill tipping fees average only about
$25/ton even though we have adopted Subtitle D landf ill regulations. Our land values
are just a whole lot less than other areas of the country, for now at least. I don’t
think Tennessee is a lot different than most states in the South.
EPA: I’m glad that you raised that because one of the goals of the guide is to provide infor-
mation for communities that may not yet be at the jumping off point for implement-
ing unit pricing. Any comments?
Pasadena, CA: What do you mean they are not ready? What’s your objective?
Knoxville, TN: Well, to answer the f irst part of your question, in our needs assessment study, we
found that a third of the counties in Tennessee didn’t even have collection service,
period. So it’s hard to talk about unit pricing or recycling. And one of the main rea-
sons why I wanted to go to unit pricing was to be able to f inance some of the extra
municipal solid waste programs. I can’t do it right now, because every time I try
66
APPENDIX A
to get city council to increase property taxes to pay for curbside recycling, I’m com-
peting against stormwater drain programs or something else.
Mansf ield, CT: You can start implementation with a drop-off center. Our community used the closure
of the town’s landf ill to start paying by the bag at the transfer station. Any major facil-
ity or system change could act as a catalyst for a unit pricing system.
Durham, NC: Well, some of the South is ready, and it’s because we have a very progressive state
legislation package to push us. We have a 25 percent goal for July 1993, which not
many of us are going to reach. And a 40 percent goal by 2001. We have to provide
some kind of recycling for our citizens. That’s spurring a lot of interest in our state,
and a lot of people are looking at all the complementary programs. We are trying to
give people as many options as possible (e.g., curbside recycling and garbage collec-
tion once a week, yard trimmings collection, a yard trimmings composting facility,
and a bulky item pick-up). Anything other than sending it to a landf ill. Our landf ill is
going to close, and our county hasn’t been able to site another, so we’re going to be
shipping our waste out of the county. So we have a real big incentive to make sure we
dispose of as little as possible. When you do have a crisis situation, and you have leg-
islation that’s pushing you in that direction on a state level, it can push you into the
cutting edge of things, so it could be that you need to knock on your state legisla-
ture’s door.
Program Options, Issues, and Experiences

Voluntary Versus Mandatory Programs
What are some of the advantages of voluntary programs?
Nor thern VA: There are communities like Plantation, Florida, that have voluntary unit pricing. Volun-
tary programs are more compatible with ideals of personal freedom, and the enforce-
ment costs may be lower. On the other hand, there may be less participation in
voluntary programs. A certain amount of good will is associated with mandatory pro-
grams, since everyone has to participate. Mandatory programs also provide a greater
ability to cover f ixed costs and less of an incentive for illegal dumping. If you have to
pay for at least some municipal solid waste service, then you may be less inclined to
dump your waste.
Time Factors
Does it take less time for your crews to go down the street and get their work done with
the unit-based program?
Austin, TX: Yes. We went from manual collection to semiautomated and estimate that the col-
lection cost savings will be $5.11 per household per year. And we also went from
three collectors to two collectors. That might not sound like much on an individual
household basis, but certainly there is a cost savings. Then, we promote the
A PP E N DI CE S 67
APPENDIX A
educational message of “share your boundary with your neighbor,” so we can make
fewer stops in your neighborhood.
Seattle, WA: I think there are economies when you’re collecting minicans as opposed to toters.
Toters take 20 to 45 seconds apiece, depending on what you’ve got. The minican
takes less time than that, so there are def initely time savings. But, I think that bags
are considerably faster than either toters or minicans.
Bag Programs
What is the largest city with a bag program in Pennsylvania?
State of PA: Probably the largest city in Pennsylvania that has a bag system is Allentown, but it
has a limited per-bag system that is only used for grass clippings. Reading has a popu-
lation of 78,000, but it has a voluntary system in which haulers are required to offer
a variable rate option. Wilkes-Barre has a population of around 48,500, but its
program applies only to residents of apartment buildings. The largest mandatory per-
bag system is probably Carlisle, which has a population of around 20,000. Carlisle is
followed by South White Hall Township, with a population of around 18,000. Most
per-bag systems in Pennsylvania use standard size 30-gallon trash bags. And usually
they put a weight limit of around 40 pounds on the bags so you can’t f ill them up
with bricks.
Stickers
How are stickers working out in your unit pricing program?
State of IL: The advantage of stickers is that there is no billing at all. They’re applicable to vari-
ous types of service, types of containers, and types of waste. With a simple, uniform
schedule, stickers could be ordered through the mail. Or somebody could buy 50 stick-
ers at a time from a hauler or from the local grocery store. The stickers are easy to
keep and they are not going to rot. Often times, the haulers can’t read and write,
and so stickers are very simple. Since every second they spend at a stop is money to
them, the more data collection or enforcement that you require haulers per stop, the
less likely they are to do it. It’s a time limit. But stickers are not perfect. The adhe-
sive can be a problem. The hauler might not be able to f ind them. Stickers can be
stolen off of someone else’s garbage bag. And maybe the biggest problem is that peo-
ple could buy a year’s worth of bags in January, and then not buy anymore for the
next several months. It is really hard to have to predict people’s behavior in order to
forecast revenue. The largest community in Illinois that has a sticker program is the
City of Aurora, which has 100,000 people.
Durham, NC: Stickers are interesting because you can take a big bag that you got at the store and
put your garbage in it and put a sticker on it. Then you are reusing that bag and not
generating another waste product.
68
APPENDIX A
Pricing Models
What unit pricing models have you used? And how are the variable costs of providing
services kept low?
State of IL: In Illinois, communities tend to charge what their neighbors do. The rates vary from
$1 to $2 a sticker. I really think they just try it and hope that the price is in the right
ballpark.
State of PA: Most Pennsylvania communities use a bag-based unit pricing system because they see
examples in nearby communities. Carlisle adopted one about three years ago, and
people in the neighboring township actually began clamoring for the same. In fact,
they actually sued the township to give them a bag-based system instead of a f lat-
rate system. People like unit pricing because they see it as being very fair and very
equitable.
SRC: A 30-percent impact on customer costs may be a threshold level at which people
begin responding to unit pricing. In contrast, I’ve seen some communities offer 90-gal-
lon cans as the smallest size and then charge a quarter or a dollar for each additional
30 or 60 gallons. That may be unit pricing in one sense, but it certainly doesn’t
provide much of an incentive for people to source reduce. You can also use a fairly
simple model and then consider some scenarios that give you an idea of what your
rates should be. You don’t have to have a massive rates model; there are communi-
ties working f ine with microcomputer spreadsheets.
Subscription Service Changes

How do you handle it when people want to change their service?
Austin, TX: Do not underestimate how many people will select the smallest cart. Right off the
bat, we went $2,100 in the hole because of all the people who were going to do the
“right thing” and picked 30-gallon carts. In other words, be prepared for your pro-
gram to become successful. Secondly, when it comes to cart exchanges, the start-up
costs for this program are really high. You really need to talk to your politicians and
everyone and get it all in a nice spreadsheet and realize that you’re going to bite the
bullet for the f irst three to six months of the program. We offer a free cart exchange
the f irst time, and then $15 subsequently. But we were estimating that a total of 15
percent ended up changing in Austin. Instead of doing any surveying up front on the
carts, we had to rely on the household size for estimates.
Pasadena, CA: The thing that my staff keeps coming back to me about is the administrative cost of
making changes. Our rule is, you can’t change service levels more often than every
six months. Only every six months, however, even with 27,000 customers, means that
there’s somebody changing every single day. We don’t charge for changing service
right now, but I think that we must begin to charge for changes in order to create a
disincentive. Soon, if you want to change, it’s going to cost you $15 to $25 to make
that change.
A PP E N DI CE S 69
APPENDIX A
Billing
What elements are needed in a successful billing system?
Seattle, WA: When you start unit pricing, determine if there are certain reports that you want to
be able to generate from the billing system and make sure you get that capability inte-
grated in your billing system right away. Later on, this type of modif ication can be
just horrible and extremely expensive.
Mansf ield, CT: Mansf ield originally had a private system, with the haulers doing the billing. When
we implemented our unit pricing program, the town took over billing. We f ind that
one of the side benef its is that we can lien property. The haulers have liked the sys-
tem very much because they know they are going to get paid every month. And that
might be a way to sell it in a community that is also planning to take over the billing.
Seattle, WA: That’s a double-edged sword for us. We do our combined billing with the city’s water
department and drainage and waste water utility. We do have the lien authority and
essentially can turn off the water if somebody doesn’t pay their bill. The problem is
that we have to deal with a lot of complaints from their customers, and it doesn’t al-
ways lead to the best results for us in terms of a quality billing system.
State of MN: In some places in Minnesota, we are using a two-tiered (f ixed plus variable fee)
system that is separate from the garbage collection billing system. The government
collects some of the f ixed costs to offset it.
Cash Flow
How did you project your cash flow over a certain period of time?
Mansf ield, CT: We collect quarterly and in advance. That solves a lot of the cash f low problems.
Seattle, WA: If you’re tight for cash, you need to know what’s coming in and what’s going out. It’s
very important to build in lags in your billing system. There’s going to be some lag
time in how people respond to unit pricing, and that tends to work to your benef it.
You need to be conservative about the rate at which people reduce their solid waste,
particularly customers using the extra can, especially if you have high extra can rates.
And, don’t underestimate the portion of the construction and demolition debris in the
waste stream. Look really hard at wood waste. Wood waste typically comes to your
transfer stations in small loads. It can disappear real fast if you don’t f low control it
or know what’s going on with it.
70
APPENDIX A
Enterprise Funds
What are the key advantages of enterprise funds? Do they help you in tracking costs of
services? Do they make it easier to raise rates than taxes?
Austin, TX: It’s never easy to raise rates, enterprise or not, but from a marketing point of view, if
we have a program that may be a little more sophisticated than what a council mem-
ber had thought about doing and if we can justify that we can pay for it, certainly it’s
easier to get quality proposals for rate changes approved. I think that is the key: it
must be performance-based and used to justify budgets.
Pasadena, CA: It also can be used as a point of leverage, in the sense that we can say we are an en-
terprise. We are a business and we have to charge full costs for our operations.
Seattle, WA: I think it’s easier to get analytical staff, because there is a perception that if you’ve
got big capital programs and big resource acquisition programs, then it tends to be
easier to support getting people like that. The same is true with computer systems. It
tends to be easier to support those, which is real helpful.
Mansf ield, CT: Our municipal solid waste enterprise fund has grown, matured, and is now supporting
other activities, such as litter control. The downside to this is that policy makers may
look to healthy off-line funds for support in the struggle to fund various other commu-
nity programs.
Municipal Versus Private Haulers

Does a municipal program have more of a revenue-cost cushion than a private hauler?
Mansf ield, CT: I wouldn’t say more cushion, but def initely more control over costs. We took over a
private system and added recycling collection and still kept the rates the same. Our
unit pricing program provided more service for the same price as the “free market”
system. Mansf ield contracts with two private haulers to implement its system.
Pasadena, CA: You can’t assume that there are a lot of cushions. In Pasadena, we operate like a busi-
ness and must be competitive. Now, if your municipality owns a landf ill, you can f ind
a little subsidy. But, if you do full cost accounting, then you know your true cost of op-
eration. Then if you decide you need a cushion, that is part of the decision-making
process. Another thing is, don’t underestimate the sophistication of the private
haulers. If you work very carefully with them, then you can learn a lot together. For
example, I’m working with my commercial haulers very closely, because we have
commercial recycling requirements. We’re planning to adopt unit pricing in the com-
mercial sector for the same reason—to encourage waste reduction and recycling. So
commercial haulers need some help from us, but they also should be part of the proc-
ess of gathering and sharing information.
State of IL: One of the differences between municipal systems and private haulers is that with the
municipal system, you have a captive audience, and you can reach economies of
scale. This is especially important for some of the programs we’ve talked about, such
as Austin, Pasadena, and Seattle: all are larger population bases where a hauler can
A PP E N DI CE S 71
APPENDIX A
reach economies of scale. This is not the situation, however, in the Midwest. In Minne-
sota, Wisconsin, and Illinois, outside of the metropolitan areas, the problem is that
you have much smaller communities of several hundred or a few thousand people.
Second, many of these communities use multiple private haulers. The goal of some
communities is to keep every hauler in business, even if it’s only one guy with one truck.
State of PA: A few months ago, I talked with a group representing waste haulers from Pennsylva-
nia. I wasn’t sure what their attitudes would be toward unit pricing. It turns out they
actually like the idea, but their great fear was the uncertainty and risk from having a
straight price per bag (proportional) program. They were much more favorable to-
ward the idea of having a two-tiered system (i.e., f ixed rate plus a per bag fee) that
would better allow them to recover their f ixed costs.
Ways To Use Local Ordinances

How can your local government, city council, or state legislature help?
Pasadena, CA: In order to protect business for waste haulers and recyclers, communities can
pass ordinances that require a franchise to do business. In this way, local govern-
ments can help create a level playing f ield. We designed an ordinance that makes
haulers buy franchises from the city. We put as much f lexibility into the ordinance as
possible, but, at the same time, established some sort of guidelines. This assures that eve-
ryone’s working under the same terms and conditions, whether it’s one person, one
truck hauler, or a bigger hauling f irm.
Seattle, WA: Another way to help smaller haulers is by stabilizing transfer station rates and dis-
posal rates for reasonably long periods of time. This approach uses authority from
state and local governments to insulate haulers from a lot of risk.
State of MN: If your goal is to encourage source reduction, you might have to employ mandates.
This is especially important when budgets are tight, since both composting and recy-
cling cost real money. As an example, in Minneapolis and St. Paul, they enacted ordi-
nances that require food establishments to have food packaging that is either
returnable, reusable, or recyclable—that’s really a cutting edge area. Also, don’t for-
get to amend your solid waste ordinance to allow for backyard composting and set up
some standards and advertise them to protect against rodents and odor.
Methods of Enforcement
Are you finding that illegal dumping is a big issue?
Pasadena, CA: I think the key here is not to associate illegal diversion with variable rates. There is
always going to be some amount of illegal dumping, especially in hard economic
times. So you have a multitude of factors that are contributing to what is generally
called illegal dumping. The key here is education and providing alternatives such as le-
gal diversions (for example, recycling and composting) and constructive source reduc-
tion actions.
72
APPENDIX A
State of ME: Enforcement efforts can be made more cost-effective through publicity. It only takes
one enforcement instance along with a lot of big publicity to send a loud message to
people who might be thinking about illegally dumping. In Maine we had a very large
investigation on private haulers who were hauling to other municipal landf ills with
lower fees. The investigation was blown up in the press, with nightly TV coverage. It
stopped a lot of the illegal dumping in other communities.
Mansf ield, CT: We have a part-time garbage enforcement agent who works a couple days a week on
enforcement and public education.
State of MN: In all fairness, I want to stress that it’s not unit pricing per se that is driving illegal
dumping. It is also driven by growing restrictions on what you can put in the garbage
can. I believe restrictions may have more effect on illegal dumping than unit pricing.
What People Really Do With Their Trash

People say, “My neighbor is the last one who goes to work, and he’s going to put his
garbage in my can.” I have also had professional people say that they are planning to
take their trash to work. So how do we address these concerns?
Mansf ield, CT: Again, I would like to underscore that in our experience, neighbors have not put their
garbage in the cans of other neighbors. We have had some calls—not many—from people
who swore that their neighbor had put additional recyclables in front of the caller’s
bins. We investigated and found out it was the hauler who had put all the bins on one
side of the street so that he could make one stop.
Austin, TX: We did a study that measured what households would do with garbage that could
not f it in their subscription cans. Extra trash had to be labeled with stickers that
were purchased for $2 each. We received 554 responses to our survey and got the
following results:
• 32 percent used the stickers and paid for their excess trash disposal.
• 29 percent never had excess garbage and never had to use stickers.
• 14 percent saved their excess garbage until the next trash pickup.
• 11 percent stomped the extra garbage into their carts.
• 5 percent threw their extra garbage out at a neighbor’s or friend’s.
• 3 percent threw the extra garbage away at work.
We also found that most excess garbage came from households that subscribed to
larger, 90-gallon carts. We knew that most 90-gallon carts were purchased by house-
holds with f ive members or less, so we decided that excess garbage was not a prob-
lem created by large households that might not be able to reduce waste. Instead, we
think some families simply choose not to respond to unit pricing—some families decide
that they would rather pay more for larger carts and extra disposal than recycle
or reduce waste.
A PP E N DI CE S 73
APPENDIX A
Integrating Unit Pricing With Complementary

MSW Programs
Yard Trimmings Programs
What’s the most ef fective complementary program that you’ve used with unit pricing
and would recommend?
State of IL: Yard trimmings systems (pay-by-the-bag) can easily be implemented as programs that
are complementary to unit pricing. If the household properly manages its yard trim-
mings by composting or keeping grass clippings on its lawns (grasscycling), it can
avoid disposal costs without much effort. Second, a yard trimmings system costs al-
most nothing for the community, except relatively low infrastructure costs. And a yard
trimmings system can reduce the total amount of residential waste by up to 30 per-
cent, depending on where you live and how great a quantity of yard trimmings you
have initially. I would say that if you had only one program to go along with unit pric-
ing, it should focus on yard trimmings. Illinois instituted a ban on yard trimmings.
Everyone thought we’d need a lot of new compost sites and thousands of bags to
pick up yard trimmings. In fact, about 60 percent of all homes started grasscycling.
Overnight, households just stopped picking up grass clippings, and costs for picking it
up plummeted.
Knoxville, TN: In our little city, we generate 20,000 tons of large brush and limbs every year, but we
haven’t budgeted for composting equipment. Any suggestions?
State of IL: Instead of buying chippers, you can stockpile the brush at the compost site. It doesn’t
smell so you can store it for a long period of time. Also, you can rent a big chipper or
tub grinder several times a year and then use your mulch for landscaping.
Pasadena, CA: In Pasadena, 15 to 20 percent of the population has signed up for separate collection
of yard trimmings. They put out an average of 50 pounds per household per year. If I
could increase my participation in this program to 30 percent and everybody put out
50 pounds, then that’s a big savings on landf ill tipping fees. In addition, yard trim-
mings are dense compared with plastic, which is light relative to its volume. If your ul-
timate goal is to keep tonnage out of the landf ill, then, dollar for dollar, you have a
lot bigger bang for the buck with a yard trimmings program.
State of PA: In Pennsylvania, many municipalities use their bag system to collect yard trimmings,
too. In Carlisle, residents put the leaves in plastic bags and the hauler dumps them
out of the bags. Then the hauler actually puts the bags back on the curb so that peo-
ple can reuse the bags. And, in Allentown, they use paper bags that break down in
the composting process. Some communities use a vacuum system. It varies from
place to place, but plastic bags are pretty widely accepted in Pennsylvania.
Austin, TX: Our yard trimmings do not get burned or go into a landf ill. We mix them with our sew-
age sludge and create a product called “Dillo Dirt” (short for Armadillo). We bag
74
APPENDIX A
it and sell it at nurseries or use it for our city parks. The Dillo Dirt program is very
popular. People like to know that their grass will be used to def lect program costs.
It’s not a big money maker, but it does do a little better than break even.
Seattle, WA: I’m surprised that people are talking about leaving their yard trimmings on their
lawns, because in Seattle that’s not a real common phenomenon. Households either
compost or use curbside collection. We distribute free compost bins, which could be
one reason; another could be differences in climate.
Recycling Programs
What about adding a recycling program?
Pasadena, CA: If you don’t have curbside recycling in place, you might look at other alternatives. It
is extremely expensive to put in curbside recycling.
Mansf ield, CT: Well, we found a big increase in recycling participation when we went from drop-off
recycling to curbside pickup, so I don’t think our unit pricing program would work as
well without curbside pickup of recyclables.
Seattle, WA: I think that on the issue of cost of services, you need to know, as best you can, what
services customers are willing to pay for. Then, if you provide a broad enough range
of services at different prices and levels of convenience, you can best serve the major-
ity of people’s needs. I think people are willing to pay for convenience, and don’t un-
derestimate that.
Also, Seattle has risk-sharing clauses built in to its recycling contract where the
haulers either receive an extra payment or pay us a credit, depending on whether
the economy indices and market prices are good or bad. That actually increased our
f inancial exposure beyond what we like, but we felt that it was the appropriate thing
to do, given the state of markets right now.
State of IL: For some very rural communities it is prohibitively expensive to do curbside collection
once a week. In central Illinois, communities have curbside collection of recyclables
once a month, and they found that it’s actually working quite well. When they went
to unit pricing, they just of fered refuse bag collection once a week and recyclables
collection once a month.
Household Hazardous Waste Programs

Some communities already have household hazardous waste pickup or drop-of f. How
can these programs work with a unit pricing program?
Durham, NC: You may be able to share expenses with other city agencies. In addition to our yard
trimmings, curbside recycling, and bulky item pickup programs, we have a household
hazardous waste program. The payment for this came from our wastewater treat-
ment department, not from our landf ill tipping fee. The waste staff are just as con-
cerned about hazardous waste going into the wastewater system as we are about it
going into the landf ill. We may have to change that in the future and split it, rather
A PP E N DI CE S 75
APPENDIX A
than let them pay the whole bill. But it was a cushion for some time. We are also
working on a permanent collection system on a regional basis. We hope to get a four-
county region together and see if we can get a price break. We would set up perma-
nent sites and negotiate with a contractor, saying, “We’re going to give you a million
people’s worth of household hazardous waste. Can you give us a better price than
dealing with one county, or one city”? Then we can reduce our costs and provide
more frequent service to more people.
Keeping the Message Simple

How do you avoid confusing your customers when you add a program to your unit
pricing system?
Austin, TX: Through mass media we talk about complementary programs such as recycling and
our Dillo Dirt program. But for unit pricing, and specif ically how to participate in
“Pay-As-You-Throw,” we targeted our audiences more directly by using direct mail, a
newsletter, and doorhangers. In these, we explained how to set out your wheeled
cart, where it should face, and how to share with a neighbor (i.e., go ahead and pull
two carts together on a neighbor boundary at the yard so that it’s fewer stops for the
collector). So, we steer topical information to specif ically reach the affected audi-
ence. We choose to use easy terms to promote the program. It’s important to keep
messages simple and clear.
Accommodating Groups With Special Needs

Older Households
How do you cater to the needs of senior citizens?
Pasadena, CA: Our older population began to have some concerns about their ability to actually
move their trash and pay for their trash. What we came up with seems to be working
well. We sent a note that said, “If you are over 62 years of age or if you are disabled,
call for special rates.” Almost 10 percent of our population has called and about 5
percent are on the special rates right now. The special rate for senior citizens is a 10-
percent discount. They can choose any service option they want, because we found
that their needs varied.
Durham, NC: What about the people who don’t have driver’s licenses, or are temporarily disabled;
they broke their leg and it will be six months before they are mobile again? And,
also, do you go back and check to see if the older person has died or if a young per-
son is now living there and getting this service?
Pasadena, CA: First, if they don’t have a driver’s license, we ask for some kind of ID card or birth
certif icate. People send all kinds of things; they’re very good about wanting to show
you that they qualify. Secondly, our eligibility criteria say that if there is a younger
person in the home that can roll the trash for the disabled, then that household does
76
APPENDIX A
not qualify. You have to be disabled, and you can’t have a caregiver who is able to do
this. A lot is based on trust, although we do expect that we will do some followup, de-
pending upon how many people subscribe to the service. As far as people with tempo-
rary needs, our basic message is if your need is less than six months, the administrative
costs of making that change are greater than the actual discount that we could pro-
vide. But we do make exceptions on a one-to-one basis. Our customer service reps do
a tremendous amount of talking, asking a lot of questions and dissuading people. The
idea behind their asking questions is as much to help as to provide disincentives to
taking advantage of the system. So we try to do it in a very courteous, polite way. Af-
ter a while, most people get tired of answering the questions, but if they can answer
all the questions then we do try to help them.
How large is your customer service department?

Pasadena, CA: For 27,000 residences, we have three people. One person answers the phones out
front and dispatches on the radio for very basic questions. For more detailed ques-
tions, I have two more individuals who can respond. But, if the question is very diff icult,
it goes up to another level.
Low-Income Households
How do folks handle the low-income issue?
Seattle, WA: We don’t have any family rates, but we do have a low-income rate. This summer we
qualif ied low-income, elderly, and handicapped customers for rate assistance. We
include all households who are under the federal poverty line.
Pasadena, CA: I would concur that if you’re looking for standards, try to f ind something that is an es-
tablished standard—not something that you create for your city. That’s where we had
problems because Pasadena is a more expensive place to live than other places in the
nation. It’s diff icult to defend a low-income standard if it’s not already established.
Large Households
Could you address the perception that a unit pricing program bashes the family?
SRC: That is a very common question at conferences. I guess to me, that’s an education is-
sue. People who have larger homes pay more for electricity. People who have more
people in the house pay more for water and more at the grocery store. The question
is not so much aren’t we going to be hurting these families but rather should small
families continue to subsidize these large families? I think that you need to turn the
question around.
A PP E N DI CE S 77
APPENDIX A
Inner Cities
What about our inner cities?
Seattle, WA: Monthly reports in Seattle show that illegal dumping is more concentrated in certain
areas than others, and it tends to be in lower income areas of the city.
Mansf ield, CT: Our toughest enforcement problems are in multi-family housing because of the tran-
sient population and diff iculty in communicating with individual tenants, as opposed
to single-family residents.
Pasadena, CA: Pay special attention to any area of more transitory populations. They are going to
have special needs and special demands. We may need more frequent neighborhood
cleanups there.
Seattle, WA: Also, it is effective to use community groups, and to provide grants to community
councils. Often, they can do it for less money, and there is a lot of community pride
in dealing with the problem. City government is not great at doing it, but community
groups can do it.
Multi-Family Units
What has been your experience with applying unit pricing to multi-family housing?
Seattle, WA: We’ve had a broad range of problems providing unit pricing to residents of multi-fam-
ily housing. These include contract relations, design, enforcement, and deciding
whether the city or haulers will serve these units. Also, if you’re going to do unit pric-
ing in a big city with lots of multi-family housing, you have to have a reliable billing sys-
tem that the customer service reps can use. We’ve got 9 inspectors and 22 customer
service representatives, so we’ve got a big staff. But we have 300,000 collections a
week, so even 1 percent of that turning up as phone calls can be a problem. We get
about 650 calls a day from customers, and we can deal with that.
Pasadena, CA: I have a problem with landlords who call me when their units are empty. They say,
“I’m not using the unit because I’m remodeling it right now, so I shouldn’t have to
pay for trash.” But I still have to have the same operation; I still have to pass by the
unit. So, when you set up a unit pricing program, be sure to educate your landlords
about this.
78
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B B
Putting the Blocks Together:
Additional Examples
I
n Part III of this guide, a six-step process for assembling a unit
pricing program entitled “Putting the Blocks Together” was
introduced. The six steps demonstrated how to combine
projections of cost, demand, and service levels in order to
arrive at a tentative rate structure for a unit pricing program. The six
steps provided a general introduction to the process of designing a
rate structure but did not demonstrate how to accommodate the
specif ic needs of your community when designing a unit pricing
program.
This appendix consists of three examples to assist decision-makers in

tailoring their programs to the specif ic waste management goals and
needs of their communities. Each of the three examples outlines a
community goal and the modif ications to the design and assembly
process considered necessary to meet that goal. The three examples
are:
• A community that wants to keep revenues higher than costs as

it moves from a traditional waste collection program to a unit
pricing program (the transition period.
• A community that wants to provide complementary solid waste

services such as a recycling collection program.
• A community that decides to accommodate citizens with

special needs within its unit pricing program.
A PP E N DI CE S 79
APPENDIX B
Designing a rate structure that meets the particular goals and
concerns of your community is important. Use the three examples to get
a sense of how to customize the six-step process to better meet the
demands of your community.
• Step 1: Demand. Estimate total amount of waste generated in

the “steady-state.”
• Step 2: Services. Determine the components of your unit
pricing program.
• Step 3: Costs. Estimate the costs of your unit pricing program.
• Step 4: Rates. Develop a tentative unit pricing rate structure.
• Step 5: Revenues. Calculate the revenues from unit pricing.
• Step 6: Balance. Evaluate and adjust your preliminary unit
pricing program.
Focusing on the Transition Period

During the transition from a traditional waste management program
to a unit pricing program, households gradually adjust their habits to the
new opportunities and costs introduced by unit pricing. The demand for
services from local municipal solid waste agencies might settle to new,
lower levels during this time. The result can sometimes be a drop in
revenues for the local agency. Many communities introducing unit
pricing need to know that revenue shortfalls, however, will not be
excessive during the transition period, nor in the subsequent steady-state.
If a community requires the revenue from its unit pricing rates to

cover costs during both the transition period and the steady-state period,
it needs to focus on Steps 1 and 3 of “Putting the Blocks Together.”
During Step 1, the community needs to produce a detailed and accurate
estimate of the degree to which households will reduce solid waste
generation to better anticipate changes in revenues that will result from
the unit pricing program. To acquire reliable estimates for this step, the
community can draw on the experience of other communities that have
introduced similar complementary programs, public education efforts,
container options, and special services.
A detailed estimate from Step 1 will also help the community

accurately anticipate the rate at which costs will settle downward. In
Step 3, the community needs to look at how a reduction in waste volume
will lower costs, such as transportation and tipping fees. Unit pricing
planners then need to test tentative rate structures to find the correct
balance between decreasing revenues and decreasing costs and to keep
the local solid waste agency’s revenues in line with costs during each
quarter of the transition period, as well as the subsequent steady-state.
80
APPENDIX B
Adding Complementary Services

Communities that have a clear mandate for waste management can
sometimes pursue a program that combines source reduction and
recycling. For example, the citizens of a community might demand a
combined program of unit pricing and curbside pickup of recyclables. To
develop a rate structure that would accommodate a complementary
curbside recycling program, the community would need to accurately
identify all of its waste management costs and carefully weigh all of its
revenue-raising options to determine if such a program was feasible.
In Step 3 of “Putting the Blocks Together,” the community can

explore the potential for combining equipment, crews, billing, and
routes for both trash collection and recycling pickup. Careful scheduling
or innovative use of equipment could significantly reduce costs. The
community should also use this step to examine the financial trade-offs
of the two programs; for example, a recycling pickup program could
lower the total amount of waste being landfilled or combusted, reducing
the community’s tipping fees to help cover the costs of providing
recycling collection.
In Step 4, the community is presented with a variety of pricing

options. These should be examined in light of your overall goals for unit
pricing. For example, if one of your primary goals is to significantly reduce
household waste generation, you can consider charging for all collection
services. Setting substantial per-bag charges for both trash and recyclables
will encourage households to reduce waste. If, however, recycling is
provided for free, citizens would have less incentive to reduce the
amounts of recyclables it generates and the municipal solid waste stream
(trash plus recyclables) could actually rise in volume, driving collection
costs up. Another pricing option consists of setting the per-bag charge
for trash higher than the per-bag charge for recyclables. This rate
structure encourages households to separate recyclables from other trash,
thereby reducing the portion of their household waste that the
community sends to the landfill.
These examples show how important it is to treat unit pricing rates as

part of a comprehensive pricing system that takes into account all solid
waste services. Charging citizens for both recycling and waste removal
adds complexity and cost to providing municipal solid waste services.
The alternative, however, a unit pricing rate structure that does not
integrate waste collection charges with those for curbside recycling, can
prove expensive, inequitable, and ineffective at achieving the
community’s goals.
A PP E N DI CE S 81
APPENDIX B
Addressing Special Needs

A community that wishes to assist low-income households that might
have trouble paying for unit pricing needs to make several adjustments
to the basic model to develop a rate structure that meets its goals.
In Step 1, the community must first determine how to qualify

households for lower collection charges. To make this decision, the
community should collect information on the number of low-income
households that could qualify for lower charges. The community can use
these numbers to adjust revenue estimates and finally arrive at a rate
structure that provides sufficient revenue. Rates should be set to provide
an incentive for source reduction in both low- and high-income
households. However, the community might anticipate that lower rates
for low-income households will provide less incentive to use source
reduction. If this is the case, estimates of the drop in demand for waste
collection services should be revised to meet the effect of the low-income
rate.
In Step 3, the community needs to examine the potentially greater

costs of introducing a low-income rate. Such a rate not only will
decrease anticipated revenues but also require additional administrative
costs to identify and separately bill low-income households.
Administrative costs can be kept down if an established income cutoff is
used or other local agencies have already identified the low-income
households in the community. Rent assistance or income assistance
programs might have already identified the low-income households in a
community.
82
APPENDIXC C
APPENDIX
Definitions
Bulky waste items - Large items of refuse including, but not limited to, appliances, furniture,
large auto parts, nonhazardous construction and demolition materials, and trees that cannot be
handled by normal solid waste processing, collection, and disposal methods.
Commercial sector - Includes schools, hospitals, retail establishments, hotels, and
restaurants.
Compost - Discarded organic material that has been processed into a soil-like material used as
a soil amendment or mulch.
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris - Includes concrete, asphalt, tree stumps and
other wood wastes, metal, and bricks. (C&D debris is excluded from the definition of municipal
solid waste used by EPA and the National Recycling Coalition.)
Disposal - Landfilling or combusting waste instead of recycling or composting it.
Diversion rate - A measure of the amount of waste material being diverted for recycling/com-
posting compared with the total amount that was previously thrown away.
Enterprise fund - An independent budget dedicated for a special purpose or activity, such as
a local municipal solid waste program. The local agency becomes reliant on the revenue it raises
through unit pricing or tipping fees and does not receive financial support from the general fund
of the local government.
Flow control - A legal or economic means by which waste is directed to particular destina-
tions (for example, an ordinance requiring that certain wastes be sent to a particular landfill facil-
ity).
Full cost accounting - The total accounting of all costs and revenues involved in municipal
solid waste management, allowing for a standard treatment of the capital costs, future obliga-
tions, and indirect costs.
Household hazardous waste - Products containing hazardous substances that are used and
disposed of by individuals, not industrial consumers. These products include, but are not limited
to, certain kinds of paints, solvents, batteries, and pesticides.
Integrated waste management - The complementary use of a variety of practices to han-
dle municipal solid waste safely and effectively. Integrated waste management techniques include
source reduction, recycling (including composting), combustion, and landfilling.
A PP E N DI CE S 83
APPENDIX C
Landfilling - The disposal of solid waste at engineered facilities in a series of compacted layers
on land that is covered with soil daily. Fill areas are carefully prepared to prevent nuisances or
public health hazards, and clay and/or synthetic liners are used to prevent releases to ground
water.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) - Waste generated in households, commercial estab-
lishments, institutions, and businesses. MSW includes used paper, discarded cans and bottles,
food scraps, yard trimmings, and other items. Industrial process wastes, agricultural wastes, min-
ing wastes, and sewage sludge are not MSW.
Participation rate - The portion of households that take part in a given program. Often
refers to households actively participating in a curbside collection program for recyclable
materials.
Recyclables - Products or materials that can be collected, separated, and processed to be used
as raw materials in the manufacture of new products. The recyclable option should be available
to the majority of residents through curbside recycling programs or fixed recycling centers.
Recycled content - The portion of a package’s weight (excluding coatings, ink, labels, stick-
ers, adhesives, or closures) that is composed of postconsumer recycled material.
Residential waste - Waste from single-family and multi-family residences and their yards.
Source reduction (Waste prevention) - The design, manufacture, purchase, or use of ma-
terials to reduce the amount and/or toxicity of waste. Source reduction techniques include reus-
ing items, minimizing the use of products that contain hazardous compounds, using only what
is needed, extending the useful life of a product, and reducing unneeded packaging.
Tipping fees - The fees, usually dollars per ton, charged to haulers for delivering materials
at recovery or disposal facilities.
Waste generated - Sum of waste recovered and waste disposed of.
Waste stream - A term describing the total flow of solid waste from homes, businesses, insti-
tutions, and manufacturing plants that must be recycled, burned, or disposed of in landfills; or
any segment thereof, such as the “residential or recyclable” waste stream.
Yard trimmings - The component of solid waste composed of grass clippings, leaves,
twigs, branches, and garden refuse.
84
APPENDIX
APPENDIX DD
Bibliography
Blume, D. R. 1992. Under what conditions should cities adopt volume-based pricing for residen-
tial waste collection. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Management and Budget.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. 1991. Disposal cost fee study: final report.
Boston, MA: Tellus Institute.
Goddard, H. C. 1990. Integrating solid waste management: incentives for reduced waste, in-
creased recycling, and extension of landfill life. Proceedings from the First U.S. Conference
of MSW Management: Solutions for the ’90s. Washington, DC.
Howard, S. 1988. Financing integrated solid waste management systems. Paper presented at
the Seventh Annual Resource Recovery Conference. Washington, DC: Shearson Lehman Hut-
ton, Inc.
Hsieh, H-N. (No date.) Cost analysis of landfill and its alternatives. Unpublished paper. New-
ark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology.
Jacalone, D. P. 1992. Per unit pricing: an overview of operational issues. Paper presented at
EPA’s Second U.S. Conference on MSW Management: Moving Ahead. Washington, DC.
League of California Cities. 1992. Financing strategies for integrated waste management pro-
grams: answers for communities. Sacramento, CA: League of California Cities.
Repetto, R., et al. 1992. Green fees: how a tax shift can work for the environment and the
economy. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Discussion and summary of economic incen-
tives to promote recycling and source reduction. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Policy
Analysis.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Charging households for waste collection and
disposal: the effects of weight or volume-based pricing on solid waste management. NTIS
PB91-111484. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (No date.) Methods of predicting solid waste charac-
teristics. Stock no. 5502-0048. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Variable rates in solid waste: handbook for solid
waste officials, Volume 1: Executive summary. EPA530-SW-90-084A. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
A PP E N DI CE S 85
APPENDIX 8.3

New York State
Reuse
Directory
Profiles of
Reuse & Remanufacturing Organizations
Serving New York’s
Residents & Businesses
Created by
New York State Reuse Directory
1st Edition
September 22, 2009
Page 2 of 46

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
INFORMATIONAL RESOURCES
Advocacy & Support. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Education. ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Research & Development. .................................................................................................................................................................. 5
REUSE ORGANIZATIONS
Architectural Salvage . ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4-5
Arts & School Supplies .................................................................................................................................................................... 5-6
Books .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7-8
Bridal ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Building Materials ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9-11
Children’s Items ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11-12
Clothing (see also Household Items & Clothing) ................................................................................................................. 12-15
Commercial Materials & Industrial Surlpus .................................................................................................................................. 16
Computers .................................................................................................................................................................................... 17-18
Food ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 19-20
Household Items & Clothing .................................................................................................................................................... 21-26
Medical Supplies & Equipment ........................................................................................................................................................ 27
Planting Supplies . ............................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Set Materials ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Sewing Supplies & Equipment ......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Sporting Equipment . .......................................................................................................................................................................... 29
REMANUFACTURING ORGANIZATIONS
Office Furniture ................................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Office Supplies & Equipment ..................................................................................................................................................... 30-31
Packaging ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 31-33
Wood ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 33-34
Page 3 of 46

CONTACT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................................. 34
Page 4 of 46

INTRODUCTION
The New York State Reuse Directory profiles over 200 organizations and offers the reader a range of
reuse and remanufacturing services arranged by the material categories. By donating, buying, selling or
trading used and surplus items (reusables) through any of these organizations you will be helping to
protect the environment, care for those in need, create jobs, and save money on purchase and/or disposal
costs. Please read on, and be sure to choose to reuse!
Notes: While our research was extensive, this is not an exhaustive list. Please check your local listings for
more thrift, resale and consignment shops in your area. Additionally we have provided addresses for only
those reuse organizations that have a retail operations.
INFORMATIONAL RESOURCES
Advocacy & Support
Reuse Alliance (National)
A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION THAT STRENGTHENS THE REUSE

SECTOR BY CONNECTING, SUPPORTING AND PROMOTING ITS
MEMBERS. THEY DO THIS BY ACTING AS A NETWORKING
CONDUIT THAT BUILDS RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN REUSE
ORGANIZATIONS, PROVIDING CAPACITY BUILDING TRAINING,
COMMUNICATING THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE BENEFITS OF
REUSE, AND ADVOCATING FOR PRO-REUSE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS.
• Type of services: Advocacy & Support
• Organization type: A nonprofit organization established in 2005.
• Contact information: 917.238.6218, info@reusealliance.org
• Website: www.reusealliance.org
Education
Reinvention Station at the Sciencenter (NYS)

A museum exhibition that encourages the reduction of waste and provides information on reuse and recycling
facilities.
• Type of services: Education
Page 5 of 46

• Contact information: 607.272.0600, info@sciencenter.org
• Website: www.sciencenter.org/exhibits/reinventionstation.asp
Research & Development
National Institute of Remanufacuring and Resource Recovery (National)
A NATIONAL CENTER FOR APPLIED RESEARCH IN

REMANUFACTURING; THEY PROVIDE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGIES AND TOOLS FOR EFFICIENT AND COST-
EFFECTIVE REMANUFACTURING.
• Type of services: Research & Development
• Organization type: A nonprofit organization.
• Contact information: 585.475.5385, info@cims.rit.edu
• Website: www.reman.rit.edu
Page 6 of 46

REUSE ORGANIZATIONS
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Parts Warehouse (Albany)

A nonprofit architectural salvage warehouse that accepts donations of historic salvaged parts, which would
otherwise have been destroyed or lost, then sell them to architects, contractors, designers and do-it-
yourselfers.
• Type of services: Reuse via ongoing materials collection (physical space)
• Materials handled: Architechual salvage; specifically salvaged doors, windows, plumbing fixtures, lighting
fixtures, wood trim, appliances, and antiques.
• Who can offer reusables? Open to all
• Who can obtain reusables? Open to all
• Contact information: 518.465.2987, cjcarson@historic.albany.org
• Address: 89 Lexington Avenue Albany, NY 12206
• Website: www.historic-albany.org/warehous.html
Demolition Depot (NYC)

A retail outlet that sells salvaged household fixtures used for the renovation of period interiors and exteriors.
They reclaim these building elements at a large scale for resale and reuse in residential and commercial
building, restoration, and decorating projects.
• Materials handled: Architectural salvage; specifically salvaged doors, windows, plumbing fixtures, lighting
• Organization type: A for-profit organization.
• Contact information: 212.860.1138, info@demolitiondepot.com
• Address: 216 E. 125th Street, NY, NY 10035
• Website: www.demolitiondepot.com
Rehouse Architectural Salvage (Rochester)
Page 7 of 46

An organization that diverts quality reusable antique, vintage and modern building materials from the landfill,
and offers salvaged architectural items through their retail store.
• Organization type: A for-profit organization established in 2007.
• Contact information: 585.288.3080, ReHouseInfo@rehouseny.com
• Address: 1473 E. Main Street, Rochester, NY 14609
• Website: www.rehouseny.com
Significant Elements (Ithaca)
A nonprofit retail store that promotes the reuse of architectural elements when the demolition of a building
cannot be prevented.
• Contact information: 607.277.3450, hi.sigelements@gmail.com
• Address: 212 Center Street, Ithaca NY 14850
• Website: www.significantelements.org
Arts & School Supplies
Hudson Valley Materials Exchange (New Paltz)

A waste prevention organization that fosters community development, art and culture, environmental
protection, and sustainable living through their reuse and education services.
• Materials handled: Art & school supplies; specifically paint, paper, fabric, industrial surplus, office supplies,
media/tech, misc. household items, and some builidng materials.
Page 8 of 46

• Contact information: 845.567.1445, hvme@optonline.net
• Address: 3 Clearwater Road, New Paltz, NY 12561
• Website: www.hvmaterialsexchange.com
Materials for the Arts (NYC)

A supplier of material resources to over 3,800 arts and cultural organizations and public schools. They accept
products and materials from companies that no longer need them and distribute them to artists and
educators that do. In the process, the program diverts hundreds of tons of valuable resources from
NYC’s waste stream each year.
• Contact information: 718.729.3001, info@mfta.nyc.gov
• Website: www.mfta.org
Materials Resource Center (Suffolk)

A nonprofit store dedicated to waste reduction through reuse. They collect unique scrap and surplus
materials from local industry and makes them available to schools, organizations, and the public for
creative learning and hands-on activities.
• Contact information: 631.580.7290, info@materialsresourcecenter.org
• Address: 2111D Lakeland Avenue, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779
Page 9 of 46

• Website: www.materialsresourcecenter.org
PENCIL Box (NYC)

An online program that facilitates material donations from companies or individuals to deserving NYC public
schools. They maintain the mission of their parent organization, PENCIL, by coordinating meaningful
public involvement in New York City public education to improve student achievement.
• Type of services: Reuse via ongoing material match-making (no physical space).
• Materials handled: Art & school supplies; specifically books, musical instruments, computers, furniture, science
equipment, and art supplies.
• Who can obtain reusables? Referral required
• Contact information: 646.638.0565, pencil@pencil.org
• Website: www.thepencilbox.org
WorldVision StoreHouse (NYC)

A community-based resource center that distributes donated new items, mainly from corporate donors, to
local partners and nonprofit organizations that assist families, victims of natural disasters, and whole
communities.
• Materials handled: For school children: clothing, toys, household goods, personal care items, school supplies,
books and backpacks. For families affected by natural disasters and emergencies: blankets, medical supplies,
latex gloves, bottled water, and other essentials.
• Contact information: 718.292.5600, usprograms@worldvision.org
• Website: www.worldvision.org/uspnewyork
Books
Books Through Bars (National)
Page 10 of 46

An all-volunteer collective that provides donated books directly to prisoners nationwide, with a focus on
history and the social sciences.
• Materials handled: Books and media; primarily history and social sciences.
• Contact information: 212.254.3697 x 26, btb@abcnorio.org
• Website: www.abcnorio.org/affiliated/btb.html
Brooklyn Public Library (NYC)

Brooklyn Public Library serves the borough's 2.5 million residents, offering thousands of public programs,
millions of books. Book donations may be put into circulation at the location of receipt or at some other
location within their system, or it may be used for any other purpose, such as sale, at the discretion of the
library.
• Type of services: Reuse, Seasonal material drives
• Materials handled: Books and media (all ages).
• Contact information: 718.230.2100
• Website: www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/support/materials
Housing Works Used Book Café (NYC)

A retail outlet with over 45,000 used and rare books and records, operating as one of New York City’s most
successful and self-sustaining used book operations, with 100% of the profits going to Housing Works (a
nonprofit that provides housing, healthcare, job training, and advocacy for homeless New Yorkers living
with HIV and AIDS).

• Contact information: 347.473.7400 x1, books@housingworks.org
Page 11 of 46

• Address: 126 Crosby Street, NY, NY 10012
• Website: www.housingworks.org/usedbookcafe
Prisoners Reading Encouragement Program (NYC)

A volunteer organization that facilitates ongoing donations of new and gently used books, audiotapes, and
videotapes for prison facilities with which it has an established relationship. Since 2000, they have donated
more than 50,000 books to 23 New York State prisons.
• Contact information: 212.349.6741, info@prisonreader.org
• Website: www.prisonreader.org
Project Cicero (NYC)

A program that creates and enhances classrooms and libraries in under-resourced NYC public schools by an
annual citywide book drive. They also donate books to early learning centers, after-school programs, and
wherever else there is an educational need. The program has placed nearly one million books in 5,500
classrooms, reaching an estimated 180,000 children.
• Type of services: Reuse via seasonal material drives

• Materials handled: Books and media (children’s)
• Contact information: 212.288.6900 X511, info@projectcicero.org
• Website: www.projectcicero.org
Page 12 of 46

Bridal
Bridal Garden (National)

A bridal boutique that sells donated couture and top designer wedding gowns at 50-75% off retail prices.
Bridal Garden is a self-sustaining social enterprise whose mission is to help support educational efforts of
disadvantaged children and profits are used to support the local schools.
• Materials handled: Bridal wear; specificallly couture and designer wedding gowns.
• Contact information: 212.252.0661, info@bridalgarden.org
• Address: 54W. 21st Street, Suite 907, NY, NY 10010
• Website: www.bridalgarden.org
Building Materials
Buffalo Reuse (Buffalo)

A nonprofit that offers deconstruction services and a building materials reuse center. Their role as a
“deconstruction” contractor gets them into the community and working within the neighborhood to
create positive change.
• Materials handled: Building materials; specifically tools, lumber, architectural salvage, appliances, household
furnishings and fixtures.
• Contact information: 716.885.4131, info@buffaloreuse.org
• Address: 298 Northampton Street, Buffalo, NY
Page 13 of 46

• Website: www.buffaloreuse.org/ReSource
Build It Green (NYC)

A retail outlet that sells a wide variety of salvaged and surplus building materials at half or below their original
retail price. The profits from this social enterprise helps support environmental educational through Solar
1, NYC’s first solar-powered education center.
• Address: 3-17 26th Avenue, Astoria, NY 11102
• Contact information: 718.777.0132, greeninfo@bignyc.org
• Website: www.bignyc.org
ERC Community Warehouse (Hoosick Falls)

An organizations that offers pre-owned, second-hand and thrift shop treasures to the community at affordable
prices.
• Contact information: 518.686.7540, info@erccw.com
• Address: 21428 State Route 22, Hoosick Falls, NY 12090
• Website: www.erccw.com
Finger Lakes Reuse (Ithaca)

A community-oriented warehouse, shopping, and educational center where the maximum reuse of materials is
a priority; and where safety, cleanliness, customer service, good business, education, and creativity are
stressed. It is also a place where living wage jobs are created and supported, and where education in the
skills of repair and reuse is offered.
Page 14 of 46

• Contact information: 607.257.9699, info@fingerlakesreuse.org
• Address: 2255 N. Triphammer Mall, Ithaca, NY14850
• Website: http://fingerlakesreuse.org
Habitat for Humanity ReStores (NYS - Multiple Locations)

These nonprofit retail outlets accept donated goods for resale. Most Restores focus on home improvement
goods such as furniture, home accessories, building materials and appliances. Donated goods are sold to
the general public at a fraction of the retail price to help local affiliates fund the construction of Habitat
for Humainty homes within their communities. ReStores provide an environmentally and socially
responsible way to keep reusable materials out of landfills.
• Website: www.habitat.org/cd/env/restore.aspx
• Albany: 454 N Pearl Street, Albany, NY 12204, 518.275.6638
• Buffalo: 501 Amherst St, Buffalo, NY 14207, 716.852.6607
• Corning: 3412 Route 414 Corning, NY 14830, 607.377.5524
• Newburgh: 525a Main Street, New Rochelle, NY 10801845.565.1789
• Rochester: 755 Culver Rd Rochester, NY 14609 585.546.1470
• Schenectady County: 1957 Foster Avenue, Schenectady, NY 12308, 518.395.3412
• Suffolk County: 2111 Lakeland Avenue, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779, 631.521.7789
• Syracuse: 308 Otisco Street, Syracuse, NY 13204, 315.422.2230
• Westchester County: 266 Riverdale Avenue, Yonkers, NY 10704914.636.8335
Page 15 of 46
Rebuilders Source (NYC)

A worker-owned cooperative that strives to create an alternative to landfills by salvaging used home
improvement products and surplus building materials and then re.introducing them back into the
marketplace. They work to coordinate donor and recipient relationships for the purpose of promoting
reuse and resource conservation.
• Organization type: A worker-owned cooperative organization established in 2007.
• Contact information: 718.742.1111, info@rebuilderssource.coop
• Address: 461 Timpson Place, Bronx, NY 10455
• Website: www.rebuilderssource.coop
Rebuilding Together New York City (NYC)

A nonprofit that, in partnership with the community, rehabilitates the houses of low-income homeowners,
particularly people who are physically challenged and elderly, and facilities of nonprofit organizations in
need so that they may live in warmth, safety, and independence. They take thier cue from the old
fashioned idea of “barn-raising,” with skilled and unskilled volunteers assigned to a particular project.
Homeowners and organizations are often amazed at the massive amount of work that can be
accomplished by caring volunteers in a short time.
• Type of services: Reuse via material drives and match-making (limited physical space)
• Contact information: 212.362.1636, info@rebuildingtogethernyc.org
• Website: http://rebuildingtogethernyc.org
Page 16 of 46
Children’s Items
Baby Buggy (NYC)

An organization dedicated to providing families living in poverty with items that help to ensure the safety and
well-being of children from infancy to age 4. They have delivered over 2 million essential items to
thousands of families through a network of over 80 social service partners.
• Materials handled: Children's items; specifically gently used and new children’s (newborn to age 4) clothing,
products, and gear.
• Contact information: 212.736.1777, info@babybuggy.org
• Website: www.babybuggy.org
Kids In Distressed Situations (International)
A global charity that matches retailers, manufacturers, and licensors of youth products with children in need.
They help children, and their families, who are ill, living in poverty, or the victims of natural disasters by
distributing donated surplus merchandise to more than 1,000 nonprofit agencies, such as homeless
shelters, foster-care facilities, hospitals, AIDS clinics, and relief organizations, here and abroad.
• Materials handled: Children's items; specifically surplus children’s clothing and shoes, books, media, and toys.
• Contact information: 212.279.5493, info@kidsdonations.org
• Website: www.kidsdonations.org
Room to Grow (NYC)

An organization that works to enrich the lives of babies born into poverty. They provide parents with free
essential items, as well as guidance and support. Ongoing visits are scheduled once every three months.
• Materials handled: Children's items; specifcially gently used children’s clothing, shoes, books, and toys suitable
for newborns through age 3.
Page 17 of 46

• Contact information: 212.620.7800, infony@roomtogrow.org
• Website: www.roomtogrow.org
Clothing
Bottomless Closet (NYC)

A social service organization which promotes economic self-sufficiency by providing interviewing skills,
business clothing, career development, and support programs for economically disadvantaged New York
City women. They provide services throughout the five boroughs of New York City and each year serves
over 15,000 women.
• Materials handled: Clothing; specifically women’s business clothing, shoes, handbags, jewelry, and personal care
items.
• Contact information: 212.563.2499, info@bottomlessclosetnyc.org
• Website: www.bottomlessclosetnyc.org
Dress for Success (NYS - Multiple Locations)

A social service organization that provides disadvantaged women with professional attire, career development
tools, and a support network. Each client receives one suit when she has a job interview and can return
for additional apparel when she finds work.
• Materials handled: Clothing; specifically women’s business clothing, shoes, handbags, jewelry, and personal care
items.
• Website: www.dressforsuccess.org
• Albany: 212.532.1922, albany@dressforsuccess.org
Page 18 of 46

• Nassau: 212.532.1922, nassau@dressforsuccess.org
• New York City: 212.532.1922, newyork@dressforsuccess.org
• Suffolk: 212.532.1922, suffolk@dressforsuccess.org
Neighborhood Coalition for Shelter (NYC)

An organization committed to ending homelessness by providing men and women with housing and support
that can transform their lives. Since its founding, they have helped more than 25,000 homeless and
formerly homeless people find food, shelter, counseling, employment, and in many cases, a home to call
their own.
• Type of services: Reuse via ongoing material collection (limited physical space).
• Materials handled: Clothing; specifically clothing, shoes, personal care items, books, new or gently used CDs,
DVDs, videos, and video games.
• Contact information: 212.537.5100, ncs@ncsinc.org
• Website: www.ncsinc.org
New York Cares (NYC)

An organization that brings volunteer support to more than 850 nonprofit agencies, public schools, and other
deserving organizations throughout the five boroughs of New York City. In addition to a comprehensive
volunteer managemne program, they run a coat-drive each December that collects gently used winter
coats from caring New Yorkers and distributes them to struggling men, women, and children at homeless
shelters, community organizations, and agencies serving seniors.
• Type of services: Reuse via seasonal material drives.
• Materials handled: Clothing; specifically winter coats

• Contact information: 212.228.5000, nycares@nycares.org
• Website: www.nycares.org
NYC Clothing Bank (NYC)
A nonprofit program that solicits surplus clothing donations from manufacturers and retailers and distributes
them to a large network of nonprofit community agencies throughout New York City. Over 85,000 of
the city's neediest individuals and families are helped each year, with a total clothing value of over $10
million since opening its doors. They also serve as a vital stepping stone to homeless individuals seeking to
Page 19 of 46

transform their lives and become productive members of society through rehabilitation and job training.
Individuals are taught the basics of warehouse management, which leads to marketable job skills and job
placement.
• Materials handled: Clothing; specifically clothing and accessories.
• Contact information: 718.492.4015, info@newyorkcityclothingbank.org
• Website: www.newyorkcityclothingbank.org
One Warm Coat (National)

An organization that provides people in need with a warm coat, free of charge. Providing this simple yet vital
need helps people live productive lives year round. Please check their website for the location of a coat
drive closest to you.
• Type of services: Reuse via seasonal material drives.
• Materials handled: Clothing; specifically winter coats
• Contact information: 877.663.9276, info@onewarmcoat.org
• Website: www.onewarmcoat.org/index.php?fuseaction=event.search
Planet Aid (NYS - Multiple Locations)

A nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the lives of people in developing countries. They mobilize
surplus resources in North America, especially clothing, for use in development activities in Africa, and
Asia.
• Type of services: Reuse via ongoing materials collection (physical space).
• Website: www.planetaid.org
• NYC Metro Area: 973.779.1088, jostein@planetaid.org
Page 20 of 46

• Upstate NY: 585.424.7030, matthew.metras@planetaid.org
Platos Closet (NYS - Multiple Locations)

A retail store that buys, sells and trades high-quality new and used clothing and accessories.
• Website: www.platoscloset.com
• Albany: 818 Central Avenue, Point Plaza #6 & #7, Albany, NY 12206 518.459.3104
• Amherst: 3133 Sheridan Drive, Northtown Plaza, Amherst, NY 14226 716.836.5000
• Greece: 3160 West Ridge Road, Greece, NY 14626 585.723.9660
• Rochester: 3333 W. Henrietta Road, Unit # 29, Rochester, NY 14623 585.424.4350
• Schenectady: 90 West Campbell Road, Schenectady, NY 12008, 518.688.0515
• Vestal: 1708 Vestal Parkway East, Vestal, NY 13850 607.239.4722
• West Seneca: 1022 Union Road, Southgate Plaza, West Seneca, NY 14224 716.677.6707
Wearable Collections (NYC)

A company that provides a no-cost solution to reusing clothing within residential buildings in NYC. They
handle all the logistics of bins placement and pick-up, and promote the program.
• Materials handled: Clothing only.
• Contact information: 646.515.4387, info@wearablecollections.com
• Website: www.wearablecollections.com
Page 21 of 46
Tuff Soul (Ithaca)

A retail store that was created to teach people about sustainable style. They practice this idea through the
sales of a variety of new, used and recreated clothing that gives people another way to shop green. They
also offer alteration services on the premises.
• Materials handled: Clothing; specifically high-quality used and vintage clothing.

• Contact information: 607.319.0083, info@tuffsoul.com
• Address: 516 West State Street. Ithaca NY 14850
• Website: www.tuffsoul.com
Commercial Materials & Industrial Surplus
NY WasteMatch (NYC)
An online materials exchange serving NYC’s businesses and nonprofits. By matching producers of unwanted
commercial goods with others in need of materials, they help clients to reduce disposal or purchase costs,
obtain tax-benefits or revenues, and reduce their footprint.
• Materials handled: Commercial materials; specifically any reusable coming from the commercial entities
including industrial surplus, building materials, computers and peripherals, office furnishings and packaging
materials.
• Who can offer reusables? Commercial Sector
• Contact information: 212.650.5832, info@wastematch.org
• Website: www.wastematch.org
Page 22 of 46

Tools for Schools (NYC)
An organization that facilitates donations and redistribution of used office furniture, phones, computers,
printer cartridges, and supplies from businesses to public schools and community-based nonprofits around
New York City.
• Materials handled: Commercial materials; specifically phone systems and cell phones, printer cartridges, office
equipment, supplies, and furnishings.

• Contact information: 917.250.6200, Tools4schools@earthlink.net
• Website: www.toolsforschoolssolutions.org
Western/Central New York Materials Exchange (NYS – West & Central Counties)
A virtual marketplace that allows businesses to exchange unwanted/unusable products that would otherwise
be discarded and/or locate free/low-cost goods for daily business operations.
• Materials handled: Commercial materials; specifically any reusable coming from the commercial entities
including industrial surplus, building materials, computers and peripherals, office furnishings and packaging
materials.
• Organization type: A Government agency organization established in 1992.
• Contact information: 585.344.2580 x5463, glow@co.genesee.ny.us
• Website: www.recycle.net/matex
Computers
Computer All Stars Program (Ithaca)

A community reuse and recycling program where participants can learn how to diagnose, repair and upgrade
donated computers in order to build one to take home. All obsolete or damaged equipment is
Page 23 of 46

dismantled and properly recycled by the participants. They then use their new skills to help get more
computers ready for families in our community.
• Type of services: Reuse via ongoing materials collection (limited physical space)
• Materials handled: Computer equipment; specifically Pentium III or newer computers and peripherals.
• Contact information: 607.273.8364 x157, martys@cityofithaca.org
• Website: http://bit.ly/1Gm1mK
Computer Renaissance (NYS - Multiple Locations)

A retail store that offers name brand factory refurbished computer products.
• Materials handled: Computer equipment; specifically late model computers and peripherals.
• Website: www.compren.com
• Delmar: 180 Delaware Avenue, Delmar, New York 12054, 518.689.0068
• Latham: 595 New Loudon Road, Newton Plaza II, Latham, New York 12110, 518.220.4445
• Troy: 730 Hoosick Road, Troy, New York 12180, 518.272.2412
Computers for Youth (NYC)

An organization providing recycled and redesigned computers to schools and affiliates. Using computer
donations from commercial businesses; these systems are refurbished by software experts and tested by
students and education executives from around the country.
• Contact information: 212.563.7300, CFY.NYC@cfy.org
• Website: www.cfy.org
Page 24 of 46
Lower East Side Ecology Center (NYC)

An environmental activism and education program which provides New Yorkers with a wide range of
community based recycling and education resources, including e-waste collection services.
• Type of services: Reuse via seasonal material drives
• Materials handled: Electronics; specifically cell phones, small electronics, and computers.
• Contact information: 212.477.4022, info@lesecologycenter.org
• Website: www.lesecologycenter.org
Nonprofit Computing (International)

A volunteer-run organization that arranges and advises businesses and institutions on computer donations,
information and communication technology, and computer procurement and logistics for nonprofits,
schools, government agencies, and their populations of concern worldwide.
• Contact information: 212.759.2368, 212.906.0066, german63@hotmail.com
• Website: www.idealist.org/en/org/65488.252
Per Scholas
An organization dedicated to providing vocational training, computer distribution, and recycling programs
using donated technology to improve the lives of people in low-income communities. They reuse and
recycle computer equipment, the best equipment is reconditioned and distributed to low-income families
at the lowest possible price.
Page 25 of 46

• Materials handled: Computer equipment; specifically late model computers and peripherals, as well as office
furniture, and cell phones.
• Contact information: 718.991.8400, info@perscholas.org
• Website: www.perscholas.org
Food
City Harvest
A food-rescue organization that feeds NYC’s hungry population by collecting excess food from restaurants,
grocers, cafeterias, farms, and manufacturers. They deliver food, free of charge, to more than 600
community food programs using a fleet of trucks and volunteers on foot.
• Materials handled: Food; specifically donations of perishable and prepared food maintained at safe
temperatures, refrigerators, and freezers.
• Contact information: 917.351.8700, info@cityharvest.org
• Website: www.cityharvest.org
Food Bank (Multiple Locations)

A hunger-relief organization that is working to end food poverty and increase access to affordable, nutritious
food for low-income New Yorkers throughout the five boroughs.
Page 26 of 46

• Materials handled: Surplus food; see website for specifics.
• New York City: 212.566.7855, fbnyc@feedingamerica.org, www.foodbanknyc.org
• Central New York: 315.437.1899, fbcny@feedingamerica.org, www.foodbankcny.org
• Southern Tier: 607.796.6061, fbst@feedingamerica.org, www.foodbankst.org
Food Not Bombs NYC (NYC)

This program collects fresh food every day that would otherwise go to waste, and provides it to the hungry
populations in New York City.
• Materials handled: Surplus food; see website for specifics.
• Contact information: 212.254.3697 x395, fnb@abcnorio.org
• Website: www.abcnorio.org/affiliated/fnb.html
Long Island Cares (Nassau & Suffolk)

An organization that provides emergency food where and when it is needed, sponsors programs that help
families achieve self-sufficiency, and educates the general public about the causes and consequences of
hunger on Long Island.
Page 27 of 46

• Contact information: 631.582.3663 x102, info@licares.org
• Website: www.licares.org
New York Food Trader (NYS)

A free virtual farmers market that quickly and easily connects New York buyers and sellers with local food
and other farmers market type items. THis online system can let the general public know when food is
harvested, how much food is available, and where that food can be purchased outside of local farmers
markets. Farmers can create an instantaneous listing that will identify the description, quantity, price, and
location of their items. Consumers can search listings within specific categories and communicate directly
with the farmer to buy the food at the farm, at a farmers market, or at another prearranged location.
• Materials handled: Food; specifically fresh food.
• Contact information: chnyft@gmail.com
• Website: www.nyfoodtrader.org
Rock and Wrap It Up (National)

An organization devoted to developing innovative greening solutions to the pressing issues of hunger and
poverty in America. They accomplishe their goal of feeding the hungry by recovering food from special
events such as concerts and sporting events and distributing these food items through a network of social
service agencies and volunteers.
• Contact information: 516.295.0670, info@rockandwrapitup.org
• Website: www.rockandwrapitup.org
Page 28 of 46
Household Items & Clothing
Catholic Charities Thrift Shop (NYC)

A social service organization that collects and redistributes a wide variety of materials, both new and used, in
order to ease the effects of poverty on families in the South Bronx. In addition to a free clothing program
and community thrift store, they operate for-profit ventures, such as an antique store, that support their
community services. On-site social services include housing assistance, benefits screening and education,
financial literacy classes and case management.
• Materials handled: Household Materials/Clothing; spcifically clothing, shoes, accessories, household supplies
and furniture, and personal care items.
• Contact information: 718.292.6214, cccsthriftstore@archny.org
• Address: 402 E. 152nd Street, Bronx, NY 10455
• Website: www.catholiccharitiesny.org
Freecycle (NYS - Multiple Locations)

Email-based materials exchange services. Free membership is open to all individuals wishing to post items.
Many freecycle locations also offer seasonal community swap events known as “FreeMeets.” Both online
and onsite swaps offer only free, reusable items. Please check the website for the service in your area, or
contact your moderator at the email address listed.
• Materials handled: Household Materials, A variety of items such as pots, pans, dishes, children’s items, books
and media, and all miscellaneous reusables.
• Website: www.freecycle.org
• Albany: AlbanyFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Allegany County: AlleganyCountyAreaFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Amsterdam: FreecycleAmsterdamNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
Page 29 of 46

• Auburn: FreecycleAuburnNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Aurora: FreecycleAuroraNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Ava: FreecycleAvaNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Batavia: BataviaNYFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Beaver Dams / Montour Falls / Watkins Glen: FreecycleBeaverDamsMontourFallsWatkinsGlenNY-

owner@yahoogroups.com
• Binghamton: BinghamtonFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Bronx: FreecycleBronxNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Brooklyn: BrooklynFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Buffalo: BuffaloFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Canastota: CanastotaNYFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Canton/Dekalb: FreecycleCantonDekalbNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Carthage: freecyclecarthageNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Catskill: catskillFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Cattaraugus County: freecyclecattarauguscoNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Cazenovia: cazenoviaareaFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Chautauqua: wnyFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Chenango County: ChenangoCountyNYFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Clifton Park: CliftonParkNYFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Columbia County: columbiacountyFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Cooperstown: freecyclecooperstownNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Cortland: CortlandNY.Freecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Dunkirk Fredonia: FreecycleDunkirkFredoniaNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Dutchess County: DutchessNYFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Elmira: ElmiraNY-Freecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Essex County: EssexCountyNYFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Genesee Valley: GVFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Gloversville: ggaFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Gouvernuer: FreecycleGouverneurNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Hamilton County: FreeCycleHamiltonCounty.owner@yahoogroups.com

• Herkimer: HerkimerLittlefallsNYFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Ithaca: IthacaFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
Page 30 of 46

• Lowville: freecyclelowville.owner@yahoogroups.com
• Malone: freecyclemaloneNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Massena: freecyclemassenaNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Monroe County South: MonroeCtySNYFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• New York City: freecyclenewyorkcity-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Niagara Falls: NiagaraFallsNY-Freecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• North Steuben County: NorthSteubenCountyFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Ogdensburg: FreecycleOgdensburgNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Oneonta: oneontaFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Orange County: FreeCycleOrangeCountyNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Orleans County: FreecycleOrleansCountyNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Oswego: OswegoFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Perry/Warsaw/Castile/Silver Springs: FreecyclePerryNY-owner@yahoo.com
• Plattsburgh: Plattsburgh_NYFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Port Jervis: FreeCyclePortJervisNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Potsdam: FreecyclePotsdamNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Putnam County: putnamfreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Rensselaer: RensselaerCoNYFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Richford/Newark Valley/Berkshire: FreecycleRichfordNewarkValleyNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Rochester: RochesterNY_Freecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Rockland County: RocklandNY-Freecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Rome: RomeNY-Freecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Schoharie County: schoharie_Freecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Seneca County: SenecaFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• South Steuben County: SouthSteubenFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Suffolk NY East: EastSuffolkFN.owner@yahoogroups.com
• Suffolk NY West: freecyclesuffolkcountyNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Sullivan: Freecycle_Sullivan.owner@yahoogroups.com
• Tioga Center/ Owego: TiogaCenterOwegoNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Trumansburg: tburgFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Tupper Lake: TupperlakeAreaNYFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Ulster County: FreecycleUlsterCountyNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
Page 31 of 46

• Warren County: FreecycleWarrenCounty.owner@yahoogroups.com
• Washington County: freecyclewashingtoncounty.owner@yahoogroups.com
• Watertown: FreecycleWatertownNY-owner@yahoogroups.com
• Westchester County: WestchesterNYFreecycle-owner@yahoogroups.com
Furnish a Future (NYC)

A program that provides formerly homeless individuals and families with the essential furniture and
housewares needed to turn the bare rooms of their new apartments into comfortable and livable homes.
All items are selected by clients and are delivered, free of charge, to their new apartments. Each year,
they provide tons of reusable materials to over 2000 households in the NYC metro area.
• Materials handled: Household materials; specifically household furnishings and furniture, bedding and linens,
household supplies, small appliances, books, and media.
• Contact information: 718.875.5353, furniture@pfth.org
• Website: www.partnershipforthehomeless.org/programs.furnish.php5
Goodwill Industrisites of NY & NJ (NYS - Multiple Locations)

A retailer of reusable goods serving New York and Northern NJ. Each year, millions of pounds of donated
clothing, toys, household items, and books are collected, processed, and sold through their retail
locations. They are a non-sectarian, nonprofit organization serving people with mental and physical
disabilities and a variety of people facing employment barriers.
• Materials handled: Household Materials/Clothing; specifically household items, clothing, linens/bedding, small
appliances, musical instruments, sporting goods, books, CDs & DVDs.
• Contact information: 718.728.5400, info@goodwillny.org
• Website: www.goodwillny.org
• Brooklyn
o 258 Livingston, Brooklyn, NY11201, 718.923.9037
o 1100-1104 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11238, 718.789.0856
Page 32 of 46

o 229 Tapscott Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11212, 718.566.7095
• Bronx
o 361 East 149th Street Bronx, NY 10455, 718.292.1083
o 52 West Fordham Road, Bronx, NY 10468, 718.733.2453
• Manhattan
o 512 W. 181st Street, NY, NY 10033, 212.923.7910
o 2231 Third Avenue NY, NY10035, 212.410.0973
o 2196 5th Avenue, NY, NY10037, 212.862.0020
o 1704 2nd Avenue, NY, NY10128, 212.831.1830
o 220 East 23rd Street, NY, NY10010, 212.447.7270
o 103 West 25th Street, NY, NY10001, 646.638.1725
o 217 West 79th Street. NY, NY10024, 212.874.5050
• Queens
o 47-47 Van Dam Long Island City, NY 11101, 718.392.0125
o 32-36 Steinway Street, Astoria, NY 11103, 718.932.0418
• Long Island
o 1900 Jericho Turnpike East Northport, NY, 11731, 631.462.4219
o 1500 Middle Country Rd. Centereach, NY, 11720, 631.698.0860
o 479 East Main Street, Patchogue, NY, 11772, 631.207.0623
o 2736 Merrick Road Bellmore, NY, 11710, 516.409.5951
• Capital Region
o 720 Hoosick Rd. Troy, NY, 12180, 518.272.8451
o 1 Fuller Road Colonie, NY,12205, 518.459.5580
o 1306 Ulster Avenue Kingston NY12401845.336.3303
o 107 Towne Square Drive Amsterdam NY12010518.842.5026
o 1400 Altamont Avenue Rotterdam NY12303518.355.4265
o 131 East Albany Street Herkimer NY13350315.866.1212
• Hudson Valley
o 440 South Riverside Avenue, Croton-On-Hudson NY, 10520, 914.827.9311
o 1488 Route 9, Wappingers Falls NY12590, 845.298.0311
o 80 Route 6 Baldwin Place, Baldwin Place, NY,10505, 914.621.0781
o 374 New Windsor Highway, Vails Gate NY, 12584, 845.569.8265
o 380 N. Sawmill River Rd Elmsford, NY,10523, 914.347.4376
Page 33 of 46

o 130 West Route 59 Nanuet, NY, 10954, 845.624.0187
o 350 Fairview Avenue Hudson, NY, 12534, 518.671.6246
Housing Works Thrift Stores (NYC - Multiple Locations)

A retail organization that accepts and sells a variety of reusable items, with 100% of the profits going to
HousingWorks Inc. Their thrift shops raise more than $10 million annually to support homeless men,
women, and children living with HIV and AIDS in New York City.
• Materials handled: Household Materials/Clothing; specifically household furnishings and furniture, clothing,
shoes, bedding and linens, household supplies, small appliances, musical instruments, sporting equipment,
books, and media.
• Contact information: 212.366.0820, info@housingworks.org
• Website: www.housingworks.org
• Brooklyn
o 122 Montague Street Brooklyn, New York 11201, 718.237.0521
• Manhattan
o 143 West 17th Street, NY, NY 10011, 718.838.5050
o 157 East 23rd Street, NY, NY 10010, 212.529.5955
o 130 Crosby Street NY, NY 10012, 212.529.5955
o 119 Chambers Street, NY, NY 10007, 212.732.0584
o 202 East 77th Street, NY, NY 10021, 212.772.8461
o 306 Columbus Avenue, NY, NY 10023, 212.579.7566
o 245 West 10th Street, NY, NY 10014, 212.352.1618
o 1730 2nd Avenue, NY, NY 10128, 212.722.8306
Page 34 of 46
Salvation Army Thrifts (NYS - Multiple Locations)

A retail outlet that accepts and sells a wide variety of reusable items. The profits from thier thrift stores
provide in-residence rehabilitation programs that meet their clients’ basic needs for food, clothing, and
housing, as well as providing job skills training and counseling.
• Materials handled: Household items/Clothing; specifically clothing and accessories, appliances, books and
media, bedding/linens, building materials, cell phones, children’s items, home and office furnishings, musical
instruments, art supplies, household and office supplies, personal care items, and sporting equipment.
• Contact information: 212.337.7200, info@salvationarmy.newyork.org
• Website: www.salvationarmy.newyork.org
• Brooklyn
o 981 Manhattan Avenue Brooklyn, NY, 11222, 718.383.5005
o 176 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn, NY, 11211, 718.388.9249
o 6822 Third Avenue Brooklyn, NY, 11220, 718.833.6894
o 3718 Nostrand Avenue Brooklyn, NY, 11229, 718.648.8930
o 436 Atlantic Avenue Brooklyn, NY, 11217, 718.834.1562
o 22 Quincy Street Brooklyn, NY, 11238, 718.622.5686
o 239 Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn, NY, 11210, 718.857.7967
• Bronx
o 4109 Park Avenue Bronx, NY 10457, 718.583.3500
o 2359 Jerome Avenue Bronx, NY 10468, 718.562.9023
o 1294 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY, 10459, 718.991.2172
o 2582 Third Avenue Bronx, NY, 10454, 718.585.5820
• Dutchess County
o 570 Main Street Poughkeepsie, NY 12601, 845.471.1730
o 1554 Route 9, Wappingers Falls, NY 12590, 845.298.9739
• Manhattan
o 536 West 46th Street New York, NY 10036, 212.757.2311
o 220 E. 23rd Street New York, NY 10010, 212.532.8115
Page 35 of 46

o 112 Fourth Avenue New York, NY 10003, 212.673.2741
o 26 E. 125th Street New York, NY 10035, 212.289.9617
o 208 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10011, 212.929.5214
o 268 W. 96th Street New York, NY 10025, 212-663-2258
• Nassau County
o 462 Hempstead Turnpike, Elmont, NY 11003, 516.354.9498
o 194 Front Street, Hempstead, NY 11550, 516.481.7600 x355
• Orange County
o 280 Rt. 211 East, Middletown, NY 10940, 845.343.1839
• Queens
o 34-02 Steinway Street Astoria, NY 11101, 718.472.2414
o 148-15 Archer Avenue Jamaica, NY 11435, 718.523.4648
o 39-11 61st Street Woodside, NY 11377, 718.458.1526
• Staten Island
o 1442 Castleton Avenue Staten Island, NY 10302, 718.273.6043
o 2052 Clove Road Staten Island, NY 10302, 718.442.3080
• Suffolk County
o 227 Little East Neck Road Babylon, NY 11702, 631.669.1354
o 110 Bellrose Avenue East Northport, NY 11731, 631.754.4449
o 414 East Main Street Patchogue, NY 11772, 631.654.9380
o 319 East Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901, 631.727.1571
• Ulster County
o 884 Ulster Avenue Kingston, NY 12401, 845.338.9695
o 61 North Chestnut Street New Paltz, NY 12561, 845-255-9852
• Westchester County
o 745 S. Third Avenue Mount Vernon, NY 10550, 914.664.0800
o 562 North Avenue New Rochelle, NY, 10801, 914.636.5615
o 1022-24 Main Street Peekskill, NY 10566, 914.737.3022
o 36 North Main Street Port Chester, NY, 10573, 914.939.1620
o 29 Palisades Avenue Yonkers, NY 10702, 914.969.4571
Page 36 of 46

Medical Supplies & Equipment
Doc to Dock (International)

An organization that provides healthcare workers in Africa with the medical supplies they need.
• Materials handled: Medical supplies; see website for specifics.
• Contact information: 718.852.0655, donations@doctodock.org
• Website: www.doctodock.org
Starfish Project (National)

A nonprofit that collects unused medications and distributes them to people in need.
• Contact information: 212.746.7164, info@thestarfishproject.org
• Website: www.thestarfishproject.org
Recovery of Unused Medical Supplies (RUMS) Program (International)

A nonprofit warehouse that collects and distributes up to four tons of medical supplies each week with
distribution to local community organizations and hospitals and clinics worldwide.
• Contact information: 585.922.5810, rums@intervol.org
• Website: www.intervol.org/rums
Page 37 of 46
Planting Supplies
WinterSown (National)
A nonprofit that collects seeds and distributes them to individuals and worthy organizations.
• Materials handled: Planting materials; specifically seeds (seeds must be labeled, no invasives).

• Contact information: 516.832.7922, info@wintersown.org
• Website: www.wintersown.org
Set Materials
Film Biz Recycling (NYC)

An organization that seeks to reuse and recycle items from the television, film, and commercial production
industries by either donating or renting them to appropriate nonprofit agencies and municipal
organizations. Their goal is to instill a new, environmental standard for managing the assets used by all of
New York City’s television and film productions.
• Materials handled: Set materials, specifically any surplus material resulting from television and film productions,
including, but not limited to: furniture, costumes, building materials, scenic elements, lighting and design
equipment, and related raw materials.
• Contact information: 718.392.3304, info@filmbizrecycling.org
• Address: 43-26 12th street 2nd floor, Long Island City, NY, 11101
• Website: www.filmbizrecycling.org
Set Recycling Hotline (NYC)

A volunteer-run effort to find appropriate homes for surplus theatre set materials.
• Materials handled: Set materials; specifically materials resulting from Broadway productions.
Page 38 of 46

• Contact information: 212.650.7566, setrecyclinghotline@yahoo.com
• Website: www.setrecyclinghotline.org
Sewing Supplies & Equipment
SewGreen (Ithaca)
A nonprofit program that promotes sustainability through the creative reuse of fabric, fiber, and fashion, as
well as responsible consumerism and a rediscovery of self-reliant skills. They offer community gatherings,
free and open to all, where sewing and needlecraft enthusiasts can share ideas and advice.
• Type of services: Reuse via ongoing materials collection (limited physical space)
• Materials handled: Sewing supplies; specifically fabric, yarn, thread and sewing supplies and equipment.
• Contact information: 607.277.7611, info@sew-green.org
• Website: www.sew-green.org
Sporting Supplies & Equipment
Play it Again Sports (Multiple Locations)

A retail store that buys, sells and trades new and quality used sports equipment and fitness gear. They carry all
the top brands at affordable prices.
• Materials handled: Sporting goods, Sporting goods and equipment
• Website: www.playitagainsports.com
• Carle Place: 223 Glen Cove Road, Carle Place, NY 11514, 516.873.8874
Page 39 of 46

• East Northport: 1937 C. Jericho Turnpike, East Northport, NY 11731631.499.4911
• Latham: 952 Troy-Schenectady Road, Latham, NY 12110, 518.785.6587
• New Hartford: 4652 Commercial Drive, New Hartford, NY 13413315.736.5336
• Oceanside: 46 Atlantic Avenue, Oceanside, NY 11572, 516.678.7900
• Plattsburgh: 30 Plattsburgh Plaza, Plattsburgh, NY 12901518.566.6026
• Rochester: 3333 W. Henrietta Road, Rochester, NY 14623, 585.427.7750
• Syracuse: 3910 Brewerton Road, Syracuse, NY 13212315.458.7101
• Vails Gate: 1019 Route 94, Vails Gate, NY 12584, 845.562.2755
• Webster: 1075 Ridge Road, Webster, NY 14580, 585.671.8816
Recycle Ithaca's Bicycles (Ithaca)

A nonprofit program that empowers people through skills development. Bicycles are donated by the
community and refurbished by volunteers. Credit hours can be exchanged for bicycles.
• Materials handled: Sporting goods; specifically bicycles, and bicycle parts and accessories.
• Contact information: 607.256.5355, recycleithacasbicycles@gmail.com
• Website: http://velonet.org/ribs
Recycle-a-Bicycle (Multiple Locations)

A retail outlet that sells and accepts used bicycle donations for refurbishing. They partner with schools and
after-school youth programs to provide children with training and a bicycle.
• Materials handled: Sporting goods; specifically bicycles, and bicycle parts and accessories
• Website: www.recycleabicycle.org
• Brooklyn: 35 Pearl Street, Brooklyn, NY 1120, 718.858.2972
• Manhattan: 75 Avenue C, New York, NY 10009, 212.475.1655,

REMANUFACTURING ORGANIZATIONS
Page 40 of 46
Office Furniture
Davies Office Refurbishing

One of the largest multi-line furniture remanufacturers in the United States. They offer customers a level of
technology, expertise, and quality unparalleled in the industry.
• Type of services: Remanufacturing via ongoing materials collection (physical space)
• Materials handled: Office furniture; specifically office furniture and raw goods such as fabrics and building
materials.
• Contact information: 518.465.5984, info@daviesoffice.com
• Website: www.daviesoffice.com
Green Office Systems

A remanufacturer and retailer of high-quality, custom-designed office furniture. Their refurbishing process is
highly effective and environmentally friendly (non-toxic paints and solvents) and their clients realize
substantial cost-savings by choosing the green option.
• Materials handled: Office furniture; specifically office furniture and raw goods such as fabrics and building
materials.
• Contact information: 718.418.1717, info@greenofficesystems.com
• Website: www.greenofficesystems.com
Office Supplies & Equipment
Fine Star Imaging

A business that collects and remanufactures toner cartridges and refurbishes used printers. They encourage
sustainable business practices by purchasing used products and encourage their customers to recycle their
empty cartridges.
Page 41 of 46

• Materials handled: Office equipment; specifically toner cartridges and copiers.
• Contact information: 718.204.1760, info@finestar.com
• Website: www.finestar.com
Product Research Company, Inc.

A firm that collects and remanufactures copiers, in order to support recycling, waste elimination, landfill
reduction, and resource conservation.
• Materials handled: Office equipment; specifically copiers.
• Contact information: 607.729.6251, prorsh@pronetisp.net
• Website: www.product.research.com/default.htm
Packaging Materials
American Recycling & Manufacturing Co.

A company that builds and distributes reusable packaging materials. They design reverse logistics solutions
which provide clients with transport options at a fraction of the cost of new.
• Materials handled: Packaging materials; see website for specifics.
• Contact information: 585.235.2210, info@armfg.com
• Website: http://armfg.com
Page 42 of 46

ECO Incorporated
A firm that designs, licenses, and manufactures packaging and is dedicated to improving outmoded, outdated
and wasteful food packaging.
• Contact information: 917.208.8914, info@ecoincorporated.com
• Website: www.ecoincorporated.com
GreenTekIndustries
An nonprofit that provides sustainable engineering, manufacturing, waste prevention services.

• Website: www.jmmurray.com/greentek/index.html
J.C. Paper Co., Inc.
A firm that offers a wide variety of remanufactured and recycled paper packing products.
Kaplan Container
A firm that sells both new and reconditioned containers, which include bottles, boxes, cans, drums, IBCs, pails,
jars, and jugs.
Page 43 of 46

• Contact information: 585.385.1760, sales@kaplancontainer.com
• Website: www.kaplancontainer.com
ORI Plastics of Rochester

A firm that offers a wide variety of remanufactured and recycled plastic packing products.
• Contact information: 585.328.4253, ORIRochester@ontariorecycling.com
• Website: www.ontariorecycling.com
Ongweoweh Corp
A company that assembles new pallets, recondition used pallets, and rebuilds pallets & skids.
• Materials handled: Packaging materials; specifically used pallets and skids.
• Contact information: 607.266.7070, info@ongweoweh.com
• Website: www.ongweoweh.com
Pallet Exchange
Page 44 of 46

A company that assembles new pallets, recondition used pallets, and rebuilds pallets & skids.
• Materials handled: Packaging materials; specifically used pallets and skids.
• Contact information: 716.823.2400, info@buffalopallets.com
• Website: http://buffalopallets.com
Universal Composites, Inc.

A firm that buys large quantities of obsolete, discontinued, defective, surplus, or scrap plastics and
manufactures a wide array of products.
• Materials handled: Packaging materials; specifically reclaimed plastics
• Contact information: 631.969.1050, contact@universalcomposites.com
• Website: www.universalcomposites.com
Wood
Country Road Associates, LTD

A company that reclaims, refinishes and sells 19th Century Barn wood, including antique flooring in reclaimed
chestnut, hemlock, oak, pine and cherry.
• Materials handled: Wood; specifically reclaimed structural wood
• Contact information: 845.677.6041, info@countryroadassociates.com
• Website: www.countryroadassociates.com
Page 45 of 46

Pioneer Millworks
A firm that creates green products made from timbers reclaimed from old barns and industrial buildings.
• Materials handled: Wood; specifically reclaimed structural wood
• Contact information: 800.951.9663, myfloorsrock@pioneermillworks.com
• Website: www.pioneermillworks.com
Scrapile
A collaborative project of designers who seek to create a positive environmental impact by collecting and
repurposing discarded scraps of wood from NYC’s woodworking industry. They continue to yield an
ever-evolving line of furniture and products that are made solely from scrap wood.
• Materials handled: Wood; specifically waste/scrap hardwoods.
• Contact information: 917.826.3141, info@scrapile.com
• Website: www.scrapile.com
CONTACT INFORMATION
The New York State Reuse Directory was developed and published by Reuse Alliance.
For Profiles in This Directory: If your organization would like to join our network and be profiled in future
editions of this directory, and/or if you would like us to update your profile information, please visit our
website at www.reusealliance.org/join or email us at info@reusealliance.org.
For Other State Directories: If you would like your state to have a Reuse Directory of its own, please contact
us about developing one.
Page 46 of 46
Appendix 8.4
47-15-51PU (1/06)
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF SOLID & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ANNUAL REPORT - PLANNING UNIT RECYCLING REPORT
1. Report Year: 2. Planning Unit

3. Address, 4. Pnone
City, State, Zip:
5. Contact Person 6. E-mail
7. Sources of Disposal Scale weights Hauler surveys Estimates
and Recycling Data
Truck counts Facility surveys Other
(type YES where applicable)
WASTE DISPOSED
If you include more than 10,000 tons of solid waste IMPORTED from another P. U., please specify on a separate sheet.
Do not report tons of ash that is disposed of or recovered from incineration, as such would constitute double counting
Landfilled Waste-to-Energy Out of State
Within PU Outside PU Within PU Outside PU Outside PU
tons (exported tons) tons (exported tons) (exported tons)
Municipal Solid Waste
C & D (disposed)
Non-Haz. Industrial Waste
Sewage Sludge (wet/dry?)
Names of DISPOSAL FACILITIES that received your waste tons listed above (add additional sheets, if necessary):
RECYCLABLES RECOVERED
Do not report recyclables that result from the Returnable Container Act or are part of a Beneficial Use Determination.
Category Material Tons Material Tons Material Tons
PAPER Newspaper Magazines Corrugated
Office Paper Junk Mail Paperboard
Mixed Paper Other – specify type:
GLASS Glass - Clear Glass - Brown Glass - Mixed
Glass - Green Other – specify type:
METAL Containers Aluminum
Enameled Metal Appliances (white goods)
Other – specify
Other – specify
PLASTIC PET #1 Mixed Plastic
HDPE #2 Other Plastics - specify
CO-
type::
Glass, metal. and Plastic containers collected co-mingled
MINGLED
Deposit containers redeemed under NYS Bottle Bill (tons)
Other Co-mingled Mix: please describe mix:
Appendix 8.4
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

DIVISION OF SOLID & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ANNUAL REPORT - PLANNING UNIT RECYCLING REPORT (continued)
Category Material Tonnage Material Tonnage
YARD Leaves Mixed Yard Waste

WASTE
Grass Brush
ORGANICS Food Waste Other –
specify:
RUBBER Tires (in tons 100 tireston Other Rubber
WOOD Wood Pallets Lumber
C & D (recycled - Asphalt Petroleum Contaminated
not disposed) Soil
Concrete/Brick/Rock/Fines Other C & D/Inert (incl.
wood)
SEW. SLUDGE Sludge that was composted <==Is this figure WET tons or DRY tons?
ADDITIONAL RECYCLABLES NOT LISTED ABOVE (see Appendix A for some examples)
Recycled Material End Use or Destination Facility Tonnage
Names of RECYCLING FACILITIES from where you derived your recycled tons (add additional sheets, if necessary):
a) managed by Planning Unit %

Estimate the percent of total recycled tons reported that were
b) managed by private sector %
d ff
a) picked up curbside: %
Estimate the percent of total recycled tons reported that were
b) collected via drop-off: %
If applicable, please add any information about Waste Prevention, Recycling Metrics, Best Practices or other aspects of
your Waste Reduction and Recycling or disposal programs not reflected in this report
Appendix 8.4
Appendix A - Examples of Other Recyclables
Recycled Material Type End Use or Destination Facility Tonnage

#4 Plastic ABC Plastic Lumber Inc. 10.74
Latex Paint Sherman Wilson - made into new latex paint 7.5
Textiles Good Will - donated for reuse 20
Electronics Monitors ‘R’ Us - Dismantled for scrap 43
Paper Mill Sludge Used in paper mix for animal bedding 1,000
Foundry Waste U. Becher Asphalt - used in asphalt mix 300
Appendix B - Description of Selected Categories
Material Component Categories Examples

Paper Newsprint Newspaper that may include certain amounts of other paper
materials depending on mill specs.
Corrugated Cardboard Multi-layer kraft corrugated shipping boxes and inserts.
Paperboard/Chipboard/Boxboard Cereal boxes, shoe boxes, gift boxes, lightweight cardboard.
Office Paper Copy paper, computer printout, ledger and letterhead paper.
Mixed Mixed recyclable paper, news, junk mail, magazines, etc.
Other Paper Tissue paper, towels, or as specified.
Plastic PET (#1) Soda bottles, liquor bottles.
HDPE (#2) Milk jugs, shampoo bottles.
Glass Other Glass Ceramic glass, light bulbs, plate glass
Metal Containers Food cans, Pet food cans, soda cans, hair spray, aerosols
Aluminum Soda cans (non-deposit), juice cans, foil and foil pans.
White Goods/Enameled metal Refrigerators, washing machines, stoves, other appliances.
Other Metal Coat hangers, scrap metal.
Other Metal Siding, cookware, machine parts, utensils, electrical wiring
Organics Food Waste Kitchen scraps, dog food, food processing wastes.
Other Organics Brewery waste, fish processing waste.
Wood Lumber Plywood sections, particle board.
Other Wood Crates, sawdust, animal bedding.
C&D Asphalt Roofing shingles, siding, road surfacing.
(recycled) Concrete/Brick/Rock Gravel, house bricks, stones.
Petroleum Contaminated Soil (PCS) PCS made into a product - not PCS that is landfilled
Other C&D Sheetrock, plaster, insulation.
Sewage Sewage sludge composted Sludge from POTWs that is composted, not landfilled. Note
Sludge that the amount will be converted to dry tons for calculations
Appendix 8.4
Appendix C - Sample Volume to Weight Conversion Factors

If you have more specific or accurate conversion factors for your materials,
you can use your own conversion factors and advise DEC of your factors and calculations.
MATERIAL EQUIVALENT MATERIAL EQUIVALENT
GLASS-whole bottles 1 cubic 0.35 tons GLASS-crushed mechanically 1 cubic yard 0.88 tons
GLASS-semicrushed d
1 cubic 0.70 tons GLASS-uncrushed-manually 55 gallon drum 0.16 tons
PAPER-high grade loose 1 cubic 0.18 tons NEWSPRINT-loose 1 cubic yard 0.29 tons
PAPER-high grade baled d
1 cubic 0.36 tons NEWSPRINT-compacted 1 cubic yard 0.43 tons
PAPER-mixed loose d
1 cubic 0.15 tons CORRUGATED-loose 1 cubic yard 0.15 tons
d CORRUGATED-baled 1 cubic yard 0.55 tons
PLASTIC-PET-whole 1 cubic 0.015 tons PLASTIC-HDPE-whole 1 cubic yard 0.012 tons

PLASTIC-PET-flattened d
1 cubic 0.04 tons PLASTIC-HDPE-flattened 1 1 cubic yard 0.03 tons
PLASTIC-PET-baled d
1 cubic 0.38 tons bi d
PLASTIC-HDPE-baled t1 cubic yard 0.38 tons
PLASTIC-styrofoam 1 cubic 0.02 tons PLASTIC-mixed, grocery bags, 45 gallon bag 0.01 tons
d PS
ALUMINUM-cans-whole 1 cubic 0.03 tons FERROUS METAL-cans-whole 1 cubic yard 0.08 tons
ALUMINUM-cans-flattened d
1 cubic 0.125 tons FERROUS METAL-cans- 1 cubic yard 0.43 tons
WHITE GOODS-uncompacted 1 cubic 0.10 tons WHITE GOODS-compacted 1 cubic yard 0.5 tons
d
YARD WASTE (uncompacted) 1 cubic 0.10 tons FOOD WASTE 55 gal drum 0.20 tons
YARD WASTE (compacted) d
1 cubic 0.20 tons MSW (Compacted) 1 cubic yard 0.50 tons
d
Appendix D - NYSDEC REGIONAL AND CENTAL OFFICE ADDRESSES
SEND A COPY OF THIS REPORT TO YOUR REGIONAL OFFICE AND A COPY TO THE DEC CENTRAL OFFICE
DEC Region Address and Phone
Regional Solid & Haz Materials Engineer (631) 444-0375
1 Loop Road Bldg 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
2 1 Hunters Point Plaza, 47-40 21st Street, Long Island City, NY 11101-5407
3 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, NY 12561-1696
4 1150 North Westcott Road, Schenectady, NY 12306-2014
5 1115 Route 86, P.O. Box 296, Ray Brook, NY 12977-0296
6 317 Washington Street, Watertown, NY 13601-3787
7 615 Erie Blvd. West, Syracuse, NY 13204-2400
8 6274 E. Avon-Lima Road, Avon, NY 14414-9519
9 270 Michigan Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14203-2999
DEC Central Bureau of Solid Waste, Reduction & Recycling (518) 402-8706
Office 625 Broadway, 9th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-7253 Attn: Recycling Reporting Section
in Albany
APPENDIX 9.1

MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY

DEC Division of Air Resources
Municipal Waste Combustor
Facility Status Report
April 17, 2006

Region Facility Technology Type Air Pollution Control Grate Type
1 Babylon MB/WW DSCRUB; FF; SNCR; CC RG
CARBIJ; CEM
1 Hempstead MB/WW SDA; FF; SNCR; CC; CEM ROLG
1 Huntington MB/WW SDA; FF; SNCR; CARBIJ; CEM; CC RG
1 Islip MB/ROT SDA; FF; LIME; CARBIJ; CEM; CC RD
3 Dutchess County MB/ROT SDA; FF; CARBIJ; CEM; CC RD
3 Westchester MB/WW SDA; FF; CARBIJ; SNCR; CEM; CC RRG
5 Wheelabrator MB/WW DSCRUB; ESP; CC; CARBIJ; CEM RG
Hudson Falls
7 Onondaga County MB/WW SDA; FF; SNCR; CARBIJ; CEM; CC RRG
7 Oswego County MOD SDA; FF; LIME; CARBIJ; CEM UAT‐TR
9 Covanta Niagara MB/WW SDA; FF; SNCR; CARBIJ; CEM ROLG
Key:
Technology Type ‐ Air Pollution Control –
MB = Mass Burn DSCRUB = Dry Scrubber
WW = Water Wall SDA = Spray Dry Absorber
ROT = Rotary LIME = Lime Injection
MOD = Modular CARBIJ = Carbon Injection
FF = Fabric Filter
ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
SNCR = Selective Non‐Catalytic Reduction
CEM = Continuous Emission Monitor
CC = Combustion Controls (e.g., over‐fire air)
Grate Type ‐
RRG = Reverse‐Reciprocating Grate
ROLG = Roller Grate
RG = Reciprocating Grate
RD = Reversed Drum
UAT‐TR = Under‐fire Air Tubes‐Transfer Rams
TG = Traveling Grate

APPENDIX 9.2
SUMMARY OF NEW YORK STATE LANDFILL REGULATIONS

This appendix contains a brief summary of the regulatory requirements applicable to landfills in New
York State. The 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations can be found at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/2491.html. The regulations applicable to all solid waste management
facilities are found in Subpart 360‐1. The regulations applicable to landfills are found in Subpart
360‐2, with more specific regulations for C&D debris landfills in Subpart 360‐7 and Long Island
landfills in Subpart 360‐8.
Technical Requirements for Permitted Landfills
1. Siting Requirements
The Part 360 regulations include a number of siting prohibitions on all types of solid waste
management facilities (see 6 NYCRR 360‐1.7(a)(2)) and additional siting restrictions for landfills (see
6 NYCRR Part 360‐2.12). Some of them include restrictions related to:
• Agricultural land
• Impacts on endangered species
• Potential impacts on regulated wetlands, floodplains, surface water bodies, aquifers and
groundwater
• The proximity of landfills to airport runways and landfill height restrictions related to air
traffic safety
• Unstable areas, fault areas and seismic impact zones
• Areas where environmental monitoring or site remediation cannot be adequately
conducted
• Thickness and permeability requirements for soil underlying landfill liner system

2. Design and Construction Requirements: Liner and Cover Systems
The Part 360 regulations include detailed liner and cover system requirements. See 6 NYCRR Part
360‐2.13(f) for the liner system description; 360‐2.14 for industrial waste monofills and solid waste
incinerator ash residue monofill requirements; 360‐7.3 and 360‐7.4 for C&D debris landfill
requirements, and 360‐2.15(d) for the final cover system requirements.
Mixed solid waste landfills, solid waste incinerator ash monofills on Long Island and monofills that
dispose of only untreated fly ash must have a double‐composite liner system. A composite liner
consists of a layer of low‐permeability soil covered by an impervious plastic polymer geomembrane
sheet. The low‐permeability soil greatly limits any leakage through defects in the geomembrane

which may remain after construction of the liner system. Individual rolls of geomembrane are
seamed into a continuous layer covering several acres. A leachate collection and removal system
(LCRS) is constructed directly above the composite liner. By removing the leachate and keeping the
hydraulic head on the composite liner as low as possible, potential for leakage through the
composite liner is further minimized. A double‐composite liner system consists of one composite
liner and LCRS above another composite liner and LCRS to provide redundancy.
Alternative liner systems may be approved for industrial waste monofills based on the pollution
potential of the waste. A single‐composite liner system with an LCRS is required for most solid
waste incinerator ash monofills outside of Long Island and for most C&D debris landfills. A 1 x 10‐5
cm/sec clay liner with no leachate collection is required for C&D debris landfills of three acres or less
which accept no more than 200 tons of C&D debris per week and which do not accept pulverized
C&D debris.
A landfill that is no longer accepting waste must be closed with a final cover system to contain the
waste and minimize leachate production. The final cover system consists of: a gas‐venting layer;
low‐permeability soil, geomembrane or composite made up of both barrier layers; a barrier
protection layer, and a topsoil layer. Monofills used for the disposal of untreated solid waste
incinerator fly ash only and solid waste incinerator ash monofills on Long Island are not required to
include gas venting layers in the final cover systems. The inclusion of a gas‐venting layer in the final
cover system of a paper mill sludge landfill may not be required, as determined by the results of the
explosive gas investigation performed at the time of closure. For C&D debris landfills of three acres
or less which do not accept pulverized C&D debris and which accept no more than 200 tons of C&D
debris per week, the need for the inclusion of a gas‐venting system is determined on a case‐by‐case
basis.

3. Operation and Maintenance
Landfills are required to have an operation and maintenance manual which contains a
comprehensive description of their daily facility operations throughout the active life of the facility.
The operation and maintenance manual includes samples of all reporting forms, logs and plans, and
includes the following: landfill disposal methods; personnel requirements; machinery and
equipment; landfill operational controls; fill progression; waste amounts and characterization; solid
waste receiving process; cover materials management plan; environmental monitoring plan;
leachate management plan; gas monitoring program; winter and inclement weather operations;
first lift placement procedures, and a fire prevention plan.

4. Environmental Monitoring
All operating MSW landfills in New York State are required to identify the pre‐operational water
quality at a proposed site, conduct operational water quality at an existing site and monitor a closed
landfill for a minimum of 30 years.

Pre‐operational water quality is determined by analyzing groundwater from every existing well at
least four times before a landfill becomes operational. The groundwater is analyzed for leachate
indicators, inorganic and organic parameters. The purpose of this program is to establish the
existing water quality at a proposed site.
Operational water quality is required during the operation of the landfill. Every operating landfill
must monitor the groundwater quarterly during the life of the landfill. The purpose of this
requirement is to determine whether the operating landfill is contributing to groundwater
contamination surrounding the landfill.
Post‐closure monitoring of groundwater is required quarterly for a minimum of 30 years. This is to
ensure that the landfill cover system, designed to protect groundwater, is working effectively.

5. Closure and Post‐closure Care
All landfills subject to the Part 360 solid waste regulations must comply with its closure and post‐
closure care requirements. In terms of closure, this includes submittal of a conceptual closure plan
as part of a landfill construction and expansion application and a final closure plan prior to last
receipt of waste or the end of the operating permit. To prepare an adequate closure plan, a closure
site investigation must be performed. This involves monitoring and analysis of the site’s
hydrogeology, explosive gases, leachate generation, and possible vectors. The final closure plan
must include a final cover system design and address landfill gas controls, leachate collection, vector
control, and post‐closure operation and maintenance.
Post‐closure care must ensure proper operation and maintenance of drainage control structures,
the cover system, the leachate collection system, and environmental monitoring throughout the
post‐closure care period, which continues for a minimum of 30 years. The landfill owner or operator
must also have a contingency plan, financial assurance updated at least annually, perform
inspections, and describe planned uses of the closed landfill. The landfill owner or operator must
also register the closed landfill with DEC and renew the registration every five years until they
demonstrate to DEC’s satisfaction that the post‐closure care period can be ended.

6. Financial Assurance
The purpose of this financial responsibility is to ensure that resources are available to pay for the
cost of closure, post‐closure care and corrective actions for known releases if the owner/operator is
unable or unwilling to pay. Financial responsibility is demonstrated by establishing financial
assurance that these costs will be paid through an approved mechanism. The approved financial
assurance mechanisms specified in 6 NYCRR Part 360 include trust funds, surety bonds, letters of
credit, insurance policies, corporate financial tests, local government financial tests, corporate
guarantees, local government guarantees and other state‐approved mechanisms.

Financial assurance is required by 6 NYCRR Part 360 for closure, post‐closure care and corrective
measures for MSW landfills, industrial/commercial landfills and Long Island landfills; closure and
post‐closure care for C&D landfills greater than three acres; closure of permitted C&D processing
facilities and RMW treatment facilities, and closure and worst‐case contingencies for waste tire
processing facilities. The amounts of the financial assurance mechanisms for these facilities range
from $3,000 to $32 million, with the exception of Fresh Kills Landfill, which assures approximately
$965 million. Approximately $293 million is assured for active MSW landfills, whose estimated costs
range from $3 million to $32 million.

Registered Landfills
Land‐clearing debris landfills of less than three acres are eligible to be registered rather than
permitted. Land‐clearing debris includes vegetation, soil and rock resulting from land clearing,
grubbing, utility maintenance or storm cleanup. It does not include yard waste collected at
curbside. Registration requirements place a few restrictions on the location, operation and closure
of these landfills. There are about 115 such landfills operating in the state.

Exempt Landfills
Few categories of landfills are exempt from most regulatory requirements. These include sites that
receive certain limited types of construction and demolition debris under certain conditions or in
certain locations, disposal areas located at single‐family residences and farms, and sites under
NYSDOT or NYS Thruway Authority jurisdiction.

APPENDIX 9.3

SUMMARY OF NEW YORK STATE WASTE IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

The following chart presents the amount of solid waste exported from and imported into New York
State during the 20‐year period from 1988 through 2008, according to the information submitted to
NYSDEC by solid waste management facilities in their annual reports. The amounts include all
categories of solid waste: municipal solid waste, C&D debris, and industrial waste. The data in this
chart is depicted in Figure 9.22.
Year Exported Imported
1988 1.1 NA
1989 2.3 NA
1990 3.0 NA
1991 3.4 NA
1992 3.7 NA
1993 3.7 NA
1994 4.0 NA
1995 4.0 NA
1996 3.7 NA
1997 4.6 NA
1998 4.1 NA
1999 5.3 0.3
2000 5.6 0.5
2001 4.9 0.9
2002 5.4 0.8
2003 5.3 0.6
2004 5.6 1.2
2005 5.8 1.2
2006 5.8 1.7
2007 6.3 1.7

2008
6.4 2.0

NA – Data not collected.

Draft New York State Solid Waste Management Plan

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Draft New York State Solid Waste Management Plan

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

DRAFT

10 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

12 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

13 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

14 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

15 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

16 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

17 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

18 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

19 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

20 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

2016 75% 1.2

21 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

23 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

24 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

25 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

26 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

27 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

28 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

LSWMP Status Number Percent of Total

29 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

30 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

31 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

32 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

33 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

34 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

35 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

36 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

37 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

38 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

39 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

40 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

41 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

42 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

43 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

44 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

45 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

46 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

47 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

48 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

49 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

50 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

MSW Pounds/Person GHG Reduction Energy Savings

52 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

53 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

54 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

55 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

56 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

57 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

58 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

59 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

60 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

61 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

63 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

2008 2000‐2008 (avg.) 2008 2000‐2008 (avg)

Average Cost/Ton $760 $593 $500 $533

High Cost/Ton $2,740 $3,638 $1,140 $2,438

Low Cost/Ton $220 $184 $200 $133

Average Participation 2.3% 1.9% 4.8% 5.3%

High Participation 25.9% 16% 33.1% 26.2%

Low Participation 0.2% 0.3% 1.3% 0.9%

64 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

65 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT

68 Beyond Waste Plan ‐ DRAFT