Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
Research Study on
International Recycling Experience
Annex A
A7 NEW YORK CITY
A7.1 OVERVIEW
A summary description of New York City and key recycling
data are presented in Table A7.1.
Table A7.7.1 Overview of New York City
Background
Population
Details
7 322 654
Density
7 720/km2
Type of area
Urban
Type of housing
Apartments 84%
Definition of MSW
Domestic non-hazardous waste.
Recycling target
25% by end of fiscal year 2000
Recycling
achievement
22% (1999)
Principal recycling
drivers



requirement for kerbside recycling;
deposit refund for containers;
high level of environmental awareness (in
some areas).
The demographics of New York City are atypical of
American cities. New York City has a population of just over
7.3 million with a population density of over 7,000 people
per square mile. This makes it the most densely populated
city in the United States. The majority of residents live in
multi-storied apartment buildings. According to Census data,
over 71 per cent of the City’s population live in structures
housing three or more families.
A7.2 RECYCLING TRENDS
The City recycles mixed paper, newspaper, magazines,
catalogues, phone books, corrugated cardboard, milk and
juice cartons, metals, plastic bottles and jugs, glass bottles
and jars, and aluminum foil. The recycling rate has increased
from 12 per cent five years ago to 22 per cent currently,[1] due
in part to increases in coverage of recycling facilities for
materials such as paper.
Preliminary results for 1999 show 400 000 tons[2] of the
following types of commingled fibre and 180 000 tons of the
following types of commingled containers are collected.
There is no breakdown of these figures into material types.
The municipality tracks total tonnage recycled.
There is no comprehensive data on total recycling trends for
New York City.
A7.3 MSW MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
The New York City Department of Sanitation has
responsibility for collection and treatment of waste in the
City. Programme management and administration is handled
by the Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling
within the Department of Sanitation.
Domestic refuse and recyclables are collected by the
municipality. Processing of all recyclables is done by private
sector service providers under contract to the City.
Current processing service contracts with private sector
service providers are five years in length.[3] New processing
service contracts are for seven years with renewal options.
The contracts are indexed to the commodity prices contained
in the twice-monthly Official Board Markets trade
publication. Monthly cost and profit are competitively bid in
the contracts. Processors must also demonstrate an ability to
find markets for recycled materials.
The revenue sharing agreement between the Municipality and
the private processors for mixed paper, office paper and bulk
metals is determined by the market prices of the recycled
materials. A floor price is set, currently equivalent to $35
(£22) (*4) per ton for office paper and between $15 (£9.50)
and $25 (£16) per ton for bulk metals. If the commodity price
falls to equal the floor price no revenue is returned to the City.
If the commodity price falls below the floor price, the
processor receives a credit towards future revenues. When the
commodity price again increases the processor will cash in
those credits and hence keep more of the revenue from the
sale of the paper and metal. All revenue from the sale of
paper and bulk metals above and beyond the processor cost
and profit (and any credits) is returned to the Municipality. In
1998, the revenue transfer was $ 1 million (£640 000).
Metal, glass and plastic are processed under a different
contract. The Municipality pays a fee of $45 (£28.53) per ton
for MGP.
Containers and moneys collected through the deposit refund
system are collected by retailers and are passed to processors
via distribution companies, see Section 1.7 for more
information. These processors are a different set of
companies to those that process materials from the
mainstream collection systems. They typically work in
smaller, higher cost and high revenue markets.
A7.4 COLLECTION MECHANISMS AND
ACCESSIBILITY
The recycling program was started on a voluntary basis in
1986 as a three year pilot program, and in 1989 it was
established as a city service. In 1992, the kerbside collection
programme was expanded to include the entire city. In 1995,
the programme expanded again by adding more types of
paper to the mixed paper stream and by adding bulk metal to
the MGP stream. This expansion was phased in starting on
Staten Island, and adding successively the Bronx, Manhattan,
Brooklyn and finally Queens by 1997.
The kerbside collection programme is the largest in the
United States. The municipality provides weekly kerbside
collection services for all 3 million households as well as for
the public sector. It collects two ‘streams’ of commingled
recyclables. The first group is mixed paper. The second is
mixed containers, identified by the program as "MGP"(metals,
glass and plastic). Domestic hazardous waste, such as
household cleaners, pesticides and batteries are collected at
civic amenity centres. Garden waste is collected once a year
in the autumn.
In 1996, several low density sections were reduced to
alternate week collection in an effort to save money. With the
expansion of the programme to include more materials, many
regions of the City were returned in 1998 to weekly
collection, as recommended by the city council. Official
analysis is not yet available on the impact of the return to
weekly collection on recycling rates, but many recycling
advocates see it as partially responsible for the reported
increases in recycling.
The City has standardised the collection systems as much as
possible, despite the large variations in the types of apartment
buildings that use the services. The two primary methods of
standardisation are the use of kerbside recycling trucks and
the use of recycling containers for storing the material at
specific points.
Kerbside trucks, on regular routes for each area, are the
baseline system for providing recycling collection services.
Before a building can qualify for the container approach of
waste separation, it must first use the kerbside approach in
order to document typical volumes of recyclable waste.
Individual households within an apartment complex are
instructed to place commingled fibres in a clear plastic bag
and commingled containers in a blue plastic bag which are
placed at the kerb for pickup.
In the ‘mechanised approach’ there are recycling containers
for commingled fibres and commingled containers. Each
apartment complex with three or more units is required by a
City Ordinance to have at least one recycling area that is
accessible to residents. Some may also provide additional
smaller containers in other places in the apartment complex.
Large buildings are encouraged to have recycling areas on
every floor. Each area must have a container for paper and a
container for MGP. Examples of common practices are the
use of the ‘Trash chute rooms’ on each floor of a multi-story
building, use of a designated collection area in a basement,
use of a back door service hallway, or use of an outside
collection area. For one and two family units, the
responsibility falls on the municipality to provide recycling
facilities. Clear instructions for use of separate collection
areas are required. Standard labels are available from the
Bureau. Recycling containers are serviced by either front load
or rear load collection trucks.
A7.4.1 Participation Rate
The variance between recycling levels in different parts of the
city is wide. Some districts such as Staten Island reach
recycling rates of 35 per cent, while other achieve only 50 to
10 per cent.
There is some indication of what the potential recovery rate
could be based on a 1997 Waste Composition Study for
Staten Island. 77.2 per cent of all newspaper discarded in
Staten Island was recycled. Capture rates for mixed paper,
beverage containers and other aluminum were much lower
and ranged from 18 to 23 per cent. While such recycling rates
may potentially be achieved for the whole of the city,
significant obstacles exist in other districts.
In 1998, 23 Districts in the city had recycling rates below 12
per cent. Several factors may be responsible for this fact.
There is some indication that a 1990 waste composition study
overestimated recyclable content in the low diversion districts
by around 50 per cent. These districts have different lifestyles
and demographics that result in less purchasing of goods and
thus less waste. Therefore the potential recycling rate is lower
and the capture rate for recyclables is higher than in other
areas of the city. In other districts, the lack of space for
storing the recyclables may be the principal problem,
especially in lower income areas where the basements may be
used as housing space. In these cases, enforcement of City
Ordinances to provide recycling facilities may not be possible.
A7.5 COST AND REVENUES
The costs of the kerbside programme for the financial year
1997 (the most recent year for which data is available)
Table A7.7.2 Costs of kerbside recycling, 1997
Activity
Cost (£ mill)
Administration
0.77
Collection
46
Transfer of waste to recycling facilities
5.68
Processing and marketing (net of revenues)
9
Education and outreach
3.17
Community Services
0.23
Enforcement (net of revenues from fines)
3.16
Total Direct Costs
68
Average direct costs per ton
140
These costs are likely to decrease as collection systems due to
economies of scale.
The avoided costs, comprised of landfill located within New
York and incineration, are as follows:
Table A7.7.3 Avoided costs of waste disposal
Activity
Avoided refuse collection
Cost (£ mill)
21
Avoided refuse transfer and disposal costs
2.24
Total avoided cost
24
Average avoided costs per ton
49
The incremental cost is therefore $70 001 000 (£44 million).
This is equivalent to an average incremental cost per ton of
$144 (£91). The incremental difference is likely to get
smaller as costs of recycling decrease and as avoided costs
increase due less incineration activity and the closure of
Freshkills landfill. The avoided cost due to the closure of
Freshkills landfill is expected to increase to around $100 (£63)
per ton.[5]
A7.6 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Program staff believe that an important factor for increased
participation has been a commitment to funding recycling
activities. This has allowed continuous evaluation of
performance and efforts to improve recycling activities.
There is a requirement to provide separate collection
infrastructure. Two streams of recyclable materials are
collected at the kerbside. There are City Ordinances that
required for recycling areas to be made available in apartment
buildings. This is enforced with a stiff system of fines.
Public information activities have done much to promote the
collection systems.
A7.7 LEGAL AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
In 1989, the New York municipality was required to
implement programmes to ensure that specified amounts of
waste are reduced or recycled.[6] City Ordinances, rules and
regulations further detail the regulatory drivers for local home
owners and apartment owners. One example of this is
dumping of non recyclables in apartment recycling containers.
Rules state that the container will not be collected and a fine
will be levied against the apartment block. Repeated failure to
prevent contamination of recycling containers will result in
termination of mechanized service and conversion to kerbside
collection services.
Enforcement is carried out through a system of fines
authorized by the Ordinance. An offence carries an initial fine
of $25 (£16). This increases to $50 (£32) for the second
notice and $100 (£63) for the third notice and $500 (£317) for
four or more notices within a six month period. Buildings
with ten or more apartments that receive four or more fines
within a six month period are fined £317 for each bag that
violates recycling regulations, up to a maximum of 20 bags
within a 24 hour period. This translates to a maximum fine of
$10 000 (£6 340) per day. The majority of fines are given to
building owners, not the tenants. They can be fined for failure
to provide the facility and instructions for their tenants but
they can also be held responsible for failure to provide waste
separation facilities. Individual tenants can also be fined for
failure to separate and rinse recyclables (individuals are not
required to use recycling facilities, but those that do are
encouraged to sort their waste correctly). Enforcement tools
used are hidden cameras and discussions with the tenants.
Generally, apartment dwellers tend to sort their waste out
correctly.
A7.8 FISCAL INCENTIVES
New York State has a 5¢ beverage container deposit system,
for all carbonated drinks and beer containers. The return rate
is around 85 per cent.[7]
A7.8.1 Waste Disposal Costs
Old waste disposal system that would have been costly to
bring into compliance with modern environmental protection
regulations are being phased out. Out-dated incinerators in
the city and five landfills have been shut down. The last
remaining landfill (and the largest in the world), Fresh Kills,
is being shut down in the year 2000. The cost to export waste
is expected to be around $100 per ton. Transportation of
waste out of the city is a large financial, logistical and
technical challenge that is still being dealt with through the
construction of bulk waste handling methods including bargebased waste transfer systems. Waste recovery options, such
as recycling, are therefore becoming more competitive.
A7.8.2 Charging Systems for Waste Management
Waste services are financed from general property taxes
which are based on property values. The average annual
charge in 1997 was $180 (£114) per household, although the
variance within this figure is large. Improving an apartment
building to facilitate waste separation may increase the value
of their property. Increases in multi-family residential
property values due to improvements in recycling
accessibility are exempted from property taxes for a specified
amount of time in the 1997 tax code. The law also provided a
property tax rebate for any work carried out to improve waste
separation facilities in multi-family buildings.
A7.9 PUBLIC AWARENESS
Education activities include:

Posting of 3 million information packs containing
brochures, yes/no flyers (Yes indicates the materials
that can be recycled, and No indicates the materials
that cannot be recycled), stickers, and collection
schedules. Similar direct mailings were repeated each
time changes in the recycling services were made, for
example, increased coverage of materials.
 Translation of public education information into
Spanish, Chinese and Korean.
 Thousands of advertisements on local cable television,
in print, in shop windows, on outdoor posters, in
buses and subways.
A7.10 MARKETS FOR END PRODUCTS
The Municipality is cooperating with the City’s Economic
Development Corporation to develop end markets for post
consumer materials. Development of marketing opportunities
by recycling processors is an important part of the municipal
contract.
New York has a large port that has traditionally been a trade
gateway to the far East. There are three major end markets for
recyclable paper collected from the City. Some newspaper,
magazines and phone books are shipped to the U.S., Canada
and the Far East where they are turned into newsprint and
greyboard. Grocery bags, paperboard and cardboard are sold
to other states and Mexico.
The MGP recyclables stream is separated into steel, clear and
coloured glass, aluminum, beverage containers and plastic.
The steel is sold and converted into new steel products. Milk
and juice containers have the polycoating removed and the
paper is used to make new products. The glass is crushed and
sold to be made into new bottles and jars. Aluminum cans are
made into new cans while foil is made into tins and plates.
Plastic is converted to artificial lumber and stuffing for ski
jackets.
[1] Pers. Comm., Robert Lange, Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and
Recycling, New York Department of Sanitation.
[2] 1 metric tonne = 0.98405 Imperial tons
[3] Contracts for processing used to be annual. The capital investment
required by these companies to meet their contractual obligations resulted
in a need for longer term contracts so that the investments could be
amortized over time.
[4] FT 19/04/00 $0.634 = £1
[5] Pers. Comm., Robert Lange, Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and
Recycling, New York Department of Sanitation.
[6] New York Administrative Code, Subchapter 2.
[7] There is evidence that indicates that in States where the deposit refund
fee is set at 10 cents, the return rate is 95 per cent.
[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]
Published 26 April 2001
Waste Index
Environmental Protection Index
Defra Home Page