Exhibit 6 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

AUG 102001 OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Emissions from Large and Small MWC Units at MACT Compliance

FROM: Walt Stevenson c4f OAQPS/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

TO: Large MWC Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0117)

This memorandum presents information on the overall emissions reductions achieved by large and small municipal waste combustion (MWC) units following retrofit of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT). This memorandum is a companion to the memorandum titled "Emissions from Large MWC Units at MACT Compliance (note a). Consistent with Clean Air Act (CAA) section 129, large and small MWC units completed MACT retrofits by December 2000 and December 2005, respectively. The performance of the MACT retrofits has been outstanding. Emission reductions achieved for all CAA section 129 pollutants are shown below. Of particular interest are dioxinlfuran and mercury emissions. Since 1990 (pre-MACT conditions), dioxinlfuran emissions from large and small MWCs have been reduced by more than 99 percent, and mercury emissions have been reduced by more than 96 percent. Dioxinlfuran emissions have been reduced to 15 grams per year* and mercury emissions reduced to 2.3 tons/year.

Emissions From Large and Small MWC Units

Pollutant 1990 Emissions (!PY) 20Q5 E,:!1issions (tpy) Percent Reduction ------_. ----_. .._------._---- ... CDD/CDF, TEQ basis* 4400 15 99+% --f--- -- Mercury 57 2.3 96% Cadmium 9.6 0.4 96% Lead 170 5.5 97% Particulate Matter 18,600 780 96% HC] 57,400 3,200 94% SO} 38,300 4,600 88 % f-- NO, 64,900 49,500 24%

(*) dioxinlfuran 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.

Internet Address (URl) • http://www.epa.gov RecycledIRecyclable • Printed w~h Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) 2

The MACT performance data presented above is from the initial MACT compliance tests from all large and small MWC units. The inventory of large MWC units at MACT compliance identifies 167 large MWC units located at 66 MWC plants (note b). The inventory of small MWC units at MACT compliance identifies 60 small MWC units located at 22 MWC plants (note c). The baseline 1990 emissions data are from the large and small MWC emissions trend memo (note d and e). In combination, the above information defines the 1990 and 2005 emissions for large and small MWC units.

notes

(a) see docket A-90-45, item VIIJ-B-II. (b) see docket A-90-45, item VIII-B-6 (c) see docket OAR-2004-03"12, "National Inventory of Small Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC) Units at MACT Compliance (Year 2005)", dated November 1,2006. (d) see docket A-90-45, item VIII-B-7 , (e) see docket OAR-2004-0312, "National Emissions Trends for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units [year 1990 - 2005]", dated June 12,2002. Exhibit 7 Re-birth of the United States Energy-from-Waste Industry

Summary ofEnvironmental, Energy Security and Economic Benefits

August 2009

Covanta Energy Corporation Summary o Energy-from-Waste (EfW, also called Waste-to-Energy or WTE) has the potential to provide disposal for nearly 270 million tons of United States (U.S.) municipal solid waste (MSW), approximately 40% of projected 2030 U.S. MSW generation. This would prevent the emission of as much as 270 million tons of greenhouse gases (GHG) annually.

Etw GROWTH CAPACITY

300 50.0% .s= ~ Millions ofEfW Tons ~ ~ ~ 250 l. --+- % ofMSW Generation 0= 40.0% Q,) E-- .... 200 =Q,) 0 30.0% \,;) ~ 150 20.0% ~ ....=0 100 rJ"j = ~ 50 10.0% .... ~ 0 0 0.0% ~<= 2006A 2020P 2030P

Source: 2006 data as per Biocycle and the Emth EngineeIing Center of Columbia University ("Biocycie/Columbia"), "The State of Garbage in AmeIica," December 2008. Please note, however, that on the basis of the U.S. EPA's "Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures", the generation ofMSW in 2006 was significantly lower at approximately 250 million tons (versus -415 million tons under the Biocycle/Columbia study) and the MSW combusted with energy recovery (EfW) represented 12.6% of the total U.S. MSW (versus 6.9% under the Biocycle/Columbia study). The EPA data are based on estimates of waste generation, while the Biocycle/Columbia survey is based on the actual volumes of wastes recycled, combusted with energy recovery, and landfilled as repOlted to the Biocycle/Columbia survey by the waste management authOlities of the fifty states. In this report, the Biocycle/Columbia estimates were used.

o An expanded EfW industry at this scale would produce approximately 184 billion kWh of electricity, over 3.9% of projected U.S. electricity demand in 2030, up 1 from 0.4% in 2006 :

EtwENERGY PRODUCTION GROWTH

200 5.0% ~ EfW Energy Production ~ .~ -= 160 4.0% .i: --+- % of U.S. Electricity ~ ~ ..::: eJ .s= ~ ~ .... 120 3.0% eJ 0 ~ ~ "0= 80 2.0% rJ"j 0 = ~ l. ;§ .... ~ ~ 40 1.0% 0 ~<= 0 0.0% 2006A 2020P 2030P

Source: U.S. Depmtment of Energy, Energy Infonnation Administration, U.S. ElectIicity Supply Data, APli12009. Note: Assumes 550 kWh energy produced per ton of MSW processing capacity in operation as of2006. Assumes 700 kWh energy produced per ton ofMSW processed from new EfW plants.

I U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Infonnation Administration, U.S. ElectIicity Supply Data, ApIi12009.

2 o Expansion ofEfW capacity is compatible with both increasing recycling rates and decreasing landfilling rates. By 2030, recycling could account for more than 45% of U.S. MSW generation, with EfW processing just over 40%. According to the U.S. EPA, the U.S. recycled 85 million tons ofMSW in 2007 and such recycling 2 reduced emissions by 193 million tons of C02 equivalent • Assuming 2030 projected U.S. MSW generation, a 45% recycling rate and the EPA's recycling/OHO emission reduction factor (i.e., 193 million /85 million = 2.27), the recycling of ~300 million tons ofMSW in 2030 would reduce emissions by approximately 680 million tons of C02 equivalent.

% of MSW Generation - 2006A

EfW -6.9%

Landfill-14.0% Landfill - 64.5% Landfill- 36.9%

Source: 2006 data as per Biocycle and the Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University, "The State of Garbage in America," December 2008.

o The construction and operation of new EfW facilities could provide over $518 billion of construction phase economic impact from 2010 through 2030 and create nearly 1.2 billion full-time equivalent construction jobs and nearly 54,000 good­ paying permanent jobs:

Note: All dollar amounts expressed in 2009 dollars.

2 "Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 2008. 3 Overview of Energy-from-Waste Energy-from-Waste (EfW) is a process that takes MSW, i.e., household trash, and transfers it into combustion chambers where it is burned at high temperatures and reduced to 10% of its original volume. The heat generated from the combustion chambers heats up water in steel tubes that fonn the walls of the combustion chambers. The water is converted into steam and sent through a turbine that continuously generates electricity. EfW plants operate on a 2417, or "baseload", basis without regard to prevailing weather conditions. Thus, EfW capacity can be productively located in any region or state within the U.S.

EfW is currently classified as a renewable source of electricity by the Energy Policy Act of2005, the U.S. Department of Energy and by 24 state governments and the District of Columbia. Please see below for list of jurisdictions defining EfW as renewable as of January 1, 2009.

Alaska Maine New York Arkansas Maryland Oregon California Massachusetts Pennsylvania Connecticut Michigan South Dakota District of Columbia Minnesota Virginia Florida Montana Washington Hawaii Nevada Wisconsin Iowa New Hampshire Indiana New Jersey

The 87 EfW facilities in the U.S. collectively process more than 90,000 tons ofMSW each day, supply electricity to more than 2 million U.S. homes and provide stable, good­ 3 paying jobs to approximately 6,000 Americans . America's EfW facilities collectively generate "enough electricity to light all of the homes in Maine, New Hampshire, 4 Vennont, Rhode Island, and most of Massachusetts ."

The U.S. EfW industry has been in existence for more than 25 years and has developed state-of-the-art technology making it one of the cleanest fonns of energy generation, meeting or exceeding all standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The need for and relevance ofEfW in the U.S. has never been stronger, but most EfW capacity was constructed 15 or more years ago and no new plant has been brought online in the U.S. in 13 years. In fact, according to EPA reports, the amount of annual MSW produced in the U.S. has increased by more than 40 million tons since the last new EfW plant was constructed.

3 "Waste Not, Want Not: The Facts Behind Waste to Energy," Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA), September 2008. 4 "America's Own Energy Source," Published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, The Solid Waste Association of North America, and the Integrated Waste Services Association, December 2006. 4 Because local governments often sponsor EfW facilities, they directly benefit from the provision of state and federal government incentives for EfW capacity development, e.g., by enjoying stable waste disposal costs and expanded employment and tax bases.

The situation in the U.S. contrasts sharply with what is going on elsewhere in the world, however, as EfW usage and capacity additions grow strongly throughout Europe and Asia. Overseas growth is driven by ambitious government policies motivated by an understanding of the multiple benefits provided by EfW, which are briefly discussed below.

Primary Benefits of Energy-from-Waste EfW is uniquely positioned to address some of the U.S.'s most pressing challenges, including (i) dealing with climate change and reducing GHG emissions; (ii) reducing our reliance on foreign energy sources and increasing renewable energy generation; (iii) adopting more sustainable practices regarding land use and recycling; and (iv) reinvigorating our economy through investments that will create both jobs and vital infrastructure and promote the long-term competitiveness of our nation. Each challenge and EfW's contribution to meeting it are discussed below.

Climate Change At present, about 65% of U.S. MSW is buried in landfills each years. Decomposing MSW in landfills emits methane, a GHG 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide (C02)6. According to the EPA, landfills account for approximately 23% of all 7 anthropogenic u.s. methane releases • Changing waste disposal practices in the U.s. represents a clear opportunity to reduce GHG emissions with proven technology - more recycling, more EfW and improved landfill design.

Waste reduction is the preferred first step in the waste management process, followed by recycling. But not all waste can be recycled. After recycling, there are only two proven options for disposal: bury waste in a landfill or use the EfW process to convert the ever­ present supply oftrash into clean, renewable energy.

According to the EPA, EfW is the preferred option (illustrated by the EPA's Solid Waste Management Hierarchy shown below), as it reduces the release of GHG by: o Reducing usage of landfills, which generate methane emissions;' o Decreasing dependence on fossil fuel power plants and related C02 emissions; o Recycling metals (recovered through the EfW process), thus reducing mining of virgin materials and the associated C02 emissions; and o Reducing long-haul truck traffic to distant landfills.

5 Biocycle and the Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University, "The State of Garbage in America," December 2008. Landfill volumes account for approximately 55% ofMSW generation according to the EPA's "Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures," November 2008. 6 Themelis, N. 1. , and P. A. Ulloa, "Methane Generation in Landfills," Renewable Energy vol. 32,2007, page 1243. 7 "lnventolY of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 2009.

5 Solid Waste Management Hierarchy

The EPA's Life Cycle Assessment methodology in the Decision Support Tool (using nationwide average values) estimates that u.S. EfW reduces GHG emissions by the equivalent of30 million tons of C02 per year8. In effect, combusting one ton of waste in an EfW facility prevents the equivalent of one ton of C02 from entering the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels to produce the same amount of electricity and the decomposition ofMSW in landfills.

Converting landfill methane to energy is preferable to simply landfilling MSW, but such conversion is much less efficient than EfW: The Earth Engineering Center at Columbia University estimates that, on average, only 50-60% oflandfill methane is captured over 9 the life of a landfill and the rest escapes to the atmosphere .

Renewable Energy The volume of MSW continues to increase around the world due to population and economic growth and this will likely be the case even if the recycling rates increase significantly. It is unrealistic to expect that in the foreseeable future the U.S. will be able to recycle 100% of our MSW - the most advanced recycling countries in the world recycle approximately 70% of their waste todayJO. Accordingly, EfW is currently classified as a renewable source of electricity by the Energy Policy Act of2005, the U.S. Department of Energy and by 24 state governments and the District of Columbia. EfW power production is also reliable across any U.S. geography: EfW facilities produce electricity every hour, every day and thus can displace base load coal and gas-fired power plants.

8 See also "Waste Not, Want Not: The Facts Behind Waste to Energy," Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA), September 2008. 9 Themelis, N.J., "Waste to Energy: Transforming a Major Source of Greenhouse Gases to a Renewable Energy Source," World Future Energy Fomm, Abu Dhabi, January 2008. 10 Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants, an organization representing approximately 340 waste-to-energy plants across Europe, www.cewep.eu.

6 u.s. RELIANCE ON IMPORTED FUELS

1990

Source: u.S. Dep31tment of Energy, Energy Infonnation Administration, Retail Motor Gasoline and On-Highway Diesel Fuel Plices, 1949-2008, and Petroleum Net Impolts by Country of Oligin, 1960-2008.

EfW currently generates nearly 9% of U.S. renewable electricity, thereby reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and energy imports I I. For every ton of waste processed at EfW facilities, we avoid the need to import one barrel of oil or mine a quarter ton of coal.

In aggregate, the u.s. EfW industry currently processes approximately 30 million tons per year ofMSW, thereby saving the equivalent of nearly 30 million barrels of oil per yearl2.

While the EfW industry supplied approximately 0.4% of U.S. electricity consumption in 2006, an expanded EfW industry could provide over 3.9% of projected 2030 electricity demand (equal to 4.7% of current electricity demand).

II "Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures," U.S. Environmental Protection Ageqcy, November 2008. 12 "Waste Not, Want Not: The Facts Behind Waste to Energy," Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA), September 2008.

7 2008 U.S. ELECTRICITY GENERATION 2008 U.S. RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY 4,110,259 GWH GENERATION 123,603 GWH )

Other-O.3%

NucIear- 19.6% Coal-48.5%

Oil-l.l%

Natural Gas & Other Gases - 21.6%

Source: U.S. DepaJtment of Energy, Energy Infonnation Administration (EIA), Monthly Energy Review, May 2009. Note: The ETA's Energy-from-Waste statistic above includes landfill gas collection and utilization. Sustainability In addition to providing clean renewable energy and reducing GHG emissions, EfW' promotes recycling and minimizes the environmental impact ofMSW on land and other natural resources.

Studies have shown that recycling rates tend to be higher in communities where EfW' facilities are located 13. The reason for this is simple: communities that invest in EfW' facilities establish long-term, comprehensive solid waste management plans. This compatibility is clearly seen in European countries, where extensive use ofEfW' and higher recycling rates than those of the U.S. go hand-in-hand, e.g., Germany, Netherlands and Belgium. Please see the chart below for further illustration of this compatibility.

13 Kiser,1. V. L., "Understanding Why Recycling and Waste to Energy are compatible in the U.S.," IWSA 2007 Directory of Waste to Energy Plants, page 9, October 2007.

8 TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL WASTE IN EUROPE - 2006

!Iii! l.ilildfllllilg 90% EfW

70%.

40'l,{. 30'% 20%. 10'% 0% ;,;.....;- >:. ;'ll l: ;::I ~ l: ell ~, :Q ~ .t;: to. .; -;,; :Q "i C· f,I l:l ;::I ;:! (:Z ~ t;;J; ,., ~ '" ::: I:t S '" ~ "Oi:i Q.. .:: .3 0 :: ,.;:, ~ 'e;:, ;t.;. r.r; ~ ~ ~ e 1 - E ." ;::I ... = .Q to. Z := ..:; '"C 4t =:. ~ (,1'1 < S c r.:; Q !;.i &. ~ : .... "" ;;a ~ ~ ::I 'Z: 'i:l -l ~ .... '"iN C V ~ Source: "Europe in Figures - Eurostat Veal'book 2008."

According to the EPA, U.S. MSW recycling in 2007 reduced emissions by 193 million l4 tons of C02 equivalent . But the US. can and must improve further in this area and the expansion of the EfW industry has a demonstrated record of driving recycling rates higher. Covanta is a strong supporter of all recycling efforts and the US. EfW industry itself recycles approximately 720,000 tons of meta Is per year that are recovered by its facilities.

Biocycle/Columbia estimates that the U.S. landfilled almost 65% of its MSW in 2006. According to a 2006 study conducted by the Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council headquartered at Columbia University, approximately 1.5 billion tons ofMSW are estimated to be deposited into landfills each yearl5. The U.S., with only 5% of the world's population, accounts for about 9% of all landfill deposits based on EPA estimates for landfilling and 16% using Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council estimates for landfilling. '

Landfills are a major emitter of GHG because of the release of methane from decomposing MSW and of C02 from the transportation ofMSW to distant landfills (e.g., New York City metro area to Ohio or Virginia).

Given the above, the heavy U.S. reliance on land filling could be difficult to understand. The explanation is straightforward, however: in most regions of the U.S., landfilling is

14 "Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 2008. 15 Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council Brochure, October 2006.

9 the least expensive disposal option provided one excludes the costs to the country of GHG emissions, energy insecurity and sustainability issues. EfW is a preferable alternative because it helps address the foregoing issues.

Job Creation and Economic Growth16 As described in further detail below and in the Appendix, a re-birth of the EfW industry would have a significant impact on the u.s. economy. The construction of 487 new plants in the u.s. by 2030 (~27 per year) would require the aggregate expenditure of more than $165 billion on U.S. labor and domestically-sourced materials and equipment. Excluding tax revenues, total economic activity generated during the construction phase through 2030 is expected to be approximately $434 billion. Including federal and state income taxes and sales taxes projected to be paid, the total economic impact of the construction of the new EfW capacity is estimated to be $518 billion. The construction effort would create both direct and indirect, good-paying jobs to approximately 60,000 people for 20 years.

In addition, it is estimated that the industry would create nearly 54,000 permanent jobs to operate and support the new facilities by 2030. On an ongoing basis, approximately $16.6 billion of economic activity would be generated annually as a result of the operations of the new facilities. For details of these calculations, please see the Appendix.

International Usage and Growth of Energy-from-Waste EfW is used extensively overseas and the industry is growing strongly across a number of markets. Global EfW capacity is currently estimated to total approximately 140 million l7 tons per year , with about 50 million tons per year of capacity located in Asia (mainly in Japan), 60 million tons per year of capacity located in Europe I 8, and 30 million tons per year of capacity located in the u.s.

Annual EfW investments to build new capacity and to maintain/upgrade existing facilities likely exceed $10 billion, with the the European Union (EU) expected to add as many as 100 new facilities by 2012 and to increase capacity by up to 13 million tons per 19 year by 2018 . The current outlook for u.s. EfW growth is very modest, however, with the u.s. currently expected to invest far less than its proportionate share.

The EU utilizes a simple but effective approach to managing MSW while reducing GHG emissions and expanding renewable energy generation. First, the EU is reducing the amount of land filled biodegradable waste (pursuant to the EU Landfill Directive of 1999) to 35% of its 1995 levels by dates in the 2015-2020 range (varying by country). Second,

16 All dollar amounts expressed in 2009 dollars. 17 IWSA 2007 Directory of Waste to Energy Plants, October 2007. 18 Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants, an organization representing approximately 340 waste-to-energy plants across Europe, www.cewep.eu. 19 "Waste to Energy Market is Booming, 100 New Plants by 2012," Frost and Sullivan press release, Januaty 2008.

10 the EU acknowledges that EfW recovers energy and metals from MSW. Third, the EU acknowledges that EfW is a net reducer of GHG, and some countries in the EU are using EfW to meet their respective Kyoto targets. Fourth, EfW is classified as a renewable energy source with tariff incentives typically comparable to those for wood-fired biomass projects20 . Tariffs vary by country, but include a mix of feed-in tariffs as well as power market price premiums21 .

China is also advancing a number of policy objectives regarding EfW. First, China has a stated goal of processing 30% of its MSW in EfW facilities by 2030. Second, China has established a 15% renewable energy target by 2020 and EfW is included in the country's renewable energy scheme and benefits from a number of incentives such as premium power tariffs22. For example, China currently provides a $30/MWh premium for electricity generated by EfW facilities.

History of Federal Support of the Energy-from-Waste Industry As summarized below, the role of the EfW industry in addressing the nation's need to expand alternative energy production has been consistently recognized in important federal energy policy legislation.

Public Utility Restructuring Policy Act of 1978 o Required investor-owned utilities to purchase privately produced power, including power generated by EfW facilities, at "avoided cost" rates o Created the market context that stimulated the development of the independent power industry in the U.S.

Energy Tax Act of 1978 o Created special investment tax credits for the construction of alternative energy assets, including EfW facilities

Tax Reform Act of 1986 o Ended tax benefits to many industries o Extended preexisting tax benefits for EfW facilities under strict transition rules o Eased Tax-Exempt Bond Restrictions for publicly-owned EfW facilities

American Jobs Creation Act of2004 o Expanded renewable energy production tax credits to include EfW facilities

Energy Policy Act of 2005 o Extended preexisting tax benefits for renewable energy production, including production from EfW facilities

20 "Study of the Introduction of Renewable Energy in the EU," Inforse-Europe, February 2006. 21 The cun·ent EU mid-tenn renewable energy target is 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 (Source: ·'Green Light for Recovery and the Climate Package," Council of the European Union, 11-12 December 2008.). 22 Watts, Jonathan, "China Pledges to Double Reliance on Renewable Energy by 2020," The Guardian, 8 November 2005.

11 In fact, the only major piece of federal legislation enacted in the last 30 years to exclude EfW from subsidies provide to other renewable energy providers was the 1992 JOBS Act.

The capital costs to construct EfW facilities are significantly higher per unit of capacity (e.g., per megawatt, or MW) than nearly any other type of power generation plant. Therefore, the revenue earned from the sale of electric power and/or steam is insufficient to justify the investment. An additional revenue stream in the form of a "tipping" fee, paid to the EfW plant for accepting waste for disposal, is necessary for EfW plants to be economically viable, but even then only in certain geographic markets. EfW is not, and will never be, the cheapest provider of energy - rather, EfW delivers unique value by simultaneously providing multiple benefits.

Tipping fees are largely driven by locallandfilling fees and EfW plants compete against landfills to attract MSW volumes. In many parts ofthe country, landfill fees, and therefore the tipping fees available to EfW facilities, are too low for EfW plants to be economically viable given the high capital costs ofEfW construction. Landfill and EfW tipping fees are highest in the most heavily populated areas ofthe U.S., where land is scarce and expensive. To illustrate, the densely populated Northeast accounts for just under 50% of all u.S. EfW capacity and the South, primarily Florida, accounts for a full 33% ofEfW capacity23.

Although electricity prices have increased since U.S. EfW industry growth stalled in the mid-1990's, such growth has not been sufficient to keep up with both the significant increase in construction costs and the growth in large, regional landfills against which EfW plants compete to attract MSW.

Some observers conclude that because existing EfW facilities are profitable, the EfW industry should no longer be included in government programs to promote renewable energy expansion through various subsidies. However, no new EfW plants have been built in the U.S. in well over a decade and the existing EfW fleet is ageing. Although industry profitability is enhanced by the fact that over time EfW facility debt and depreciable asset bases have been reduced substantially, the profitability of 10-20 year old plants does little on its own to help the industry begin to grow again so it can contribute to addressing multiple of the nation's most pressing prioritie's.

Encouraging the growth of EfW alongside other renewable energy sources makes more sense now than ever before given the increased U.S. focus on: o Reducing GHG emissions; o Increasing supplies of alternative energy; o Promoting more sustainable environmental practices; and o Investing in the buildout of U.S. infrastructure to promote job creation and economic competitiveness.

23 "Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 2008.

12 Because MSW is generated throughout the country, EfW capacity can be productively constructed and located in any state or region. To the extent, however, that the GHG reduction, energy security, land preservation and other sustainability benefits are not taken into account and rewarded financially, any future EfW capacity additions will be limited to the regions in which the industry is concentrated today due to the landfill dynamics.

U.S. EfW Employment and Economic Growth from Energy-from-Waste Expansion Covanta Energy Corporation, in conjunction with Dr. Thomas Conoscenti of New York University, has analyzed the economic impact of an expansion of EfW capacity in the U.s. through 2030.

For this analysis, Covanta and Dr. Conoscenti developed projections for EfW growth through 2030 based on actual 2006 data from Biocycle/Columbia. The following key assumptions were made:

o MSW generation is projected to increase at 2% annually; o Materials recovery/recycling growth outpaces the increase in generation, growing 4% annually, such that approximately 45.6% ofMSW is recovered/recycled by 2030, up from 28.6% in 2006; and o Landfill volumes are reduced by 65% from 2006 levels by 2030, which implies EfW volumes in 2030 equal to 40.4% ofMSW generation (up from 6.9% in 2006).

Based on these projections, an expanded EfW industry presents an extremely favorable economic development opportunity that will enhance the economies of the host communities, the states in which the facilities are constructed and the nation. The projected economic impacts of the cost of construction and ongoing operations, the creation of jobs and wages/salaries, and the increase in tax revenues to government authorities are summarized below. Please see the Appendix for additional details regarding the growth projections.

13 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACT (2010-2030)

Average

Construction Period 36 Months Construction Costs Per Facility $405 Million ($340 million U.S. spend) # of New Facilities Operating By 2030 487 (-27 Annually 2013-2030)

On-Site Construction Jobs Per Facility 250 Employees for 3 Years

Direct Permanent Jobs Per Facility 50

Total FTE Jobs (Direct and Secondary) 2,475 1,205,325 (825 Per Year for 3 Years) (Average 60,266 Per Year for 20 Years) Federal/State Income Taxes $160.7 Million $78.2 Billion Construction Phase Sales Taxes $ I 1.9 Million $5.8 Billion ITotal Economic Impact of Construction $ I ,064.5 Million $518.4 Billion

Annual Economic Activity Generated from Operations $3 1.0 Million Per Year $15.1 Billion Per Year Federal/State Income Taxes $2.7 Million Per Year $1.3 Billion Per Year Annual Sales Taxes $0.3 Million Per Year $0.2 Billion Per Year ITotal Annual Economic Impact of Operations $34.0 Million Per Year $16.6 Billion Per Year

*All dollar amounts expressed in 2009 dollars.

14 Appendix

Re-birth of the United States Energy-from-Waste Industry

Supplemental Job Creation and Economic Growth Information

15 Introduction This study, undertaken by Covanta Energy Corporation, in conjunction with Dr. Thomas Conoscenti of New York University, analyzes the economic impact of an expansion of EfW capacity in the u.s. The purpose is to develop an understanding ofthe expected overall economic impact to the U.S. economy based on specific analysis ofthe following:

o Required capital investment through 2030

o Estimated job creation resulting from: - Construction and permanent jobs directly created by the industry expanSIOn Construction and permanent jobs created indirectly

o Estimated wages/salaries generated from: - Construction of new facilities - directly - Construction of new facilities - indirectly - Permanent employment at the new facilities - directly - Permanent employment related to the new facilities - indirectly

o Estimated tax revenues generated from: - Employment (construction and operation) of new facilities - Supplies/materials purchased during construction - Supplies/materials purchased during the operation of new facilities

Please note that all dollar amounts in this Appendix are expressed in 2009 dollars.

Explanation of Projections Covanta and Dr. Conoscenti developed projections for U.S. EfW growth through 2030. The analysis is based on 2006 data provided by Biocycle/Columbia and other sources. MSW generation is assumed to increase 2% annually, while materials recovery/recycling growth is assumed to outpace the increase in generation, growing 4% annually. By 2030, recycling volume would represent 45.6% of U.S. MSW generation, as compared to 28.6% in 2006.

Landfill volumes are projected to be reduced by 65% from 2006 levels by 2030. This approximates the 65% landfill reduction required by the EU Landfill Directive between 1995 and 201512020. EfW permitting is assumed to begin in 2009, with construction beginning in 2010 and the first new facilities opening in 2013. EfW capacity is therefore assumed to remain at current levels through 2012. Once new EfW capacity comes online, the volume ofMSW sent to landfills is reduced evenly from 2013 through 2030. EfW capacity expansion from 2013 through 2030 is driven by the levels ofMSW generation, recycling and landfilling implied by the assumptions above (EfW Volume = MSW Generation -Recycling Volume - Landfill Volume).

16 Landfill volume represents 14.0% of projected U.S. MSW generation in 2030 (down from 64.5% in 2006). EfW volume represents 40.4% of projected U.S. MSW generation in 2030 (up from 6.9% in 2006).

A summary of the projections can be found below:

SUMMARY OF Etw GROWTH PROJECTIONS (2006-2030)

Municipal Solid Waste - Thousands of Tons I Actual I Pro'ected 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 .fQll 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 MSW Generntion 413,015 421,275 429,701 438,295 447,060 456,002 465,122 474,424 483,913 493,591 544,964 601,684 664,308 % Annual Grmvth -- 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

Materials Recovery/Recycling 118,122 122,847 127,761 132,871 138,186 143,714 149,462 155,441 161,658 168,125 204,549 248,866 302,783 % Annual Growth -- 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% % Total Generation 28.6% 29.2% 29.7% 30.3% 30.9% 31.5% 32.1% 32.8% 33.4% 34.1% 37.5% 41.4% 45.6%

Energy-From-Waste 28,498 28,498 28,498 28,498 28,498 28,498 28,498 42,595 56,640 70,625 139,441 205,713 268,287 % Annuai Growth -- 0.1)% (J.()% 0.1)% 0.1)% 0.0% 0.0% 49.5% 33.0% 24.7% /0.8% 6.7% 4.7% % Total Generatioll 6.9% 6.8% 6.6% 6.5% 6.4% 6.2% 6.1% 9.0% 11.7% 14.3% 25.6% 34.2% 40.4%

Landfill and Other Disposal 266,395 269,930 273,442 276,925 280,376 283,790 287,161 276,388 265,614 254,841 200,973 147,106 93,238 % Annual Growth -- 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% -3.8% -3.9% -4.1% -5.1% -6.8% -10.4% % Total Gelleratioll 64.5% 64.1% 63.6% 63.2% 62.7% 62.2% 61.7% 58.3% 54.9% 51.6% 36.9% 24.4% 14.0%

Source of2006 data: Biocycle and the Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University, "The State of Garbage in America," December 2008.

17 Economic Impacts Analysis Summary

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACT (2010-2030)

Average 1,500 Tons/Day

Construction Period 36 Months Construction Costs Per Facility $405 Million ($340 million U.S. spend) # of New Facilities Operating By 2030 487 (-27 Annually 2013-2030)

On-Site Construction Jobs Per Facility 250 Employees for 3 Years Direct Permanent Jobs Per Facility 50

Total FTE Jobs (Direct and Secondary) 2,475 1,205,325 (825 Per Year for 3 Years) (Average 60,266 Per Year for 20 Years) Federal/State Income Taxes $160.7 Million $78.2 Billion Construction Phase Sales Taxes $11.9 Million $5.8 Billion ITotal Economic Impact of Construction $1,064.5 Million $518.4 Billion

~.lff~I~~!!I!1!~;mr~1?~~j•• l~~~;~L .• ,\,.{. ;;;Zi}~[;i;~\:f!vr.··· Jobs Created (Primary and Secondary)

Annual Economic Activity Generated from Operations $31.0 Million Per Year $15.1 Billion Per Year Federal/State Income Taxes $2.7 Million Per Year $1.3 Billion Per Year Annual Sales Taxes $0.3 Million Per Year $0.2 Billion Per Year ITotal Annual Economic Impact of Operations $34.0 Million Per Year $16.6 Billion Per Year

*All dollar amounts expressed in 2009 dollars.

Economic Impacts Analysis The following section evaluates the overall expected economic impacts resulting from the projected expansion and growth of the EfW industry. The economic impacts include both those generated by the construction of the facilities and their eventual operation. These impacts were evaluated separately in measuring the projected effect on the U.S. economy.

Value of Labor, Material, and Other Inputs In order to satisfy the necessary EfW capacity, the projections call for the construction of 487 new EfW facilities by 2030. Construction of the initial new EfW facilities is

18 estimated to begin in 2010, with 2009 devoted to the pennitting process. The expenditure for U.S. goods and labor for each facility in 2009 dollars is approximately $340 million.

This amount includes the actual building construction cost, engineering, planning and other development costs. These costs do not include the value of land, taxes or financing charges. In addition, there would be additional material costs for international product purchases (approximately $65 million), which are not addressed in this study.

It is estimated that labor costs (including consulting and development services) will account for $180 million of an average facility's total cost. Domestic building material expenses and other costs will account for approximately $160 million. Total labor and material costs for the 487 facilities are presented in the following table:

CONSTRUCTION COSTS (2010-2030) ($ Billions)

Total Construction Costs $ 165.6 Labor $ 87.7 U.S. Materials & Other Costs $ 77.9

Framework for Analysis Using the dollar estimates summarized in the table above, economic impacts were derived for each of the different cost components that make up the total value ofEfW industry construction. This was done to calculate the total economic impact on the U.S. economy.

As a starting point, the following briefly describes the meaning of an economic impact:

An economic impact refers to total change in employment and economic activity that results from the injection ofspending into an economy. It is important to understand that a dollar in spending will generate more than one dollar in economic activity.

For example, the wage income received by employees of a firm is spent in the local economy on the purchase ofgoods and services. Businesses that receive this spending now have the means to increase their spending by increasing employment, making payments on debts incurred, making outlays for items such as inventory, stock, advances on orders, etc.

Thus, this money is spent several times, spreading into different sectors ofthe local economy, each time giving rise to new levels ofincome. This unbroken series of income conversions constitutes the multiplier or "ripple effect". The greater the number ofhands through which such monies passes, the greater will be the beneficial effect on the economy.

Based on the above, the economic effects of construction projects are of three kinds:

19 First, there are the direct effects of the projects that measure the specific construction related expenditures for labor, materials and other goods and servIces.

Second, or Indirect Effect, the material suppliers, construction workers and other workers involved in the project buy goods and services within the local economy. The economic activity generated by this spending is the secondary impact created by the initial spending.

Third, or Induced Effect, the businesses that receive this secondary spending now increase their spending, continuing the "ripple" effect of the initial expenditure.

Therefore, the key to analyzing the economic impact of the expansion of the EfW industry is to determine the multiplier associated with the different types of spending involved in constructing the facilities. The multipliers used in this paper measure the combined impact of the direct, indirect, and induced effects.

The economic impact multipliers (factors) were obtained from an econometric model developed by Dr. Conoscenti and the RIMS II, Regional Input/Output Modeling System, developed by the U.S. Bureau of Regional Analysis. These factors allow the identification of the specific sources of changes in economic activity and employment activity in the u.S. economy. The multipliers used to evaluate the impact ofEfW construction activity on the economy are presented in the following table. They differ from the multipliers used later in this report, which evaluate the economic impact of the ongoing operations of the new facilities.

MULTIPLIER FACTORS - CONSTRUCTION

Labor 3.00 U.S. Materials & Other Costs 2.20

Source: Dr. Thomas Conoscenti and RIMS II.

Applying these multipliers, every dollar spent on Labor generates an additional two dollars in economic activity throughout the economy for a total impact' of three dollars. In the case of U.S. Materials & Other Costs, each dollar spent results in an additional one dollar and twenty cents for a total impact oftwo dollars and twenty cents of activity in the economy. It is important to note that this additional activity will also create new jobs in the economy. This is what is referred to as secondary employment.

20 Economic Activity Generated by Construction To calculate total economic activity generated by construction of new EfW facilities, the multipliers above were applied to Labor and U.S. Material & Other Costs:

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY GENERATED BY CONSTRUCTION (2010-2030) ($ Billions)

Total Economic Activity Generated $ 434.4 Labor $ 263.0 U.S. Materials & Other Costs $171.4

Estimated Job Impact of Construction Direct employment (on-site jobs) resulting from construction expenditures was estimated by Covanta Energy Corporation using a 36-month construction period. Based on Covanta's previous experiences developing EfW facilities, it is estimated that 750 full­ time equivalents (FTE), or 250 per year FTE, will be employed during the construction of 4 each new EfW facilitl . Using a 3.30 multiplier for employment (based on a blend of construction and manufacturing expenditures) based on other comparable studies by Dr. Conoscenti, it is estimated that in addition to the direct employment, an additional 1,725 (575 per year) full-time equivalent jobs will be generated indirectly. This brings the number of jobs created by the construction of each new EfW facility to an estimated 2,475 (825 per year) full-time equivalent jobs over the 36-month construction period. It is estimated that 1.2 million total (direct and indirect) construction jobs (FTE) will be created from 2010 through 2030. This represents an average of approximately 60,300 jobs created per year for 20 years.

FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT JOBS CREATED (2010-2030)

Total Employment 1,205,325 Direct (On-site) 365,250 Secondary (Off-site) 840,075 Employment Multiplier 3.30

Source of Multiplier: Dr. Thomas Conoscenti and RIMS II.

Estimated Jobs Created by Post-Construction Operations After each new EfW facility is completed and operational, average permanent direct employment is estimated by Covanta Energy Corporation to be 50 full-time employees per facility. Based on a 2.20 multiplier for permanent employment, each new EfW

24 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) is the conversion of part-time worker hours to full-time jobs.

21 facility is estimated to create an additional 60 secondary jobs in the economy. This implies 53,570 total permanent jobs created by 2030.

JOBS CREATED BY OPERATIONS OF NEW EtwFACILITIES

Total Permanent Employment 53,570 Direct Employment 24,350 Secondary Employment 29,220 Employment Multiplier 2.20

Source of Multiplier: Dr. Thomas Conoscenti and RIMS II.

Economic Activity Generated by Post-Construction Operations Annual payroll is estimated by Covanta Energy Corporation to be approximately $5.0 million per facility. By applying the payroll operations multiplier of 1.80 developed by Dr. Conoscenti and RIMS II, it is estimated that the total payroll-related impact of operations on the economy per facility would be $9.0 million per year, or $4.4 billion total annually by 2030.

In addition to payroll, the new EfW facilities will purchase goods and services annually related to maintenance and operations. For the purposes of calculating annual economic activity generated in the U.S., only the purchase of materials manufactured and services rendered in the U.S. are considered. Covanta estimates that the average facility will spend $10.0 million per year on these purchases. When multiplied by a 2.20 multiplier, each facility is expected to generate $22.0 million of economic activity per year, or $10.7 billion total annually by 2030.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY GENERATED BY OPERATIONS ($ Millions)

Total Annual Economic Activity from Operations $15,097

Annual Economic Activity - Payroll $ 4,383 Annual Payroll $ 2,435 Multiplier - Operations Payroll 1.80

Annual Economic Activity - U.S. Materials & Services $10,714 Annual Purchase of U.S. Manufactured Materials $ 4,870 Multiplier - Operations Materials 2.20

Source of Multipliers: Dr. Thomas Conoscenti and RIMS II.

Tax Calculation Methodology This section of the analysis examines the tax revenue implications ofEfW industry expansion. Wages and salaries and materials and service purchases generate tax revenues to various levels of government in the form of income taxes and sales taxes.

22 Federal and State Income Taxes Federal tax collection was calculated by applying a 25% average tax rate to the estimated total economic activity generated from labor payroll. The state income tax revenue was calculated by applying a 4.75% average tax rate to economic activity generated from labor payroll. Dr. Conoscenti has utilized these rates in other studies and believes they represent a conservative estimate of the average income tax rates paid by employees. The rates are an average for all levels of income.

Income Taxes Generated During Construction Construction of the new EfW facilities is estimated to generate economic activity related to labor costs of$263.0 billion. Given this estimate, the federal and state governments would receive an estimated $78.2 billion in total income taxes during the construction phase of EfW industry expansion. This analysis considers both the primary and secondary impacts on economic activity resulting from the spending on labor associated with construction.

FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES GENERATED DURING CONSTRUCTION (2010-2030) ($ Billions)

Economic Activity Generated From Construction Labor $ 263.0

Income Taxes Generated During Construction $ 78.2 Federal Taxes @ 25.00% $ 65.7 State Taxes @ 4.75% $ 12.5

Source of Tax Rates: Dr. Thomas Conoscenti.

Income Taxes Generated by Ongoing Operations The ongoing operation of the new EfW facilities is estimated to generate annual economic activity related to payroll of $4.4 billion. Given this estimate, the operation of new facilities would contribute federal and state income taxes of $1.3 billion per year.

ANNUAL FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES GENERATED BY OPERATIONS ($ Millions)

Annual Economic Activity Generated By Payroll $ 4,383

Annual Income Taxes Generated By Operations $1,304 Federal Taxes @ 25.00% $ 1,096 State Taxes @ 4.75% $ 208

Source of Tax Rates: Dr. Thomas Conoscenti.

23 Sales Taxes State and local governments collect sales taxes on the purchase of goods derived from wages paid to employees during the construction and operation of the new EfW facilities. For the purposes ofthis study, Dr. Conoscenti and Covanta Energy Corporation assumed that for every dollar of economic activity created from labor, 50 cents would be spent on taxable consumption. This is a standard assumption used by governments to estimate sales tax revenues. In addition, federal and state income taxes are accounted for prior to calculating the spendable base upon which sales tax would be levied. The calculation of the sales tax assumes a 6.25% average sales tax rate, derived by Dr. Conoscenti accounting for states and counties which levy sales taxes.

Sales Taxes Generated During Construction Construction of the new EfW facilities is estimated to generate economic activity related to labor of $263.0 billion. Given this estimate, the state and local governments would receive an estimated $5.8 billion in sales taxes during construction.

SALES TAX GENERATED DURING CONSTRUCTION (2010-2030) ($ Billions)

Economic Activity Generated From Construction Labor $ 263.0 (-) Federal Taxes @ 25.00% ($ 65.7) (-) State Taxes @ 4.75% ($ 12.5)

Economic Activity After Federal & State Taxes $ 184.8

Economic Activity Subject to Sales Taxes @ 50% $ 92.4

Sales Tax Generated @ 6.25% $ 5.8

Source: Dr. Thomas Conoscenti.

Sales Taxes Generated by Ongoing Operations In estimating the impact of operations of new EfW facilities on sales tax collections, two separate effects are considered:

First, similar to construction sales taxes, a portion of the increase in economic activity resulting from employment at the facilities will be spent on taxable consumption, resulting in higher sales tax collections at the state and local levels. Payroll costs of the new EfW facilities are estimated to generate annual economic activity of $4.4 billion. Given this estimate, the state and local governments would receive an estimated $96 million in sales taxes annually by 2030.

24 Second, sales tax will be collected on annual purchases of goods and services related to the operations and maintenance of the new EfW facilities. It is estimated by Covanta Energy Corporation that, on average, approximately $2.0 million of annual domestic purchases per facility (assumed to average $10.0 million on U.S. good and services per year) will be subject to sales tax. This represents an average across the potential new facilities, accounting for the likely operation of some as publicly-owned facilities, which may not be subject to sales taxes. Using this estimate, the purchases of goods and services will contribute $61 million per year in sales tax revenues by 2030.

ANNUAL SALES TAXES GENERATED DURING OPERATIONS ($ Millions)

Annual Economic Activity Generated From Payroll $ 4,383 (-) Federal Taxes @ 25.00% ($ 1,096) (-) State Taxes @ 4.75% ($ 208)

Annual Economic Activity After Federal & State Taxes $ 3,079

Annual Economic Activity Subject to Sales Taxes @ 50% $ 1,540

Annual Sales Tax Generated from Payroll @ 6.25% $ 96

Annual Purchases of Goods and Services $ 974

Annual Sales Tax Generated from Purchases @ 6.25% $ 61

Total Annual Sales Tax Generated $ 157

Source: Dr. Thomas Conoscenti.

25 References / Bibliography

Regional Input-Output Modeling System II The calculations for the economic impact analysis were based on the Regional Input-Output Modeling System II (RIMS II) published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The model was first developed in the mid nineteen seventies to evaluate the impact of federal highway construction projects located in various states. The results of the model were widely accepted by governmental agencies at the federal, state and local levels. The model was called RIMS I. Due to the success of the RIMS I model, it was expanded to include the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA's) in the U.S. (and eventually many of the counties sUlTOunding central cities) and the expanded model is called RIMS II. This report uses the RIMS II model to calculate the econOlnic impact on the economy resulting from the construction and operations of energy-from-waste plants. The RIMS 1I model and its factors are widely accepted by both the academic and professional community in doing these types of Analysis. Dr. Conoscenti has attended many of the wOlkshops which the Bureau of Economic Analysis holds regularly regarding the RIMS II model.

Alexandersson, G., The Industrial Structure of American Cities. Lincoln, Nebraska: Univ. of Nebraska Press (1956).

"America's Own Energy Source," Published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, The Solid Waste Association ofNOIth Amelica, and the Integrated Waste Services Association, December 2006., http://www.wte.org/aoes.shtml.

Archibald. G.c., "Regional Multiplier Effects in the U.K.," Oxford Economic Papers, March 1967.

Arsova, L. et ai, "The State of Garbage in America," BioCycle and the Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University, December 2008.

Barnes, Gary T., and G. Donald Jud, "Manpower Forecasting for Small Regions: Reply," Growth Change, October 1979, 10(4), pp. 48-49.

Berentsen, William H., "Regional Policy and Industlial Overspecialization in Logging Regions," Growth Change, July 1978, 9(3), pp. 9-13.

Beyers, W.B., et ai, Input-Output Tables for the Washington Economy, 1967, Seattle: Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Washington, 1970.

Biocycle and the Eatth Engineeling Center of Columbia University, "The State of Garbage in America," December 2008.

Bopp, Richard, and Peter Gordon, "Agglomeration Economics and Industrial Economics Linkages: Comment," Joumal of Regional Science, April 1977, 17 (I), pp. 125-27.

Brown, H.J., "Shift and Share Projections of Regional Economic Growth: An Empilical Test," Journal of Regional Science, 9, (1969), pp. 177-178.

Carlberg, M., "A Neoclassical Model of Inter-regional Economic Growth," Regional Science Urban Economics, May 1981, 11(2), pp. 191-203.

Carter, H.O., and D.lreri, "Linkages of Cali fomi a-Arizona Input-Output Models to Analyze Water Transfer Pattems," In Application of Input-Output Analysis (A.P. Calterand A. Brody, eds. Amsterdam: North-Holand Publ. (1970).

Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants, an organization representing approximately 340 waste-to-energy plants across Europe, www.cewe.p.eu.

Chisholm, Michael, "Regional Growth TheOly, Location Theory, Non-renewable Natural Resources and the Mobile Factors of Production," In Ohlin, Hesselbom and Weghman, 1977, pp. 103-14.

Drennan, Matthew, "A Metropolitan Area Econometric Model of Estimate Employment by Industry and Occupation and to Measure Local Impacts of Public Programs," unpublished paper 1/79, Conservation of Human Resources.

Drennan, Matthew, "Transfonnation of the Urban Economic Base," (unpublished), New York University Paper, published 2004.

Erichson, Rodney A., "Sub-regional Impact Multipliers: Income Spread Effects from a Major Defense Installation," Economic Geography, July 1977,53(3), pp. 283-94.

"Europe in Figures - Eurostat Yearbook 2008," Eurostat, Environment Section, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY OFFPUB/KS-CD-07 -00 I-I 0/EN/KS-CD-07-00 I-I O-EN.PDF

26 "Fact Sheet: Waste-to-Energy and EPA's Solid Waste Hierarchy," Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA), http://www.wte.orgldocsiFactSheetHierarchy.pd£

Gibson, L.J., and M.A Worden, "Estimating the Economic Base Multiplier: A Test of Alternative Procedures," Economic Geography, April 1981, 57(2), pp. 146-59.

Glickman, N.J., "Econometric Analysis ofa Regional System I: A Forecasting Model," Discussion Paper No. 290, Department of Economics, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1974.

Greg, M.A, "The Regional Income and Employment Multiplier Effects of a Pulp Mill and Paper Mill," Scottish 10umal of Political Economy, February 1971.

"Green Light for Recovery and the Climate Package," Council of the European Union, 11-12 December 2008, http://www .consilium.europa.eu/cms3 fo/focus View .ASP?lang= EN.

Hale, Carl W., "Shift-Share Analysis as a Descriptive Tool in Base-Ratio Analysis," Mississippi Valley 10umal of Business and Economics, 6, (Spring 1971).

Houston, D., "Shift and Share Analysis: A Critique," Southem Economic 10umal, 32, (1967), pp. 577-581.

"Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Elnissions and Sinks: 1990-2007," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Apli12009, http://epa.gov/climatechange!emissions/downloads09/InventOIYUSGhG 1990-2007 .pdf

Izard, Walter, "Some EmpiIical Results and Problems of Regional Input-Output Analysis," In LeontiefW. et.a!., 1977, pp. 116-181. lavits, J .K., Charles J. Hitch, and AF. Bums, The Defense Sector and the Amelican Economy, New York University Press Ltd., 1968.

Kiser, J. V. L. , "Understanding Why Recycling and Waste to Energy are compatible in the U.S.," IWSA 2007 Directory of Waste to Energy Plants, page 9, October 2007, http://www.wte.org/docsIIWSA 2007 Directory.pdf.

Knight, Richard, "Employment Expansion and Metropolitan Trade," unpublished Ph.D. disseltation, London School of Economics, 1972.

Leontief, Wassily, "Inter-regional TheOIy," In Leontief, W. et.al. 1977, pp. 339-58.

Leontief, W, et.a!. "Studies in the Structure of the American Economy: Theoretical and Empirical Exploration in Input-Output Analysis," Replint Edition, White Plains, New York, Intemational AltS & Sciences Press (1953), 1977.

"Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 2008, http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhazimunicipal/pubs/msw07-lpt.pd£

Nelson, Howard J., "The FOIm and Structure of Cities: Urban Growth Pattems," in Robelt Putnam, Frank Taylor, and Phillip Kettle, A Geography of Urban Places, Toronto: Methuen, 1970.

Newman, R.J. "Dynamic Patterns in Regional Wage Differentials," Southem Economic 10umal, 49(1), pp. 246-54.

Nijkamp, P., "Soft Econometric Models: An Analysis of Regional Income Detelminants," Regional Studies, April 1982, 16(2), pp. 121-28.

North, D.C., "Reply to Tiebout: Exports and Regional Economic Growth," Joumal of Political Economy, 64, (April 1956) pp. 165-68.

Nourse, Hugh 0., The Economics of Central Place TheolY: An Altemative Approach," (Loscha), 1978, 74-82.

Perloff, Harvey S., "Interrelations of State Income and IndustIial Structure," Review of Economics and Statistics, 2 May 1957, I 62-I7I .

Richardson, H. W., Input-Output and Regional Economics, New York: Wiley, 1972.

Rodgers, Allen, "Industrial Ineltia: A Major Factor in the Location of the SteellndustIy in the U.S.," Geographical Review, Vol. 42,1952, pp. 56-66.

Roterus, Victor, and Wesley Calef, "Notes on the Basic-Non Basic Employment Ratio," Economic Geography, 31 (JanuaIY 1955), pp. 17-20.

27 Rothenberg, 1. et ai, "An Economic Simulation Model of Intra Metropolitan Housing Location: Housing, Business, Transportation and Local Govermnent," American Economic Review, Paper and Proceedings LXII, 1972 (87-90).

Round, Jeffrey I, "On Estimating Trade Flows in Interregional Input-Output Models," Regional Science Urban Economics, September 1978, 18(2), pp. 179-94.

Rubin, Marilyn, "The Suburbanization of Industry and Its Effects upon Labor Force Participation Rates of Suburban Women," American Real Estate Economic Association Journal, Sp. 1977,5(1), pp. 111-27.

Schulze, Peter M., "Testing for Inter-regional Economic Homogeneity: A Comment," Journal of Regional Science, 12177, 17(3), pp. 473-77.

Scitovsky, Tiber, "Two Types of External Economics," JPE LXII (Feb 1954), pp. 143-151.

Spw-Iock, Carl W., "Forecasting Regional Demand for Heating Fuel," Growth Change, Aplil 1978,9(2), pp. 29-34.

Stanback, T.M., and R.Y. Knight, Suburbanization and the City. Allanheld Osmun and Company Publishers, 1976.

Stanback, T.M., and R.Y. Knight, The Metropolitan Economy, New York, Columbia University Press, 1972.

Steinlieb, George and James W. Hughes, "Metropolitan Decline and Inter-regional Job Shifts," In Alcaly, R.E. and D. Mennelstein(eds.),1977,pp.145-64.

Streit, ME, "Aglomeration Economics and Industrial Linkages: A Reply," Journal of Regional Science, 4177,17(1), pp. 129- 30.

"Study of the Introduction of Renewable Energy in the EU," Inforse-Europe, FeblUaIy 2006, http://www.inforse.dklew-ope/PubEUJ06.htm.

Themelis, N.J., "Waste to Energy: Transfonning a Major Source of Greenhouse Gases to a Renewable Energy Sow-ce," World Future Energy FOlUm, Abu Dhabi, JanuaIY 2008, http://www.worldfutureenergysummit.com/files/themelis nickolas.pdf ll1emelis, N. 1. , and P. A. Ulloa, "Methane Generation in Landfills," Renewable Energy vol. 32,2007, page 1243.

U.S. DepaItment of Energy, Energy Infonnation Administration, Monthly Energy Review, May 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/pdf/mer.pdf.

U.S. DepaltInent of Energy, Energy Infonnation Administration, Petroleum Net hnpOlts by Country ofOligin, 1960-2007, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeulaer/pdf/pages/sec5 II.pdf.

U.S. DepaItment of Energy, Energy Infonnation Administration, Retail Motor Gasoline and On-Highway Diesel Fuel PIices, 1949-2007, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeuiaer/txtiptb0524.html.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Infonnation Administration, U.S. EIectIicity Supply Data, ApIi12009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicemt/stimulus/pdf/stimulus.pdf

"Waste Not, Want Not: The Facts Behind Waste to Energy," Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA), September 2008, http://www.wte.orgldocs/Waste Not Want Not.pdf.

"Waste to Energy Market is Booming, 100 New Plants by 2012," Frost and Sullivan press release, January 2008, http://www.fi"Ost.com/prod/servletipress-release.pag?docid= 118890782.

Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council Brochure, October 2006, http://www.seas.columbia.edulearthiwtelt/sofos/WTERT Brochure 2006.pdf.

Watts, Jonathan, "China Pledges to Double Reliance on Renewable Energy by 2020," The Guardian, 8 November 2005.

28 Exhibit 8 ,c liMnED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTScnON AGENCY' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

FEB 1 ~it8Ol

Maria Zmmest President Integrated Waste Services Association j 401 H Street N. \V.> Suite 220 Washington) DC 20005

EPA'recognizes the vital role of the nation's municipal waste~to~eJlergy industry ~ and 'livisbes. to thank you for your environmental efforts.

Upgrading of the emission control systems of large combustors to exce,ed the requirements of the Clean Air Act Sectioll 129 standards is an impressive accomplishment. The eompletion of retrofits ofthe large com:bustiotl units enables us to continue to rely on municipal solid waste :as a eltan, reliable, renewable source of energy. Widl the capacity to handle approximately IS percent of the waste generated in the US~ these piant':> produce 2800 megawatts of electricity \Yith less environmental impact than rumostany other source of electricity, With fewer and fewer new landfills being opened, and capacity controls being imposed on many existing landfilJs, our communities greatly benefit from the dependable, sustai.nable capacity of rmmlcipal\vru.'1e~t<:H~nergy plants,

We applaud 'the leadership taken by the Integrated Waste Services Association in coordinating research needs to continue to improve thepcrformance of these plants, Your willingness to work \\~th EPA and tbe State governments on responses to uatural or man-made emergencies t induding anilira.,''(, is greatly appreciated. Our staff in the 0 moe of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of Air and Radiation look forward to working with you on defining your researoh. agenda and in addreSSing our national. security concerns.

Marianne Lamont Horinko Assistant Administrator Office of Solid \Vaste and Emergency Response Exhibit 9

I::'" o "';; :::s o VI O'l I:: "';; til Uo > -c« Long Island Recycling:

A Report Card for 12 Long Island Municipalities

Published by Citizens Campaign for the Environment

September 2009 About Citizens Campaign for the Environment CCE is a non-partisan advocacy organization supported by over 80,000 members working to protect public health and the natural environment. For more information on CCE, please visit our website at www.citizenscampaign.org

Acknowledgements CCE would like to thank the Rauch Foundation for their generous grant support for this report. Report Contributors

Primary Report Authors and Graders Maureen Dolan Murphy, CCE Executive Programs Manager Greg Walbrecht, CCE Outreach and Operations Director

Report Contributors and Editors Adrienne Esposito, CCE Executive Director Tara Bono, CCE Long Island Program Coordinator

Production & Design: MacKarma Images, Inc. Cover Illustration: © 2009 MacKarma Images

NOTE: This report was prepared with the best information available at the time. We welcome any new information as we strive to make each edition as accurate and up to date as possible.

C4 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 3 Results ...... " ..... 6 Recommendations for Municipalities ...... " ...... 9 for the NYS DEC ...... 12 Special Report: Recycling in the Schools ...... 14 ScoreCards Grading/Point System ...... ,...... ,...... ,...... 18 Town of Babylon ...... · ...... 20 Town of Brookhaven ...... 22 Town of East Hampton ...... 24 Town of Hempstead ...... 26 Town of Huntington ...... 28 Town of Islip...... 30 Town of North Hempstead ...... ,...... ,...... , ...... 32 Town of Oyster Bay...... 34 Town of Riverhead ...... 36 Town of Smithtown ...... 38 Town of Southampton ...... 40 Town of Southold ...... 42 References ...... 44

C5

I ntrod uction

our garbage. 1 This pales caused by manufacturing in comparison with other products from virgin communities that achieve materials. ustainability over 60% recycling rates, It is estimated that producing is no longer such as Portland, Oregon, paper from recycled paper just a "noble Scm Francisco, California and causes 74% less air pollution idea" it's become a core civic Onondaga County, NY. and 35% less water pollution responsibility. The financial Robust recycling programs than producing it from virgin crisis, volatile energy prices provide dramatic benefits to paper.' and scenes of vast ice shelves our communities, including: o Saving energy. falling into the Antarctic Ocean 0. Creation of Jobs. . Recycling one aluminum According to the EPA, Over 1.1 million tons of are compelling reasons can saves enough energy to recycling creates about 1 power your TV for three hours. S garbage is shipped off the to expeditiously pursue million jobs and more than Decreasing emission is/and annually, whife Long sustainable policies and A practices. Isn't it time we got $100 billion in revenue. The Vof greenhouse gases Islanders only recycle one EPA also estimates that contributing to global climate quarter of our garbage. back to basics? The recycling recycling creates five times This pales in comparison of paper, plastic, glass and change. Pennsylvania as many jobs compared to recycling in 2004 eliminated with other communities metal is a simple, accessible land filling.2 that achieve over 60% and effective way to fight more than 2.5 million metric A Protection and tons of air emissions, recycling rates climate change, conserve forests and save energy as Vexpansion of U.S. including reduction of 1.9 well as money. In CCE's 2009 manufacturing jobs. million metric tons of carbon Long Island Recycling Report Increasing the amount of equivalent - a savings of Card, significant improvements recycled material taken approximately 2.4% of all are highlighted in many towns out of the waste stream greenhouse gas emissions in - but Long Island can do much will increase the number the Commonwealth.6 more to maximize the benefits of jobs manufacturing and ~~ Conserving natural of recycling. Returning to the reusing this material. Vresources such as timber. three R's: Reduce, Reuse, o Reduction of land water and minerals. If we Recycle is a powerful and filling and incinerating recycled all of the aluminum effective practice to protect garbage. The City of that Americans throwaway, our natural resources and our Austin, Texas is in the we would be able to rebuild economic stability. process of implementing the entire United States' airline As an island, Long a "Zero Waste Program" fleet every three months,? Island offers a microcosm which aims to reduce by of how trash, energy and 20% the per capita solid Recycling fights environmental issues affect waste disposed to landfills climate change the planet as a whole. Over by 2012, diverting 75% of Climate change, often called 1.1 million tons of garbage waste from landfills and global warming, is real- it's is shipped off the island incinerators by 2020 and happening right now. The annually, while Long Islanders 90% by 2040. 3 earth's surface is heating only recycle one quarter of () Preventing pollution up, sea levels are rising, ice 3 caps are melting and storms recycling rate from the current by $1,400 per year, and the are strengthening. Long level of 28% to 35% would program generated $500 in Island, New York State and reduce greenhouse gases by income from marketing the the U.S. government are all 9.8 MMC02e compared to recycled materials. 11 developing plans to reduce land filling the same material. greenhouse gas emissions by Together, reducing waste and Recycling can help lowering our household carbon increasing recycling would businesses streamline costs footprint. These plans must slash emissions by more than and increase efficiency include recycling. Recycling 21.4 MMC02e, an amount The furniture company, is a key component in equal to the average annual Rooms to Go, based in reducing harmful emissions emissions produced by 11 Atlanta, Georgia is a leader and lowering energy million U.S. households. 10 in recycling. In 2007, the consumption. company grossed over $1 In short, recycling reduces Recycling saves money for million from its recyclables. 12 energy need. Manufacturing schools, businesses and Today, the company recycles products from recycled residents 92% of its total waste stream. materials typically requires less It is more expensive to throw This one example shall serve The Town of Brookhaven energy than producing goods away our trash than to recycle for many, demonstrating the estimates that, depending from virgin materials. For our recyclables. The numbers financial benefit for businesses upon the market, it costs example, producing new plastic speak for themselves. The as well as for customers, all about $80 per ton to from recycled material uses a Town of Brookhaven estimates the while positively impacting dispose of garbage and full two-thirds less energy than that, depending upon the our shared environment. $40 per ton to recycle its producing new plastic from market, it costs about $80 Other companies are recyclables. The Town of virgin materials,s and recycling per ton to dispose of garbage making long-term investments North Hempstead estimates a ton of plastic bottles saves and $40 per ton to recycle in recycling. In January of it saves $36 for every ton approximately 74 gallons of its recyclables. The Town of 2009, the Coca-Cola Company of commingled it recycles gasoline. 9 Recycling also North Hempstead estimates opened the world's largest and $66 for every ton of helps to reduce emissions from it saves $36 for every ton of bottle-to-bottle recycling plant separated paper it recycles. incinerators and cut methane commingled it recycles and in South Carolina. When fully emissions from landfills by $66 for every ton of separated operational the plant will have diverting valuable, recyclable paper it recycles. In other the capacity to produce 100 resources. Most importantly, words, serious tax dollars million pounds of recycled recycling increases the storage saved. PET plastic chips, enough to of carbon in forests. Trees Several Long Island towns produce 2 billion 20-ounce that are not cut down to make have started programs to work bottles of Coke. 13 The paper, absorb carbon dioxide with schools. The Town of company anticipates that in the from the atmosphere and North Hempstead provides long run the plant will produce store it in their core. Recycling free bins to schools and a profit.14 paper products allows more offers free pick-up of school trees to remain standing and recyclables, anticipating that actively remove carbon dioxide the town will make money on from the atmosphere. the recyclables. One school The EPA states that in California, Oak Grove reducing waste generation in Elementary, recently began the U.S. to 1990 levels could its own recycling program. cut greenhouse gas emissions Oak Grove has been diverting by 11.6 million metric tons of more than seven cubic yards carbon equivalents (MMC02e). of waste per week. Garbage JIJ~QC!7ithefomflariY .' Increasing the national rates have been reduced . gr()s~~i:f~~l3r$tfiJJ!jkm 4 .••• fh)tn. itsrecyclal:H~s:, . REpORT CARD

-:::::;:::: : :: =-::::::-

Following the release of CCE's schools considering recycling first recycling report in 2008, education. one of our primary objectives Nassau County was achieved: a reinvigorated Legislator Jeff Toback initiated It's time we got back to dialogue among public and a recycling survey in his district municipal leaders over the to explore ways the county basics: Reduce, Reuse, benefits of recycling. There can be involved in increasing were more than 17 news recycling. Recycle. articles written about our Sanitary District One, report card, including articles in western Nassau, started its in Newsday, New York Times, first ever curbside recycling Long Island Press, Long Island program. Business News, The News Suffolk County officials Review, The Suffolk Times, reached out to businesses and North Shore Sun, The Long schools to talk about recycling Island Advance, and Levittown and began a county-wide Tribune. There were three e-waste program. editorials (Newsday, The Suffolk Times and The News Overall, towns across Long Many of the towns' efforts and Review) as well as diverse TV Island established significant successes are reflected in and radio coverage. improvements in their recycling this year's grades. However, programs. Following the there is still much work to be Other successes included: release of the 2008 report, done to improve programs, Congressman Bishop CCE staff met extensively with expand initiatives and increase added an amendment to an town officials to discuss areas recycling throughout Long education bill for funding for of opportunity and expansion. Island. 5 The Results Are In ...

····%Grade-- 98 98 A+ 96 A+ 90 A Brookhaven 90 A Smithtown 90 A Oyster Bay 89 B+ Southold 87 B+ Hempstead 87 B+ Southampton 73 C East Hampton 70 C ad 57 F

Figure 2. Town Recycling Program Grades

Letter grade 100 pt scale A+ 96- 100 A 90-95 B+ 86-89 B 80-85 C+ 76-79 C 70-75 o 60-69 F 59 or below

••,>.<' '\ Long Island Green Highlights from 2009

In 2008, CCE called for a "Recycling Renaissance on Long Island." One year '~'~" towns are proudly meeting the challenge. The 2009 Long Island Recycling Report Card examines the various components of each town's recycling program, including materials recycled, Stop Throwing Out Pollutants (STOP), electronic waste collection, leaf and grass clippings, public education such as event tabling and presentations, services for CCE is delighted businesses and schools, and recycling in parks, beaches and town buildings. to report a CCE is delighted to report a resurgence of new recycling programs and initiatives resurgence of launched island-wide. Almost every town received a higher grade in this year's report card. In 2008, only the Town of Islip received an A grade. This year, six towns received an A. new recycling Two towns scored lower in this year's report: East Hampton and Riverhead. East Hamp­ programs and ton cut programs from the previous year, and Riverhead's weaknesses in public education initiatives and the lack of any program to work with schools and businesses severely compromised launched island­ its grade. The fof/owing outines the specific hiigh/ights by areas of focus in the recy/ing programs. wide. Almost every town School Recycling The Town of Huntington received a higher In 2009, the Town of initiated a "school roundtable" grade in this North Hempstead launched where representatives from all year's report the most comprehensive nine school districts and from school recycling program the town meet on a qU;:lrterly card. In 2008, on Long Island. The town basis to discuss issues and only the Town offers participating schools opportunities for coordination. of ISlip received recycling bins for classrooms, The Town of Babylon an A grade. This larger bins for storage of set up a program to handle recyclables and scales for school refuse at reduced cost. year, six towns weighing recyclables. North The town will provide recycling STOP Program & Mercury received an A. Hempstead also provides free bins for classrooms. If the Recycling pick-up of recyclables for the school does not want recycling In 2008, the Town first two years of the program. bins, the town will separate out of Smithtown was the only There are currently 8 school recyclables, properly recycle , ...+_:~~I:'" on Long Island districts, with a total of 45 them and then dispose of the provide a STOP 001 buildings, participating. garbage. is happy to Town of The Town of Smithtoia~ , Smithtown launched a school has sent letters to all school a STOP ng program in 2008. At superintendents urging schools residents. The of last year's report, to start recycling programs. day is scheduled ools were participating. The town will take recyclables take plate October 3, 2009 . over 61 schools for free, but the schools must at the Smithtown Municipal are active in the program, arrange drop-off at the town Services Facility. Now all representing tremendous facility. towns on Long Island have an progress. active STOP program. 7 The Town of Islip Leaf Composting applied for, and was granted, a The Towns of North permit to operate a permanent Hempstead and Brookhaven facility for residents to drop off started a pilot leaf waste household hazardous wastes composting program. North year-round. Hempstead will be composting The Towns of 3,000 cubic yards, which will Hempstead, Huntington and be used on town lands, saving , 9! Smithtown have partnered with taxpayers the cost of purchas­ Covanta Energy to encourage ing compost as they have in residents to recycle mercury previous years. thermometers. A $5 gift card The Town of Smithtown fw1'n.I:k ~ A'II4hblc to Home Depot or Lowes is started a leaf recycling pro­ O~t,Wtl>l~Ji1l 01\ lk.tktO offered for every mercury gram in 2008. This pilot initia­ thermometer that residents tive supplies 1,200 homes with return. paper bags for leaves. The town collects the leaves, grinds them up and mixes them with market such as Vioxx. T¢WIlPI OrtifiN' S(t)l Electronic Waste Recycling wood to form a compost/leaf 2009 S.T.O.P. Other Programs (E-Waste) mulch. This is bagged and of­ and • The Towns of Southold ELECTRONIC The Town of Islip set up fered free to residents. and Brookhaven launched a WASTE a curbside e-waste recycling The Town of Babylon program. Residents can leave now requires its carter to com­ boat shrink wrap recycling pro­ RECYCLING gram. Residents can bring the PROGRAM e-waste at the curb on the last post leaf waste on Long Island, Wednesday of every month for instead of shipping it off-island. shrink wrap used to winterize their boats to the town facil- Throwing..StoP. '.'"""'" .. : town pickup and recycling. ity, and the town will properly Out .' "' The Town of Oyster Pharmaceutical Take-Back Pollutants " ...... ,.' Bay launched a pilot program Program recycle it at no cost. The Town for curbside pickup of e-waste of Brookhaven will also recycle in one community. The pilot The Town of North plastic from greenhouses. has ended and the town is Hempstead launched the first The Town of Islip and analyzing the results to deter­ town-sponsored pharmaceuti­ the Town of Huntington began mine if the initiative should be cal take-back program. This printing recycling educational launched town-wide. allows residents to bring in material in Spanish, as well as The Town of expired or unwanted drugs, English. Brookhaven expanded its including narcotics such as The Town of Southold, e-waste program to offer new OxyContin, and have them following publication of CCE's locations. Once a month there safely disposed. The one-day 2008 report card, set up an is a different drop-off spot in effort collected over 400 Ibs. educational kiosk at its recy­ cling facility. town, which is advertised in of drugs, some dating back to " ... hnnl" and in press releases. 1966, others no longer on the The Town of Babylon The one~day an e-waste recycling day for residents, businesses and effort collected schools co-hosted by Assem­ over 400 Ibs. blyman Bob Sweeney. of drugs, some dating back to 1966 8 CCE Recommendations

1. Towns should work to launch pharmaceutical take-back programs Pharmaceutical and prescription drug take- back programs are critical to ensuring that unwanted or unused medications are disposed of properly. For many years it was The Town of recommended that unused Huntington drugs be flushed down the placed bins at six toilet. This antiquated practice beaches in 2009, pollutes our groundwater, and anticipates . streams, bays and estuaries. the program will In 2008, the Associated Press pay for itself with reported that pharmaceutical the money gained drugs -- including antibiotics, from recycling mood stabilizers and sex plus eliminating thaf _ hormones -- were found in the $75/ton waste clippings is an antiquated recycling bins in all parks, the drinking water of over 41 disposal fee. policy that wastes taxpayer beaches, parking lots and million Americans. 15 This Pictured at right is dollars and provides no train stations so residents year the Town of North the announcement environmental benefit. Indeed, can recycle on the go Hempstead launched the first of its new beach such a collection program Recycling should be comprehensive drug take-back recycling program. is counter-productive and easy and convenient for the program on Long Island. The prevents grass clippings from public. Ensuring that people program accepted all drugs, providing a natural, slow­ can recycle drink containers including narcotics. In the release fertilizer for lawns and and newspapers on the go first event, the town collected gardens. Newsday reported makes good sense, while also 400 Ibs. of medications, from on May 22, 2009 that the reducing litter in key areas. drugs issued in 1966 to others Town of Hempstead was The Town of Huntington officially recalled such as experiencing significant odor placed bins at six beaches Vioxx. The drugs collected problems relating to grass in 2009, and anticipates the included: Vicodin, OxyContin, clippings decomposing at the program will pay for itself Ambien and methadone. transfer station. Many towns with the money gained from 2. Towns should stop have already stopped the recycling plus eliminating collecting grass clippings collection ofgrass clippings; the $75/ton waste disposal and implement a "Don't Bag other towns should implement fee. The Town of North ftProgram" this easy, cost-effective Hempstead worked with the The2008Longl~and and odor reducing measure MTA to place recycling bins on Recycling Report Card stated immediately. train platforms throughout the 9 Towns should lead by example, implementing comprehensive recycling programs in their buildings and saving money in the process,

10

<, .. ~ town. According to the MTA, 5. Towns should ensure 6. Towns in 2008, NYC Transit subway that their websites are easy should have stations yielded 8,444 tons of to find, public-friendly and comprehensive recyclables -- approximately updated regularly. recycling 50% of all refuse removed CCE recommends that programs for from the system. CCE urges municipalities provide all town buildings all towns to add bins to key relevant information for resi­ CCE found locations. dential, business and school that most towns 4. Towns should work recycling on their websites. have a recycling in partnership with schools, Most municipalities highlight program for businesses and apartment their household program online town buildings - and co-op complexes to but few have information about but there is still room establish comprehensive recycling for schools or busi­ improvement. The Town education kiosk at the town recycling programs nesses - even when they offer of Riverhead, for example, facility to educate residents on It is critical that schools, comprehensive programs. implemented a building recycling and to keep them up businesses and apartment Municipalities should be doing program to only recycle paper. apprised of recycling news and complexes establish recycling everything possible to involve Recently it launched a pilot upcoming events. The Town programs. businesses and schools. We program in one department of Hempstead produced six CCE identified several recommend this information to recycle plastic and glass recycling mailings to residents successful partnerships be easy to access from the bottles. CCE believes that the and offered several dozen between towns and schools, home page through a promi­ pilot should be expanded to presentations to schools and detailed in the School nently displayed icon, like that all of the town departments. community groups. Some Recycling Section. These of the Town of Brookhaven. The Town of Islip, by contrast, towns, however, continue to lag partnerships are easy to CCE found that too many town issues a recycling bin to every behind in their public education implement, and often lead to town employee. The recycling efforts. Riverhead, East future collaborations between container is larger than the Hampton and Southampton, towns and schools. trash can to emphasize the fact for example, do not provide The Town of Smithtown that the majority of office waste direct mailings to residents created a "business waste can (and should) be recycled. and do not participate in any generation fee." All busi The town does routine training community educational tabling are charged a fee based on with custodial staff and follow­ events. the quantity of garbage they up with employees. Towns One way towns can produce. The more a business should lead by example, achieve effective education recycles, the less garbage they implementing comprehensive without increasing costs is to produce, the less the town websites are challenging to recycling programs in their e-mail recycling information to charges for disposal of their navigate - it's hard to find the buildings and saving money in residents. CEE recommends garbage. recycling information - often the process. monthly e-mails encouraging The Town of Oyster requiring multiple clicks and 7. Towns should residents to recycle, informing Bay established a program redirections. Lastly, websites develop and implement them about STOP and E-waste for apartment and condo need to be updated regularly. comprehensive recycling days and announcing other complexes to set up their own Several websites have not public education programs recycling news. CCE highly recycling initiatives, involving been updated in years and Since our 2008 report, CCE recommends keeping residents free pick-up of recyclables or contain outdated information. has identified areas of progress informed of the town's free placement of recycling Increasing recycling informa­ in the public education sector. recycling efforts and any cost igloos on the property. tion and streamlining accessi­ Some towns have increased savings available. To the best All of these initiatives bility by using available tech­ mailings and are providing of our knowledge, this is not work to advance recycling on nologies will increase recycling more recycling presentations being done in any of the towns Long Island and should be participation and reduce waste to schools. The Town of on Long Island. The time to embraced by all towns. disposal costs. Southold constructed a public begin is now. 11 CCE Recol11mendations

1. The NYS DEC should work with towns to enhance and promote markets for recycling glass. Many of the towns raised concerns about the difficulty of finding a market to recycle glass bottles. Nationally, 75% of glass ends up in landfills.16 One Long Island town reported it used to send its glass to a recycling plant in Brooklyn that did glass-to-glass recycling. The plant then switched to manufacturing glass jars for baby food, and could no there are exciting new The glass industry is longer take recycled glass due developments in the glass currently tightening standards to tightened contamination industry. Manufacturers are and its goal is to produce restrictions. The Town of becoming more innovative containers with 50% recycled Southold has actually begun to and pioneering in ways to material by 2013. 24 However, stockpile glass, while looking use recycled glass. Some there needs to be a more for an appropriate market. emerging possibilities for glass immediate solution for the The town has tried to grind its marketing are: glass recycling problem glass back to sand and offer a. As an alternative to sea impeding today's market. the material to contractors for turtle nesting substrate17 One potential solution the free, but still cannot move it. b. As an element in the DEC should consider is the Many towns send their glass production of ceramics18 installation of a permanent to Brookhaven, where it is c. As street and sidewalk glass recycling plant on Long recycled and used in projects pavers - possibly for perme­ Island. Another possibility is a surrounding the landfill. able pavement19 state mandate requiring glass More options, however, are d. As aggregates and bottles to contain a specified necessary. CCE reached out shot-blast abrasives percentage of recycled to Dr. Larry Swanson, PhD. e. As art and decorative glass. In California, state law and Director of the Waste applications mandates containers include Reduction and Management f. As alternative beach fill 35% recycled glass.2s In Institute, who confirmed that materia121 Oregon, state law requires the markets for glass have g. As mulch in landscap­ 50% recycled glass. 26 Glass dried up, and past projects to ing and landscaping design22 can and should be recycled. incorporate ground glass into h. As material for counter­ The DEC should work with asphalt have failed. top production and an alterna­ towns and counties to ensure The good news is that tive to marble23 that markets exist. 12 2. CCE strongly believes regular household garbage. manufacturing of the raw the NYS DEC needs to re­ Consequently, battery ore. CCE strongly believes evaluate its policy to include collection bins have been the presence of mercury and and mandate the recycling of removed from schools, other toxins cannot be ignored. all batteries. recreation facilities and These noxious batteries, In some states (including government buildings.2B if improperly disposed of, California),27 all batteries, CCE believes this message may leach into the ground (pictured left): even alkaline, are considered misleads residents into contaminating waterways The Town of household hazardous waste believing all battery disposal is and drinking water - affecting Southold has (HHW). In New York this isn't safe, particularly with the rise both the environment and actually begun to the case. The DEC's website of lithium ion batteries that look public health. 31 This issue is stockpile glass, recommends that alkaline identical to alkaline batteries. especially important on Long while looking for batteries be disposed of in the Lithium batteries should Island where the sole source an appropriate trash. Yet many Long Island not be discarded in the trash of our drinking water is the market. The residents are unaware of the as they may contain sulfur aquifer, which is extremely town has tried to difference between alkaline dioxide, which has explosive vulnerable to leachates. grind its glass batteries and more hazardous properties under certain back to sand and nickel-cadmium batteries and conditions. 29 Alkaline batteries It is CCE's recommendation offer the material lithium ion batteries. contain hazardous material that the information on the to contractors A regrettable effect of such as potassium hydroxide, DEC website where alkaline for free, but still the DEC's recommendation which can leak from damaged batteries are identified as cannot move it. is towns abandoning batteries causing irritation to harmless be taken down programs designed to skin and eyes. 30 Mercury or modified to inform educate consumers on has been banned from consumers of the hazards of proper battery disposal. The alkaline batteries, yet they battery disposal. Town of Brookhaven website still contain residual amounts states, "The New York State resulting from the mining and 22C Department of Environmental Conservation has determined that alkaline household batteries (i.e. AA,AAA, C, 0, 9v) can be disposed of safely with your

13

"

Special Section: ecyclino in the Schools

When CCE conducted the Town of Hempstead programs. However, the town interviews for the 2008 Long discussed a potential program does not pick up recyclables, Island Recycling Report Card, for schools. At the time of the and charges these schools it became increasingly clear interview, no schools were $12/ton for drop-off at the town there was a critical lack of participating. The good news facility. recycling in our schools. The is that at the time of our 2009 report recommended, "Towns interview, 61 schools in the eeE School Interviews and cities should encourage town are now recycling. CCE conducted interviews schools and businesses to The Town of North with three different schools in recycle. It is so important that Hempstead has launched three towns. CCE interviewed towns and cities begin to work the most comprehensive Herricks School, located in the together with schools and program to date, making it Town of North Hempstead, businesses to implement and entirely free and easy for Island Trees School, located execute meaningful recycling schools to participate. The in the Town of Hempstead and programs. In order to ensure . Town of Huntington created The Longwood School, located that recycling continues from a "school/town roundtable" in the Town of Brookhaven. one generation to the next, where representatives from we must be teaching and both parties meet quarterly to Herrick School District, Town of practicing recycling in the talk about issues and points North Hempstead schools." of collaboration, including The Town of North Looking back, the NYS school recycling. Other Hempstead has established Education Department sent towns, such as Islip, have the most comprehensive a letter in September 2007 implemented a flat fee to school program/partnership to all schools in the state pick up school recyclables. on Long Island. The town encouraging them to set up Still others like the Town of provides free classroom bins recycling programs. The letter Smithtown, unable to pick up to schools and free pick-up states, "New York Schools waste from schools, waive all of recyclables for the first two have an important role to play fees and allow schools to drop years. Only three schools in promoting recycling. It's off recyclables for free at the within the town are not the right thing to do to protect town facility. participating. our environment, and it's The Town of Brookhaven Prior to North Hempstead required by state and local is the only town on the establishing this program, laws." Despite this plea, most Island that charges schools schools did not have a schools still did not move to for recyclables. It provides comprehensive recycling recycle. consulting services initiative. The Herricks School In 2008, CCE and encouraging schools to set up District tried to arrange a 15

, '.'.";<. SPECIAL SECTION: RECYCLING IN THE SCHOOLS

Left: The Town of North Hempstead delivers recycling bins to the Port Washington School district.

School translates the weight of their paper recyclables into saving trees and posts how many trees saved each week. Jim Brown, the Director of Facilities and Operation for Herricks School District, told CCE that the partnership made it much easier for the school to recycle. He strongly program with its carter, but in the town's program. janitorial staff, requiring no recommends the program to decided against it when the In September of 2008, additional training. In the other schools. cost proved prohibitive. The Herricks School District first months, the school This initial partnership has carter required a separate entered into a partnership experienced an increase led to other initiatives between dumpster at the school with North Hempstead and in participation, and a school and town. For instance, and a separate pick up for launched a district-wide corresponding decrease North Hempstead was able recyclables. Additionally, comprehensive recycling in waste. Unfortunately, to help Herricks High School the carter would not provide program. The school the carter still charges the with a paving project and the recyclable containers for recycles paper, plastic same cost, though the town worked with the school to classrooms. bottles and metal tins. The school generates less waste. establish an e-waste recycling In 2007, the school town provides free bins in Herricks is seeking to re­ program. entered into an agreement classrooms and cafeteria, negotiate its next contract with with a private company to and larger dumpsters to store the carting company. Island Trees Middle School, recycle paper. The company recyclables. The town comes The town has also started Town of Hempstead did not charge the school twice a week to pick up to distribute scales. This The Town of Hempstead's and provided free bins to the recyclables. is a terrific way for schools program is slightly different school. The company claimed The school involves to weigh recyclables, post . from North Hempstead's they would share the profits in student clubs to promote weekly recyclable statistics program. The Town of the second year. The school the program and collect and have friendly competitions Hempstead requires schools to did not pursue the second recyclables from classrooms. with neighboring schools. purchase special recycling bins year; instead they participated This makes it easy for Denton Ave. Elementary from the town. Only then does 16 the town collect and recycle launched, bottles were all According to William the school's recyclables free of over the floor. He estimated J. Neater, Director of charge. an "80% improvement in Plant Facilities, Longwood The Island Trees Middle cleanliness of the building." Operations and Maintenance, School started its recycling The partnership between the school has old batteries program in January of 2008. town and school has led to from radios and defibrillators The school purchased three other jOint initiatives. Recently, and has reached out to the bins for the lunch room and there was an 8th grade town for help in disposing them one bin for the copier room. student who conducted a class properly. To date the town has Two bins are for paper and project on e-waste recycling. not provided assistance nor The Town of two bins for commingled The town helped the school guidance. The school started Hempstead bottles and cans. The school establish a program where the program "because it was established also placed cardboard boxes the school notified residents the right thing to do." CCE in all classrooms to collect to bring their e-waste and the urges the town to do the right a program paper. At first the boxes were town collected e-waste free of thing and remedy the situation. to collect decorated by the Friends of charge. The school collected e-waste in the Environment Club, but then 2,060 Ibs. of e-waste that the School Program they needed to be replaced too town recycled. Recommendations the school- frequently. The Club ensures The following are resulting in that each classroom has a Longwood School District, recommendations for all the collection box. Once the box is full of Town of Brookhaven Long Island towns involving of 2,060 Ibs. paper, the teacher has one The Longwood School their school-to-town recycling of the students bring the box District implemented a efforts. Implementing these of e-waste. and dump it into the larger comprehensive recycling suggestions will make container in the lunch room. program several years ago. recycling simpler for schools, The larger, town-purchased The school recycles paper, plus it will maximize recycling containers have wheels that cardboard, glass, plastic while it reduces waste disposal allow custodial staff to easily and metal. The school pays costs. move the containers to the a private hauler to truck a. Schools should not garage where the town picks recyclables to the Town of be charged for bringing them up weekly. According Brookhaven, where the town recyclables to town facilities. to Greg Wagner, Chair of the then charges the school $121 The ideal program would be Science Department at Island ton to accept recyclables. The one similar to that of the Town Trees Middle School, the town did provide the school of North Hempstead where partnership "made it so easy to encouragement to start the all necessary components recycle." program and remains a good are provided by the town free At the beginning of the resource for the school. of charge. These include program the town held a large However, the town does not recycling containers for educational assembly and provide monetary relief even classrooms, free pick-up by Town Supervisor Kate Murray when markets for recyclable town vehicles and a no-charge was in attendance to help kick goods are high. policy for all public schools. off and promote the program. Each classroom has a b. Towns should actively During our visit we spoke container for paper, and each reach out to recycle in public to the custodial staff about building has a large barrel schools because they make up the recycling program. They to store recyclables. The an enormous portion of Long told us the program was "easy custodial staff is charged with Island's waste stream. Further, to implement" and actually bringing recyclables to one it's an excellent way to boost "made the building cleaner." location, where a private hauler recycling revenue and lower The custodial representative picks them up and transports municipal taxes. .. noted that before the program them to the town facility. 17 2009 ~cycling Rel'Qrt Card

What does,thetown ',' PossiblePClints",; , , recycle , Does the town recycle newspaper? Magazine inserts? Corrugated Max 2.5 points. 0,5 point newspaper, 0.5 point magazine cardboard? White paper/office paper? Paperboard? inserts, 0.5 point corrugated cardboard, 0.5 point white paper/office paper, 0.5 point paperboard Does the town recycle metal containers? Glass bottles? Plastics 1 & 2? Max 2 pOints. 0.5 pOint for metal ccntainers, 0.5 point Plastics above 2? for glass bottles, 0.5 point for plastics 1 & 2, 0.5 point for plastics above 2. STOP Days Does the town have a STOP program? Max 1.5 pOints. 1 point for having a STOP program, .5 3. bonus point for including perscription narcotics, .25 bonus point for medications that are non-narcotic llL How many days per year is the program available? .5 point for 4 days or more per year Does the town have a permanent facility? .5 pOint for having a permanent facility, .25 point for 5~ having a permanent facility for just oil and/or paint I

{$~ How many locations? .5 point for having more than one location

Does the town advertise for the STOP program? Website? Newspaper? Total 1 point. .25 point for website, .25 point for ! Radio PSA? Direct mailing? newspaper, .25 point for radio psa, .25 point for direct mailing S. What programs are in place to recycle batteries? Alkaline? Lithium? Car Total 1 point. .5 point for ccllecting all batteries at STOP, batteries? .5 point for having additional collection points e-Waste Recycling Programs :, \L Does the town have an e-waste recycling program? 1 point for having a program iD.. Does the town have a permanent facility/drop off location? 1 point for having a permanent facility 'teL Does the town have a curbside e-waste recycling program? .5 bonus point for implementing a curbside program Leaf & GrassClippillgs Does the town have a program to compost leaf waste? Max 1.5 points. 1 point for having an in-house ccmposting 12. program, .5 point for vendor compost program, .5 point for pilot program " Does the town have a wood chipping program? Max 1 point. 1 point for having an in-house wood chipping 'i~:L program, .5 for vendor wood chipping program Does the town have a "Don't Bag it Policy"? 1 point for having both a program that encourages residents to leave grass clippings on the lawn &1 stops curbside collection of clippings. Does the town provide homeowner's guidance to compost at home? .5 point for providing homeowners guidance to compost at home Does the town provide free ccmpostlfree mulch or free wood chips to 1 point for providing free compost or wood chips to '15. residents? residents Public Education Programs Does the town set up educational tables at community events? .5 point for setting up educational tables at community H. events HL How many events did the town attend in 2008? .5 point for attending over 4 events in 2008 18 19. Does the town do presentations for schools and community groups? .5 pOint for doing more than 4 events in 2008 TheGradingSca/e

.5 point for any direct mailing to residents on recycling

.5 pOint for any direct mailings to businesses on recycling 2:L

24. .5 point for any direct mailings to schools on recycling

1 pOint for having any general recycling public educational ads

Does the town have a Main Street program for businesses? a main street program or any program ouslnesses to recycle Does the town have an informational section on its website for .5 point for having a recycling section on the website for businesses? businesses

Does the town have an active partnership to help schools recycle? What 1 point for an active partnership to encourage and assist 32. is the participation? schools to recycle. Does the town allow schools to drop off recyclables for free at town lowing schools to drop off recyclables at the facilities? Does the town have an informational section on its website for schools? .5 point for having a recycling section on the website for :c:uL schools

Does the town have recyclable containers at Parks? Beaches? Train Total 1 point. .25 point for bins at parks, .25 point for bins stations? Municipal docks? Parking lots? at beaches, .25 point for bins at train stations, .25 point for bins in parking lots Does the town have a program for town buildings? 1 point for recycling program within town halls/facilities 3&1.-:

Does the town have a program/partnership for condo, co-ops & 1 pOint for having a program that assists and works with .37 ~ apartment developments? apartment & condo developments

Are there any additional programs?

9

,.,'-,,",',l... : Score

.25

Does not have an in-house composting program. However, Bablylon has a contract with Omni Recycling to compost leaf & yard .5 waste. In the past, composting took place off-island, However Babylon changed its contract. Now all composting is done on Long Island. Does have a wood-chipping program. A crew goes out to cut dead & diseased trees. These trees are then chipped & the mulch is 13. used for town projects. Resident yard & leaf waste is composted by Omni Recycling.

There is an active partnership with the Wyandanch School District, where the .5

20 Report Card

Has a program entitled "Opt-Out" for businesses in town. Babylon handles all businesses recyclables & garbage. The fee is 30. based on the amount of garbage the business generates. The more the business recycles, the less garbage they generate -- the less they pay for garbage disposal. Does not have an informational section on their websites for businesses. 3'1. o

Schools

Babylon recently launched a new program to encourage schools to recycle: the town handles all of the school's garbage and 32~ recyclables. Babylon works with the school to significantly lower their current waste removal fees. The town will provide free bins to schools upon request. Deer Park, one of the first schools to participate, lowered their garbage fee by 50%.

3::1. Accepts recyclables for free from the school, but prefers that the school participate in the town program.

34. Does not have an informational section on their websites for schools. 01

Parks & Public Places Has recycling bins everywhere, except for the train stations. .75 35~

Has a comprehensive program to recycle paper, plastic, metal & e-waste throughout town buildings

oartments/cn-oos & condos. They are considered part of the commercial garbage district. The town 37.

Extra Credit

1. Babylon has a concrete recycling program. Residents & the highway department can drop off concrete at the recycling facility 5 and the highway department reuses the concrete in town road projects. 2. The town has started a program to distribute re-useable shopping bags to town residents. Hundreds of bags have already been given out. 3. Babylon has an Adopt-a-Bike program where 30. people can bring used bikes to the recycling facility and others can take them home. 4. The town launched a CFL program, where CFL light bulbs and an educational flyer on how to properly dispose of them are distributed to residents. 5. Babylon held, in conjunction with Assemblvman Bob Sweeney. a e-waste collection day for residents. businesses & schools.

~ Grading scale and point system can be found on pages 18-19

21 2

2

.5

.25 u?

fL

.5

14,

There is cu rrently a public .5

.5

22 Report Card

Only does mailings to businesses on request. In 2008, Brookhaven mailed information to 20 2$, o businesses.

.5 21,

29, The town has formed an advisory o

hope of installing recycle bins in the 0 for businesses & residents. o

o

1. Concrete Recycling: crushes concrete & then re-uses the concrete. 2. Brookhaven also has 5 a Tire Shredding Program, where the tires are shredded & then used for road base in town projects. 3. Fabric Recycling Curbside Program 4. Shrink Wrap Recycling: the town recycles shrink wrap from boats & used plastic from greenhouses. 5. Fish Net Program: Brookhaven has partnered with DEC to collect and recycle old fishinQ line. 6. Freon

.~ .. Grading scale and pOint system can be found on pages 18·19

23 2009

What.does the town recycle? Response Score L Recycles all paper. 2.5 Recycles metal, glass & plastics #1 & #2, but not plastics above #2. The glass is crushed 1.5 2. on site & then used in drainage projects in East Hampton. STOP Days 3. Has a STOP program. 1 4, Has 4 STOP days a year: 2 in the Spring and two in the Fall. .5 fL Has 2 areas where they collect waste oil year round. .25 fL There are 2 locations, 1 in Montauk and 1 in East Hampton. .5 1, Advertises its STOP days through the newspaper, radio PSAs & East Hampton's website. .75 it Has 2 locations to collect car batteries and household batteries in the town. 1 e,WasteRetyclingPrograms 'lL Has an e-waste program 1 10, Has a permanent facility in East Hampton. The facility is open 7am-5pm, 7 days/week. 1 4'1. Does not have a curbside e-waste program. 0 Leaf& Grass Clippings . .... '12. Composts leaf & grass waste on site. 1 1:), Has a wood chipping program on site. 1 1>iL The town gets a lot of grass, & has just implemented a fee of $20/ton. 1 H, Does not provide guidance to homeowners to compost at home. 0 Residents are allowed take free compost. East Hampton also provides free compost to 1 "~$< some of the local towns, but charges landscapers. Public Education Programs n, Does not set up educational tables at events. 0 'HL Did not attend any events in 2008. 0 %t. Provides tours of the East Hampton Recycling Facility upon request. .5 20. In 2008, approximately 7 tours were given. .5 Has an anti-litter campaign: commercials on the radio, signage around the town, & also .5 21, educational brochures. Does not do any direct mailing to residents. East Hampton does offer handouts in the 0 22. lobby of the recycling center. 2:L Does not have mailings to businesses 0 24, Does not have mailings to schools. 0 25. There were several radio anti-litter ads in 2008. 1 There is recycling information on East Hampton's website, but it has not been updated 1 since 2004. Public Incentives East Hampton does not provide bins, nor does it have a curbside program. This question 0 is not applicable. 28. East Hampton does not mail new homeowners information on recycling. 0 24 Report Card

20~ Does not have a Pay As You Throw program. o

East Hampton does accept recyclables from newspaper is $25/ton, mixed paper is

o

o

25

,~ ~".' Has a STOP program. Hempstead has also started a new program with Covanta Energy ~l. to encourage residents to properly dispose of mercury thermometers. When residents bring in a thermometer, they get a $5 gift card. Holds a STOP program 10 days a year. There are 5 events held on Saturdays & 5 events .5 held on Does not have a permanent facility, but people can drop off Latex paint, tires, motor oil, .25 5~ propane tanks, lead & acid batteries (no chemicals) 7 days/week at the Merrick location.

Uses the website, newspaper 7 direct mailing. This year, Hempstead also ran radio & TV commercials. Town residents can bring batteries to the STOP program or drop them off at the town facility in Merrick. There are 55-gallon drums at firehouses & boxes at schools & village halls to collect these batteries. Hempstead has collected seven 55-gallon drums in 2009 to date.

Council member who is ",nnn",nrina program them know when & Does have a permanent facility. Residents can bring e-waste to the Merrick facility. The facility is open 7 days a week, from 8:30-3:30pm. Hempstead also worked with 3 schools an e-waste recvcle dav. & the town picked UP & recycled the e-waste for free.

the .5

o

Posts "do not litter" signs in locations known for bad littering & in key downtown locations. Residents can call the town code enforcement to problems.

26 Report Card

To date

.75

Picks up recyclables from condos for free if the development purchases a container form the town.

1. Sharps Program: residents that need to use needles can get free containers from the 5 town for needle disposal. 2. Recycling Education Center: the town is opening a recycling education center for kids, which will be located in Merrick. The facility will be open to 38. schools & members of the public. 3. New mercury recycling program with Covanta. 4. Concrete Recycling: all of the town's concrete is crushed, recycled into new concrete & then offered back to the town for town projects. 5. School e-waste recycling program.

~. Grading scale and point system can be found on pages 18·19

27 What does thetownrecycle?i>I Response Score I Recycles all paper products. 2.5 2. I Recycles all commingled products. 2

STO~ Days Does have a STOP program.

4. Accepts household hazardous materials 52 days/year at the Town Recycling Center. The .5 Recycling Center is open every Saturday 8am-4pm. 5. Has a permanent facility. .5 Has 1 permanent location. Huntington also accepts STOP material at a few key .5 (L community events. In 2009 residents were able to bring STOP material to the town Earth Day event. Uses Huntington's website, the newspaper, radio PSAs & direct mailing to advertise the 7. STOP program to residents. Has a unique program for battery recycling. Residents can place all non-automotive batteries in a Ziploc bag or a town issued battery bag & place it atop their recycling bin. The batteries get picked up curbside with the recyclables. Residents can also bring them to drop-off locations at libraries, fire stations & town hall. e-WasteRecYling;· •.

0~ Does have an e-waste program. Hasa permanent facility. It is open Tuesday - Saturday from 8am-4pm.Residents can also drop off at community events such as Earth Day. The town also takes e-waste from businesses and schools free of charge, but businesses need to drop it off at the community events, not at the facility. Schools need to call in advance to make sure there is manpower to handle their load. Does not have a curbside e-waste program. Huntington is concerned about identify theft o issues. Leaf & Gras.s Clippings A vendor (Omni) composts leaf waste outside of NY. .5 The vendor is responsible for the wood chipping program. Trees that fallon the roads are .75 cleaned up & chipped by the highway department. The chips are available to the public. Has a "Don't Bag It Policy" & will not accept grass at the curb. Residents can bring grass clippings to the town recycling center & will be charged $1.50 a bag. Does offer guidance for homeowners to compost. There is a "how to" section in the town .5 15. calendar. Huntington also includes this information in its summer lecture series. The vendor provides compost back to the town and the town offers it to residents for free. Public Education Programs H. Seta up educational tables at community events. .5 itL Attended approximately 5 to 8 events in 2008. .5 1fL Gives community & school presentations. .5 Gave approximately 12 presentations. (2/month from October through April) .5 Does have an anti-litter campaign. Often members of the Council will host local dean­ .5 ups. Residents can call the highway hotline for information {(631) 499-0444}. Huntington regularly picks up litter on Pulaski Road where the garbage trucks travel. 28 Great. job, f/tI. n-6 n:J on J Report Card

Sent out 1 blanket mailing of the town calendar. There was a new resident mailing to .5 1,200 residents. They received the calendar, a letter, a battery bag & a recycling sticker for a barrel.

Attendees

All information is located on Huntington's website. However, CCE found it hard to locate the site and it wasn't comprehensive.

Residents can get .5 2.1. stickers at 20. Packets are mailed to new homeowners. The packet includes a letter, a town calendar, a sticker, a battery bag, & literature on the do's and don'ts of recycling.

Huntington has a partnership with schools to recycle. Currently 42 out of 60 schools participate. Huntington picks up paper from schools once a week. There is a pilot program with the Dix Hills School District to pick up bottles and cans. The town gives stickers for containers, then retrieves containers from 1 or 2 pick-up points once a week. The Town has deployed an additional truck to meet the need.

If the condo/apartment complex is in the refuse district or if the complex has curbside access, Huntington will pick up recyclables. If the complex uses a carter, the carter should offer recycling, but the homeowners must pay for the service. There are Town Code issues involving pick-up locations & other logistical challenges such as truck access to these complexes.

1. Huntington started a mercury thermometer recycling in conjunction with Covanta. Town residents get a $5 gift card to Home Depot or Lowes when they bring in a mercury 3n~ thermometer. 2. Huntington developed bi-lingual educational materials. 3. The town provides free e-waste recycling to the schools. 4.The town provides free e-waste recycling shredding to businesses.

29

- .. :.-•.,< ..... Has a permanent drop-off facility. open Mon.-Fri. 8am-2:45pm. There are also drop­ HI, off bins at town hall and the animal shelter. Islip takes anything with a plug. not just

Has a curbside e-waste program. launched 10108. on the last Wednesday of each .5 11< month. Islip airs PSAs. Islip also accepts e-waste from business for 10cents/pound to cover costs.

Has been reaching out to schools for a long time but feels the schools have not been .5 24" doing their part. 30 6 Report Card t-Jof to .:J0 ' 1- /;f!

o

1. In 2008, Islip developed bilingual recycling educational materials. 2. The town is 3 looking to partner and increase recycling at local libraries 3. ISlip provides multiple locations for residents to pick up compost.

~ .. Grading scale and pOint system can be found on pages 18·19

"In 2008, 6,320 Ibs. of small batteries were recycled."

U/slip takes anything with a plug,

not just computers. J1

31 2009 ecycling

What does the tow~'i'ec:y'Ci~"?,;: Response Score i. Collects all papeL 2.5 Recycles metal, glass, & plastic #1 & #2. Currently, North Hempstead does not accept plastics above 1.5 #2, but it is in discussions with the vendor to change that. Right now the vendor would lose money on anything above #2, but the town is willing to pay more for the vendor to accept the plastics . STOP Days . ' ...... Has a STOP program. In 2009, North Hempstead accepted all medications, including narcotics. The 1.5 town worked with the local police & the Department of Health to allow it to accept narcotics. The town also needed to obtain a special permit. 4. Has 4 STOP days. .5 2L Does not have a permanent facility. 0 ZL Holds the STOP days in 2 separate locations. .5 Uses its website, newspapers, PSAs & direct mailings to advertise for the STOP program. North 1 7. Hempstead has its own station on local Channel 18 where announcements are run. The town also runs messages on its 311 line. Accepts all batteries at the STOP program & on Sundays at the resident drop-off location. Some of the 1 town facilities have additional drop-off locations e-Waste Recyling Programs fL Has an e-waste recycling program. 1 Every Sunday residents can drop off e-waste at the resident drop-off point. North Hempstead also 1 1ft has a drop-off at the annual Eco-fest. The town has developed a partnership with schools. The town will provide a bin to the schools where residents, as well as the school, can properly dispose of their e-waste. North Hempstead will then remove the bin. 1'L Does not have a curbside recycling program. 0 Leaf & Grass Clippings Has developed a pilot program to compost a portion of its leaf waste. North Hempstead will compost .5 3,000 cubic yards at the transfer station. This compost will then be used on town-owned lands. 12~ Currently the town pays to get rid of leaf waste and then pays to buy compost. This new program will save the town money. 13, Has a wood chipping program 1 14. Does not have a program to encourage residents to leave grass clippings on the lawn. 0 itL Provides education programs at Clark Gardens and on the town-owned TV channel. .5

1B~ Provides free compost through its program at Clark Gardens. 1 publrcE~I.I~atrQriPtograml{ H. Sets up educational tables at community events. .5

1$~ In 2008, North Hempstead did approximatly 400 events. .5 is, Gives presentations for community groups and schools. .5 I Gave approximately 100 presentations. North Hempstead reached over 4,000 students during the .5 2O. 2008-2009 school year. In 2008, North Hempstead ran the "Summer of Clean" Program. In 2007 the town picked up 35,000 Ibs. ,5 2~" of litter. "The Green Team" is assigned to pick up litter in the town. Residents are encouraged to report litter using the 311 hotline. There is also signage throughout the town. 22. Sent out 3 mailings to the town residents and the carting company did 1 mailing. .5 32 23, Sent out 5 mailings to businesses from the carting company. 0 Excel Ieni job) Report Card Norih f/e!>1psieac1! IQrt'_ ... It CrCt1w::rj

In 2008, mailed out hundreds of mailings to the schools, as North Hempstead was launching its new .5 24, partnership with the schools.

.5

1. North Hempstead is reaching out to private schools to form a recycling partnerships. 2. The town has 4 implemeted the Green Patch Program. This program recycles asphalt in town. 3. North Hempstead has given schools scales, so they can weigh their recycables & have friendly competitions. 4. School 3ft e-waste Recycling: The town sets up a container at the school where residents can bring their e-waste to recycle & the schools can recycle their e-waste as well.

~... Grading scale and point system can be found on pages 18-19

33 What does the town recycle? Score Recycles newspaper, magazine inserts, white paper & paperboard. Oyster Bay does 2 not pick up corrugated cardboard from residents, but had a pilot program for picking up corrugated cardboard from businesses. Oyster Bay is looking into expanding this pilot. Recycles everything. If residents put plastics above #2 in their pail, the town sends it 2 to Brookhaven with the rest of the recyclables. If there is a market, Brookhaven will recycle it. STOP Days Does have a STOP program. Oyster Bay is in discussions to host a drop-off day for :$, narcotics & pharmaceuticals. The program is available 8 days per year, once a month from April to November. There 0.5 4x are Saturdays & Sundays available. Does not have a permanent facility. Oyster Bay does have a permanent drop-off for 0.25 e-waste, latex paint & waste oil. f',,. The STOP program is held at 6 different locations. 0.5 Advertises through the website, direct mailing, the town newsletter, the newspaper & it also has a recording on their call processing system.

8. All batteries can be brought to the STOP program. Alkaline batteries are enouraged to 0.5 be thrown out.

Has an e-waste program A permanent facility is located in Old Bethpage. Facility is open Monday-Friday 7am- 2:30pm. Residents can also bring e-waste to the STOP program. Conducted a pilot program in the fall of 2008, where they picked 6 routes that collected 0.25 '1 e-waste curbside. The e-waste was collected with bulk items. The pilot has ended & the town is unsure whether to expand it. Leaf & Grass Clippings The leaf waste goes to the vendor LI Compost & they are responsible for composting 0.5 leaf & grass waste. Has an active tree trimming program where it chips up the branches & offers the wood chips to the public. Encourages people to leave grass clippings on their lawn. However they still pick them o up curbside. 1ft Does have a composting brochure for residents. 0.5 The vendor offers 10% of the compost back to the town, which is then made available to HL residents for free. Public Education Programs;' 17. Sets up educational tables at community events 0.5 18~ In 2008, Oyster Bay did approximately 15 events. 0.5

"~V" Gives school presentations' & gives out pencils made of recyclable material. 0.5 20. In 2008, gave 62 schools presentations 3 to community group presentations. 0.5 2'1. Has anti-litter signs posted. 0.5

34 Report Card

24.,

Oyster Bay

Ext~9 Credit Some will be given

il("'·' .... Grading scale and point system can be found on pages 18-19

35

,'-.F." / 20091{eCYCling

What does the town recycle? (·;,j,t Response Score 'L Recycles all paper products. 2.5 2~ Recycles all commingled products. 2 STQPDays ... ..•... ·,'i·iN;; 3~ Has a STOP program 1 4~ The program is available 2 days a year. Once in the spring & once in the fall. 0 Does not have a permanent STOP facility. In 2009, Riverhead established a permanent 0.25 drop-off for waste oil.

s~ Has 1 location for its STOP program. 0 7. The program is advertised on the website, newspaper & local TV Channel 22. 0.75 There are containers at town hall & the police department for residents to drop-off 1 fL batteries. All batteries are also taken at STOP program. e-Waste Recyling Programs "L Has an e-waste recycling program. 1 Does not have a permanent facility. Residents can bring e-waste twice a year to the 0 STOP program. Riverhead is looking to establish a permanent facility for e-waste and CFLs. 1'L Does not have a curbside e-waste program. 0 Leaf &.Grass Clippings· .... >.... ;.::; Does not have an in-house composting program. The carter handles & composts yard 0.5 1.2. debris. ~§ :,)" Does not have a wood chipping program. 0 'i/4, Does not pick up grass clippings from residents. 1 '15. Riverhead is looking to develop some information in an upcoming pamphlet. 0 ·j6. Does not provide free compost or mulch to residents. 0 Public Education Program!:j .... ;;: 17~ Does not set up educational tables at community events. 0 '1fL Did not attend events in 2008. 0 '19" Gives presentations upon request. 0.5 2.0. In 2008, Riverhead did 1 presentation to the Aquebogue school. 0 Has a campaign to get fast-food restaurants to put up signs encouraging people not to 0.5 21. litter. Riverhead also gets civic organization to participate in clean-ups. The town is also implementing an "Adopt a Highway" program. 22. The town does 1 mailing: a recycling calendar with a letter from the Town Supervisor. 0.5 Does not send out direct mailings to business. But town ordinance mandates that 0 businesses recycle. 24. Did not send out mailings to schools on recycling. 0 25. Recently started advertising on Channel 22. 1 ;:(L Has all recycling information located on the website. 1

36 Report Card

.5

the trash schedule,

o

.25

.5

2

~. Grading scale and point system can be found on pages 18·19

37 ·What does the town r.ecycle? Score Recycles all paper. During the interview, Smithtown said they recycle paperboard, however all materials claim they do 2 not Recycles all commingled. The market for glass is difficult. Smithtown uses the glass for drainage aggregate & landfill 2 2, venting and capping. Smithtown also offers the glass to contractors for free. The town also does not advertise recycling above plastics #1 & #2, but if residents put it in recycling bin, the town will recycle it Smithtown has extra storage room & is able to store recycables until a market is found. STOP Days Scheduled a October 3, 2009 STOP day. 4, The program will be available once in the fall of 2009. o 5, Has a permanent drop-off facility at the municipal services facilities in King Park for motor oil, anti-freeze, batteries & 0.25 CFLs, Monday thru Saturday between 7am and 3:30pm. The town can not accept chemicals here. The STOP program will be held in only one location. o Plans on advertising for the STOP day through its website, local radio station, WMJC & its local town TV outlet, Channel 18, as well as running newspaper ads. Recycles all batteries. There are drop-off boxes located at town buildings. e.WastE) RecylingProgranis s, Has an e-waste recyling program. Has a permanent facility. Residents can bring e-waste to the Municipal Service Facilities, located in Kings Park. Drop­ off is available Monday thru Saturday, 7:00am -3:30pm Has offered curbside recycling of monitors & towers since 2004. Residents must call the town and arrange a pick-up I 0.5 date. The Smithtown is looking into accepting TVs in 2010.

Has a "leaf recycling program" launched in 2008. There is a pilot program involving 1200 homes where Smithtown 0.5 supplies homeowners with paper bags. The leaves are ground up & mixed with wood to form a compost / leaf mulch. This mulch is bagged & available free to Smithtown residents. The remainder leaf waste is shipped & composted in Pennsylvania. '13. Chips up branches & Christmas trees. Smithtown bags wood chips and offers them free to residents. ilL Does not pick up grass clippings. The "Don't Bag It Policy" began in 1991.

1S. Sends out a mailing to residents on instructions how to compost Smithtown also has a composting display at 0.5 environmental events. i 5" Provides free bagged compost and wood chips to residents. Public Education Programs Participates in school fairs, Earth Day events & community events upon request. 0.5 In 2008, Smithtown held approximately 6 events. 0.5 19., Gives presentations to Garden Clubs, LVW, Library groups & local hospitals. 0.5 .2O, In 2008, gave approximately 6 to 8 presentations .. 0.5 Residents can report litter by calling the town at 631-360-7550. There are a few signs in the town parks, encouraging I 0.5 residents not to litter. Smithtown does not believe in over-signage. Smithtown sends out one mailing every year to residents, which includes a recycling calendar & guidelines. The town I 0.5 prefers to advertise through public access TV & radio. Has a business waste generation fee program. Businesses are billed 4 times a year, based on the amount of garbage I 0.25 they produce. Each bill includes excellent tips on how businesses can reduce garbage. 38 Report Card

0.5

The town does not mail 0

Smithtown has a Business Waste Generation Fee. All businesses are charged a fee based on the amount of garbage they produce. The more garbage, the higher the fee. In return, businesses are allowed to bring their garbage to the 3(L Covanta waste-to-energy facility in the town. Businesses are also allowed to drop off recyclables for free at the town facility. The town also employs inspectors to check up on businesses to ensure they are recycling. Businesses are fined if they do not recycle. to businesses, & multiple inspectors have direct contact with businesses. However, Smithtown 0 Infnrm",tinn on its website.

is currently the only

Smithtown has been actively pursuing apartments & co-ops, encouraging them to meet town officials to help establish recycling programs. The town will take the recyclables for free, as long as the complex arranges delivery to the town Several multi-familv establishments are

1. Smithtown has initiated a mercury recycling incentive program with Covanta. The program encourages residents to 2 recycle mercury thermostats. In exchange for the thermostat, the residents are given a to-be-determined incentive. 2. The town has developed a freon recovery program. When old appliances with freon are brought to the town facility, the freon is recovered &

~ Grading scale and point system can be found on pages 18-19

39

:<_·:l:'; What does the town recycle? Response Score 'L Recycles all paper. 2.5 Recycles all commingled. They are sent to Brookhaven. Brookhaven recycles plastic above #2 when there 2. 2 is a market. STOP Days 3. Does have a STOP program. 1 4. The STOP program is held 4 days a year, in June, July, August & October. 0.5 5. Does not have a permanent facility. 0 t't There are 4 different locations for the STOP program. 0.5 1~ The town advertises the STOP program through the website, newspaper & radio PSAs. 0.75 S. Does not collect alkaline batteries. All other batteries can be brought to the STOP day. 0.5 e-WasteRecyling.Programs;' '. B. Does have an e-waste program. 1 1tL Has 2 permanent drop-off locations: North Sea & the Hampton Bays. 1

1"" Has no curbside e-waste recycling. 0 Leaf & Grass Clippings Has 3 sites where it composts leaf waste. Southampton then sells un screened compost to a vendor. The 1 vendor then screens the compost & markets it. 13. Does have a wood chipping program. 1 '1/%' Refuses to take grass clippings. 1 15. There is information on the Southampton's website. The town used to sell home com posters to residents. 0.5 ·t{,t" Residents are free to take what they want from the unscreened compost piles. 1 Public Education Programs 17. Does not set up educational tables. 0 'is. Did not do any events in 2008. 0 11L Gives on-site presentations and tours of the facility. 0.5 20. In 2008, Southampton did approximately 10 tours. 0.5

N,,/~ Sponsors a "Great East End Clean-Up," where once a year communities clean up areas of their 0.5 {:{., ~ " neighborhood. All the refuse brought to the town facilities is disposed of for free. Does not do any direct mailings because they are expensive. There are approximately 60,000 full time 0 22. residents & approximately 200,000 summer residents. 23. Did not send out any mailings to businesses. 0 24. Did not send out any direct mailings to schools. 0 25. There were radio and newspaper ads on yard waste & Christmas tree recycling. 1 All information is located on the website, which was updated in 2009, there are no printed materials. 1 2G~ Southampton only has a staff of 3 and must operate self-sufficiently with revenue from the "Pay As You Throw" program. Public Incentives 27. The town does not have bins. This question is not applicable. 0 2S. Does not mail out packets to new homeowners. All information is on the website and new homeowners can 0 call to speak with someone. 40

.,:-.', Report Card

If 28.

accept waste from the business community and has no programs to work with businesses to o

2. The 2

.~ Grading scale and point system can be found on pages 18-19

41

,,",,-,:: ... ,"';' 2009 ecycling

What does the town recycle? Response Score

1~ Recycles all paper. 2.5 Recycles all metal, glass bottles & plastics. Southold stockpiles glass & has a machine to grind it fine like 2 sand. A company in Florida is explorinig ways to use this byproduct in making structural concrete. The rest of the commingled is sent to Omni. STOPDays .'. 3. Has a STOP program 1 Allots 2 days for the STOP program. Residents had 4 days until this year. Budget shortfalls for waste 0 4. management have curtailed the program. 5. Accepts waste motor oil, cooking oil, & car batteries free of charge year-round. .25 iL Has 1 location for the STOP day 0 7. Advertises STOP in newspapers & radio PSAs & on its website. .75 All batteries are accepted at the town facility. Post offices, firehouses & hardware store are other 1 it collection points. e-Waste Recyling Programs 9. Has an e-waste recycling program. 1 1ft Provides a permanent drop-off location at the Southold transfer facility. 1 11. Does not have a curbside program. 0 Le~t&Grass Clippihgs 12. Has a large composting operation at its facility. 1 <.~ 3~ Has a wood chipping program on site. 1

·j4. Residents pay to dispose of grass like they do for garbage. Since the town started assessing a fee, loads 1 have decreased from 1,100 tons/year to 150 tons/year. i5. Does not provide homeowners with guidance on composting. 0 Residents can pick up to 500 Ibs. of free compost per person per year. The town sells compost for $15/ 1 111. yard & woodchip mulch for $9/yard to businesses & farms. Public Education Programs .... Southold tries to have a recycling presence at the Strawberry Festival & the Maritime Festival, but it is not .5 17" a regular practice. It is looking into getting a mobile recycling unit to bring to festivals. it!" In 2008, Southold did not attend any events 0

19~ Gives tours of its facility & provides speakers to chambers of commerce. .5 20. Gave 6 presentations to scout & school groups & 1 presentation to the chamber of commerce. .5 Has an anti-litter campaign, called the "Community Pride Program". Residents drop off garbage collected .5 21. during "cleanup days" free of charge. 22. Does not send out direct mailings to residents. 0 23. Does not send out direct mailings to businesses. 0 24. Does not send out direct mailings to schools. 0 25. Runs occasional ads in the newspaper on composting and recycling. 1

~11_r.ec;y'cling information is found on the Southold's website. 1 -~~------......

42 Report Card

businesses.

Southold gets a credit/rebate for

3

~. Grading scale and point system can be found on pages 18-19

43

O'Connell, C., M Cahill, J. Heil, and L. Swanson. Long Island Garbage Index. Waste Reduction and Management Institute, Stony Brook University;, Germano & Cahill, P.C;, Cashin Associates, P.C. 2005. 2 US EPA, "Wastes-Resource Conservation- Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/ rmd/intro.htm. February 2009. City of Austin, "Solid Waste Services." www.austinrecycles.com. 2008. 4. N.C. Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance, "The Facts." http://www.re3.org/facts.htm. 2009. s. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency. "Aluminum Recycling." www.ocrra.org , State of Pennsylvania. "RECYCLING IN PENNSYLVANIA TOPS 4.8 MILLION TONS, SAVING MATERIALS VAL- UED AT $113 MILLION" http://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.asp?A=11 &Q=448584 December 2005. 7. University of Colorado at Boulder. "Recycling Facts." http://reCYCling.colorado.edu/education_and_outreach/reCY- cling_facts.html. 2008. (i N.C. Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance. http://www.re3.org/facts.htm. 2009 v. US EPA Region 4, "Source Reduction & Recycling: A Role in Preventing Global Climate Change." http://www.epa. gov/region4/waste/rcra/mgtoolkitldocuments/Climate_ChangeJ ace Sheet. pdf H). US EPA Region 4, "Source Reduction & Recycling: A Role in Preventing Global Climate Change." http://www.epa. gov/region4/wastelrcra/mgtoolkitldocuments/Climate_Change_F act_Sheet. pdf 'I. State of California, "Case Studies: School Recycling." http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/lglibrary/innovations/Procurementl Schools/CaseStudies.htm. 2009 !2. US EPA Region 4, "Recycling: A Component of Strong Community Development." http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/rcra/mgtoolkitlCommunity.html 1J Howard, Theresa. "Coke goes for greener image with $44 million recycling plant." USA Today. 2007. 1A Gunther, Marc. "PET Project: Coke's Big Recycling Plant." Greenbiz.com. January 14, 2009. '5. Messplay, G., Heisey, C. "Drugs in the Water: States Consider Extending Manufacturer Responsibility to Product Disposal." Contract Pharma. July/August 2009. '" Peoples, Bob. "Thinking outside the Sandbox" (Earth 911: 2008) 17. Makowski, Christopher; Rusenko, Kirt ; Kruempel, Craig J. "Abiotic suitability of recycled glass cullet as an alterna- tive sea turtle nesting substrate." (May 2008) '$. "Recycled Glass as a Ceramics Raw Material" Cleaner Washington Center (May 1998) '" "Testing of Recycled Glass and Inorganic Binder Paving Tiles" University of Washington (CWC: may, 1999) ,(} "Testing and Certification of Industrial Abrasives Manufactured From Recycled Glass" (AERCO, Inc., P.S. May, 1999) 1.'.· Peoples, Bob. "Thinking outside the Sandbox" (Earth 911: 2008) n. Roth, Patty. "A Cool Use for Recycled Glass" (Earth 911: February 2009) jJ "Vetrazzo [R], the Original Recycled Glass Surface, Announces Full National Distribution." (Business wire: Jan, 2009) ,4 "Clear-Cut Plan for the Glass Industry" www.findhelpneedhelp.com (March 2009) 2S. Air resources board. California Glass Manufacturing Industry. (California EPA: June 2008) ".> Henderson, Judith. Oregon Recycling Laws. Land Quality Solid Waste Policy & Program Development. (Oregon DEQ 2003) " Waste Prevention Information Exchange - Batteries. California Integrated Waste Management Board (December 2008) ,8 Town of Brookhaven. Department of Waste Management. Household Hazardous Waste: Battery Recycling. (2006) 2~ Picky Guide. "Lithium battery: What is it?" www.pickyguide.com/electronics/lithium_batteries_guide.htmI . ,0. Earth 911. Single Use Batteries-Alkaline Batteries. (2009) 3\ USEPA. The Battery Act. Office of Regulatory Enforcement. Enforcement Alert: Volume 5, Number 2. (March 2002) Jl United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Pay-As-You-Throw," Wastes - Resource Conservation. (USEPA: May, 2009) ;;~ United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Pay-As-You-Throw," Wastes - Resource Conservation. (USEPA: May, 2009) A. "The pay-as-you-throw payoff: Thousands of communities have learned how to generate less garbage, recycle more and save money" American City & Country 118 no 11. (Primedia Business Magazines & Media, Inc. 2002) oS "The pay-as-you-throw payoff: Thousands of communities have learned how to generate less garbage, recycle more and save money" American City & Country 118 no 11. (Primedia Business Magazines & Media, Inc. 2002) "S Skumatz, Lisa. "Pay As You Throw in the US: Implementation, Impacts and Experience," Skumatz Eccnomic Re- search Associates Inc., (Superior, CO, 2008) ,7 Skumatz, Lisa. "Pay As You Throw in the US: Implementation, Impacts and Experience," Skumatz Economic Re- search Associates Inc., (Superior, CO, 2008) 38. Town of Southampton. "Departmental History and Overview," Department of Waste Management. (Southampton, NY 2009)

45