Waste Management Practices In New York City, Hong Kong

eijingBy Steven Cohen, Hayley Martinez and Alix SchroderDecember 2015IntroductionSolid waste management is a challenge for large urban areas around the world. Removing garbage fromresidential, institutional and commercial locations in cities is a major logistical and operational task.Waste management is usually a function of local  government,  and  is  often  a  city’s  largest budget item.Solid waste generation rates are rising fast, particularly in cities experiencing increasing population ratesand higher economic activity, putting pressure on municipal governments to deal with rising costs andenvironmental impacts.The waste from cities around the world is already enough to fill a line of trash trucks 5,000 kilometerslong every day. In 1900, the world had 220 million urban residents that produced 300,000 tons of wasteper day; by 2000, those numbers grew to 2.9 billion people generating 3 million tons of solid waste perday. Worldwide, waste rates are expected to triple by 2100, to exceed 11 million tons per day. Theglobal cost of dealing with all that trash is rising too, from 205 billion a year in 2010 to 375 billion by2025, with the sharpest cost increases in developing countries (The World Bank, 2013). Due to thisvolume of waste material, an increasing amount of waste is recycled, burned for energy, or in the caseof food waste, reprocessed as fertilizer.East Asia is now the world’s fastest growing region for waste. Waste  generation  in  Asia’s  urban  areas  isexpected to soon reach 1.8 million tons per day (World Bank, 2013). In 2004, China surpassed the U.S. asthe   world’s   largest   waste   generator. The Chinese government has developed a number of laws anddevelopment plans related to waste management, many of which are discussed in   the   government’sFive Year Plan- the five year social and economic plan for the country, developed periodically by theNational   People’s   Congress. Waste management practices in China are governed by the   ‘Solid   WastePollution  Prevention  and  Control  Law’  (2005)  and  the  ‘Circular  Economy  Promotion  Law’  (2009).The 12th Five Year Plan states that by 2015 all counties will be able to manage solid waste, with anemphasis on recycling of post-consumer materials. However, China is undergoing an unprecedentedincrease in waste generation. According to the World Bank, the quantity of municipal solid wastegenerated in China’s  cities has increased fivefold between 1980 and 2009, from 85,000 tons to 430,000tons per day, and is projected to reach 1.6 million tons per day by 2030 (2014). Most waste in Chinagoes to landfills or unregulated waste heaps outside major cities, and as China’s  landfills  are  filling  up,cities are turning to burning waste to generate electricity at waste-to-energy plants. Overall in China, thenumber of waste incinerators is projected to increase from 93 in 2009 to 200 in 2015, raising the dailydisposal capacity from 55,400 tons to 140,000 tons (World Bank, 2014). However, there is increasingpublic concern about the environmental performance of these waste incinerators, and their impact onthe local environment and communities.1

Many cities around the world are implementing innovative measures to deal with waste, and areincreasingly incorporating waste management into sustainability plans. Some cities are setting positiveexamples through aggressive recycling and zero waste programs. Cities are reducing food waste withbetter storage and transportation. They are implementing construction strategies that increase reuse ofmaterials. Some local policies such as waste disposal fees and other charges are being used toencourage waste reduction. Some cities have banned the use of plastic shopping bags and some arerequiring that stores charge for the use of bags.This case study examines waste management practices in three cities: New York City, Hong Kong andBeijing. We begin by assessing New York City to provide an overview of waste management practices ina large, complex U.S. city. We then focus on Hong Kong, and finally on Beijing, to provide detail on thewaste management practices of two major Chinese cities and learn how they are dealing with thegrowing volume of waste generated by these large cities. In each of the three cases we describe thehistory of waste management in that locale, the status of waste management today, and discuss thechallenges faced in each location. Finally, we compare the practices in these cities, and detail thetechnical, managerial and political issues that define the waste management system in each place.New York CityNew   York   City’s  8  million  residents   and  millions  of   businesses,  construction   projects   and   non-residentemployees generate 14 million tons of waste and recyclables per year (City of New York, 2014). Thisamount is so vast that waste is handled by two separate systems – one public and one private. Thepublic agency – the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) – serves residential buildings,government agencies and many nonprofit organizations. Private commercial firms do not receive freegarbage pick-up by the city government. They must pay private firms to remove their solid waste. Theprivate waste removal system is comprised of a small group of waste removal firms that are regulatedby  the  City’s  Business  Integrity  Commission. This Commission licenses waste hauling firms that removecommercial waste. The New York City Department of Sanitation collaborates with the Sims MultiRecycling Recovery Facility (Sims), the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), and GreeNYC tomanage the  city’s waste through reduction initiatives in the following areas: waste reduction, recycling,and composting and organic waste diversion. Spending on residential and commercial garbage is about 2.3 billion of  the  city’s 75 billion annual budget (Citizens Budget Commission, 2014).During the twentieth century, the New York City Department of Sanitation relied on a number oflandfills  for  garbage  disposal.  Then  in  December  2001,  the  city’s  last  garbage  dump closed. In response,the City Council adopted a twenty-year plan for exporting government-managed waste, relying on atruck-based system and a combination of local, land-based transfer stations that  took  the  city’s  garbageand disposed it in landfills, recycling facilities and waste-to-energy plants in neighboring states and inplaces as far away as 750 miles. Once local landfills were filled, and efforts to build local waste-to-energyincinerators were blocked, waste export became the only option for New York City (DSNY, 2006). TheCity recognized that waste disposal costs would continue to increase as nearby landfills closed andtrucks would have to travel to more distant landfills.Of the 3.8 million tons of solid waste that the New York City Department of Sanitation now collectsannually, 14% is recycled, 76% is sent to landfills and 10% is converted to energy at a waste-to-energyfacility (Citizens Budget Commission, 2014). The waste that goes to landfills often travels long distancesto states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and South Carolina. New York is one of the few large U.S. cities2

that funds trash collection with general tax revenue – it  doesn’t  charge  customers  for  waste  collection.History of the ProblemNew York City has a long and difficult history in solid waste management. Ocean dumping ended in1935, brought on by a federal lawsuit filed by New Jersey coastal cities (McCrory, 1998). With plans fornew incinerators slowed, first by the Great Depression and then by World War II, the city found itselfstruggling to meet its waste disposal needs. In 1947, the Fresh Kills Landfill opened in Staten Island, oneof  the   city’s  five   boroughs.  Initially,   the  city’s  new   mayor  promised  that  “raw”  garbage   would  only  belandfilled at Fresh Kills for three years – the time it would take to build a large incinerator in everyborough. However, by the 1960s, one-third   of   the   city’s   trash   was   burned   in   over   17,000   apartmentbuilding incinerators and 22 municipal incinerators. The remaining residential refuse was still sent toFresh Kills as well as the   city’s  other  landfills  (Miller, 2000). As environmental awareness grew, publicpressure began to mount against incineration and landfilling. Old landfills and incinerators weregradually shut down, with the last municipal incinerator closed in 1992. By the late 1990s, Fresh Kills wasthe only remaining waste disposal option for the residential and public waste managed by the New YorkCity Department of Sanitation (Earth Institute, 2001).In 1996, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Governor George Pataki announced that Fresh Kills would receiveits last ton of garbage no later than January 1, 2002, and the city developed a Fresh Kills Closure TaskForce. The principal goal of the task force was to develop a short-term plan for diverting the waste fromFresh Kills up to its full closure in 2001. In order to divert the waste prior to closure, the city entered intoa number of three-year interim contracts with private waste haulers.  The  city’s  annual  bill  for  collectingand disposing residential trash jumped by nearly 50%, to about 658 million in 2000 and then to nearly 1 billion in 2001. While New York City was paying under 50 per ton for disposal at Fresh Kills, some ofthe interim contracts were nearly double the price, costing more than 100 per ton when increasedtransportation costs were taken into account (Earth Institute, 2001).The next goal of the task force was to develop a longer-term solution to the waste issue. Under the longterm plan, approved by both the New York City Council and the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, the city entered into six 20-year contracts with private waste companies.The contracts featured fixed cost increases and, according to the DSNY, no minimum tonnagerequirements. Although the plan was ostensibly long-term, it was and is vulnerable to cost escalationand   increased   regulation   from   the   states   that   host   landfills.   Furthermore,   the   plan   doesn’t   includecareful planning for waste transfer processes within the city.In the summer of 2002, the city began to take some steps to develop elements of a true long-term planfor managing waste. While the overall waste export strategy was still being pursued, then-MayorMichael Bloomberg announced a plan to develop garbage transfer stations that would compact refuseand ship it by barge for disposal. These stations would be placed in waterfront locations in each of thefive New York City boroughs and would replace a system of land-based waste transfer that usesthousands of diesel-fueled trucks daily to haul garbage through city streets to disposal sites in otherstates. In late 2003, the projected expense of building these transfer stations grew, putting the plan onhold.Relying on waste export systems leaves the city vulnerable over the long run, as both restrictions onwaste disposal and its costs are likely to escalate. Future regulations on new landfills by federal andstate environmental protection agencies could increase the cost of new landfills and limit future landfill3