1

Journal of Air and Waste Management Association (in press)

RECYCLING IN A MEGACITY

Nickolas J. Themelis and Claire E. Todd

Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University

New York, NY 10027

(Corresponding author: njt1@columbia.edu)

ABSTRACT

In the aftermath of the 9/11 disaster, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City

unveiled an aggressive budget plan that included the temporary suspension of glass and

plastics recycling. This was considered by many to be anti-environmental but the results

of this study show that for lack of markets, even at zero or negative prices, nearly 90% of

the plastic and glass set aside by thoughtful New Yorkers, was transported to Materials

Recovery Facilities (MRF) and from there to landfills. Sending bales of plastics to

landfills is not limited to New York City. It is an environmental paradox that the U.S. is

digging up new oil fields in pristine areas and, at the same time, keeps converting

greenfields to brownfields by burying nearly 20 million tons of plastic fuel annually. The

study also determined that at the present rate of source separation, estimated to be less

that 30% of the available recyclables in 1999, building large, modern MRFs may increase

substantially the rate of NYC recycling and also allow single-stream collection of

commingled recyclables, as is done in Phoenix, Arizona. Single-stream collection

simplifies separation at the source by citizens and increases the amount of collected

recyclables. Also, since collection represents a large fraction of the costs of waste

management, it may have a significant economic advantage.

Implications of paper for law makers and policy makers There is much pressure on lawmakers to impose prescribed rates of recycling. This study showed that after sorting of the “recyclables” set aside by New Yorkers in Materials

2

Recovery Facilities (MRF), most of the paper and metals were recycled, while most of the glass and plastics were landfilled, for lack of markets. Recycling would be increased somewhat by improved collection (e.g., less glass breakage) and modern MRFs but the main factors are greater citizen participation and, for glass and plastics, markets for the sorted materials. For example, less that 10% of the 25 million tons of plastic wastes generated in the U.S are recycled into plastics.

INTRODUCTION

Until the summer of 2002, New York City’s Department of Sanitation (NYC

DOS) collected three types of wastes from NYC residents: Paper, metal-glass-plastic

(MGP), and mixed putrescible wastes (“black bag”). The first two streams went either to

sorting Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) that separated the waste into different

materials or to paper recyclers, like Visy Paper on Staten Island. The “black bag” stream

went to transfer stations and from there was shipped in 20-ton trucks, mostly to landfills

in other states. The disposition of the MSW collected by NYC-DOS is shown in Figure 1.

A 2001 study by the Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University (Todd

2002) examined in detail the fate of NYC MSW after it reached the MRFs. The objective

was to determine the effectiveness and cost of these operations and examine whether the

implementation of automated, state-of-the-art MRFs, such as have been built in cities like

Chicago and Phoenix, might help in increasing the rate of recycling. All tonnages in this

report are in short tons (1.1 short ton = 1 metric ton).

16.6%

12.4%

71.0%

RecyclingWaste-to-energyLandfilling

Figure 1. Disposition of the MSW collected by NYC-DOS in 2000

3

THE NEW YORK RECYCLING PROGRAM

New York and many other cities in the late 1980’s responded to decreasing local

landfill capacity and to public opinion by launching municipal recycling programs. As

part of this effort, some municipalities established publicly-owned materials recovery

facilities (MRFs) to sort the recyclable materials that citizens put aside from the rest of

the municipal solid waste (MSW). While some material recovery technology such as

magnetic separation is common to all of these facilities, MRFs range all the way from

manual sorting to highly automated facilities. In 1999, NYC-DOS collected 394,000 tons

of paper (“paper stream”, Todd 2002) and 278,000 tons of commingled metal-glass-

plastic materials (“MGP stream”, Todd 2002). In addition, NYS-DOS diverted from

landfills another 838,000 tons of “other” wastes, such as construction and demolition

materials. In addition to the nearly 5.4 million tons of materials managed by NYC-DOS,

hundreds of private carters took care of nearly ten million tons of “commercial” wastes

of businesses and institutions (NYC Comprehensive Commercial Waste Study-

Preliminary Report, June 2002). This paper addresses only “paper” and the “MGP”

streams collected by NYC-DOS.

Paper Recycling

Although the NYC formal recycling program began in the 1990s, the paper

recycling industry has been established in the City for over three decades. Despite

currently depressed markets, New York City’s paper recyclers maintain very steady and

saleable recoveries, relying on international and domestic paper markets to absorb the

recovered material. In 1999, the city had contracted five recycling facilities to process

municipal paper recyclables. Four of these companies sorted and baled the paper stream

to marketable grades. The fifth company, Visy Paper, is a paper mill with an on-site

pulper and paper machine that processes about 350,000 tons per year of used corrugated

cardboard (OCC) and mixed paper to cardboard-grade paper; 160,000 tons of the Visy

Paper feedstock is provided by NYC-DOS and the rest by “commercial” sources.

Newspaper grades range from #6 to #8, with higher numbers indicating a greater

percentage of newspaper content. In January 2002, the Official Board Markets were

4

reporting the following prices in the New York region: $20-25/ton of mixed paper, $35-

40/ton of OCC, and $25-30/ton and $40-45/ton of #6 and #8 news, respectively. When

the recycled paper is pulped, there is a residue, containing mostly plastic films, that

ranges from 10-20% of the feed material. News and cardboard represent most of the

material recovered and sold by New York City paper recyclers. The average recovery at

the NYC paper stream MRFs is estimated at 10%. Accordingly, the tonnage of recovered

paper in 1999 is estimated at 394,000*.90 = 354,600 tons.

The Metal-Glass-Plastic (MGP) Stream

At the beginning of 2002, the city was paying a fee ranging from $45-65 per ton

of MPG to the processing MRFs. They were responsible for selling the products and

disposing their residues to landfills. Of the four recycling facilities processing the DOS-

collected MGP, three provided on-site tours and interviews during the EEC study.

Together, they represented 69% of the MGP stream of NYC.Most of the glass fraction of

the DOS-collected stream was mixed broken glass mixed up with a small amount of dirt

and small pieces of metal and plastic. However, a simple wash at the laboratory produced

a nearly pure mixture of broken glass of different colors. Our study showed that most of

the mixed broken glass is sent to landfills to be used as “daily cover” (at a tipping fee of

about $10/ton less than landfilled MSW); some is pulverized for use either as aggregate

substitute (e.g., road fill) or as landfill cover.

MGP Material Recovery Facilities

The operation of Plant A is similar to all three MRFs visited. It is located in the

Bronx and was built in 1988. Labor needs fluctuate seasonally since waste flow generally

increases during the summer, requiring a larger staff to process the material. Plant A

operates around the clock five days a week and twenty hours on Saturdays. Shifts are

eight hours long and employ about 40 workers. The plant receives 1100-1300 tons per

week of DOS-collected MGP. It also bales 200 tons per week of used cardboard from

commercial carters.

The processing of DOS commingled material consists of

1) Tipping: After weighing in, trucks deposit waste on the tipping floor.

5

2) Pre-processing: 5-7 workers open the blue bags that contain MGP and screen the waste

for non-recyclable, bulky items.

3) An inclined conveyor belt lifts the waste to a horizontal sorting belt.

4) 7 workers remove additional blue bags, plastic bags, and all other non-recyclable

items. These materials are dropped down a chute for baling..

5) Glass separation: 2 workers positively sort green glass, dropping glass down a chute

into a bin.

6) 2 workers positively sort clear glass into a chute for collection.

7) 2 workers positively sort amber and brown glass into a chute for collection.

8) Screening of fines: Waste is conveyed over a vibrating screen and then through a

rotating trommel screen that separates small particles, mostly broken glass.

9) Separation of ferrous metals: Material is passed under a magnetic separator which

removes metal, primarily steel cans, into a bin for baling.

10) Separation of plastics: What remains of the stream, plastics and backend residue, is

conveyed to a third conveyor belt.

11) 2 workers positively sort colored high density polyethylene (HDPE1) into a bin.

12) 2 workers positively sort natural-colored or clear high density polyethylene

(HDPE2) into a bin.

13) 2 workers positively sort polyethylene terephthalate (PET) into a bin.When markets

are strong, workers also sort out PVC and polypropylene items into smaller bins.

14) The remaining residue (mostly plastic bags and other non-recyclable plastics) is

deposited in a bin for baling. Bales are approximately 3 feet x 5 feet x 6 feet and

weigh about 1400 lbs. each.

The plant residue consists of mixed broken glass and dirt particles separated by

the trommel, bales of non-recyclable plastic film, and large plastic and wood objects. The

residues are transported by 20-ton trucks to landfills in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West

Virginia. Metal goods are hauled to local scrap metal recyclers. The marketable plastic

materials are baled and transported to plastic recycling plants, where the plastic is melted

down and pelletized for use in production of clothing, plastic containers and other goods.

The operation of Plant B is very similar to that of Plant A.

6

Plant C is operated by a nationwide waste management company and serves as a

transfer station for both DOS and commercial waste and also processes DOS-collected

MGP. The plant is in operation six days a week and the total work force consists of forty

five people working ten-hour shifts. It uses similar equipment to Plant A but is equipped

with an eddy current separator for separating aluminum from steel objects. A hammer

mill is used to pulverize the mixed broken glass stream so it can be used either as an

alternate grading material or daily cover in landfills (in place of soil).

The distribution of the products and by-products of the three plants visited are

shown in Table 1 and are summed up in Table 2. Collectively, these plants processed

nearly two thirds of the total MGP stream of NYC (278,000 tons per year).

Table 1. Products and residues of MRFs A-C that process the NYC MGP stream

Plant A Plant B Plant C

Material Tons/year % of input Tons/year % of feed Tons/year % of feed

Clear HDPE 920 1.60% 299 1.62% 1960 1.69%

Colored HDPE 920 1.60% 325 1.76% 1610 1.39%

PET 920 1.60% 292 1.58% 2130 1.84%

Other plastics 1,900 3.30% 7 0.04% 0.00%

Aluminum 580 1.01% 177 0.96% 1370 1.18%

Steel cans 3,800 6.59% 1440 7.80% 10940 9.44%

Steel misc. 14,400 24.99% 3290 17.81% 16130 13.91%

Color-sorted glass 4,780 8.30% 720 3.90% 0.00%

Total recycled 28,220 48.98% 6,550 35.46% 34,140 29.45%

Mixed broken glass 14,400 24.99% 9580 51.87% 45620 39.35%

Plastic film and other

residue

15,000 26.03% 2340 12.67% 36170 31.20%

Total landfilled 29,400 51.02% 11,920 64.54% 81,790 70.55%

Total processed 57620 100.00% 18470 100.00% 115930 100.00%

Fraction of total NYC

MGP stream (278,000

tons/y)

20.6%

6.6%

41.4%

Table 2. Summary of materials recovered in Plants A, B,C

7

Material Tons/year % of total

Clear HDPE 3179 1.7%

Colored HDPE 2855 1.5%

PET 3342 1.7%

Other plastics 1907 0.99%

All plastics: 11,283 5.9%

Aluminum 2127 1.1%

Steel cans 16,180 8.4%

Iron and steel objects 33,820 17.6%

All iron and steel 50,000 26.0%

Color-sorted glass 5500 2.9%

Total recycled materials 68,911 35.9%

Mixed broken glass residue 69,600 36.3%

Plastic film and bulky items residue 53,510 27.9%

Total residues 123,110 64.1%

Total processed 192,020 100.0%

On the basis of published information on the constitution of the NYC MSW (Life

Fresh Kills 2002) and the recycling data of Table 2, it is possible to make a rough

estimate of the percent recovery of each recyclable material in the three MRFs examined.

Table 3 shows that the highest recovery was for ferrous metals (84.5%) followed by

aluminum (23.0%), plastics (12.3%), and glass (10.7%).

Table 3. Estimated % recovery of MGP recyclables at MRFs A+B+C of NYC

Component Distribution

in MSW*

Corresponding

Distribution

in MGP**

Tons MGP

delivered to

MRFs**

Tons actually

recycled

by MRFs

% recovery of

recyclables

Plastics 8.9% 47.6% 91,389 11,283 12.3%

Ferrous metals 3.9% 20.9% 40,047 33,820 84.5%

Aluminum 0.9% 4.8% 9242 2127 23.0%

Glass 5.0% 26.7% 51,342 5500 10.7%

Total 18.7% 100.0% 192,020 52,730 27.5%

*“After Fresh Kills” Report to NYC DOS ; ** assuming that MGP delivered to

Plants A-C has same distribution as NYC MSW

8

Applying the 27.5% overall recovery rate of plants A,B, C to the entire tonnage of

MGP stream collected by NYC-DOS results in 278,000*.275= 76,450 tons of actually

recycled materials. Thus, the total of MGP and papermaterials recovered in 1999 is

estimated to 431,050 tons.

CURRENT RECYCLING IN NEW YORK CITY

In the aftermath of the 9/11 disaster, Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled an

aggressive budget plan designed to close a near-future budget gap estimated at billions of

dollars. The temporary suspension of part of the MGP recycling program (glass and

plastics) was one of the proposed cost-cutting measures. In February 2002, the Mayor

stated that of the two recycling streams, paper “worked” and MGP did not. The data

presented in this paper document the reasons: Only 12% of the plastics and 11% of the

glass collected by the City at considerable cost (including the use of non-renewable fuel),

were actually recycled. Most of the plastic residue was baled and sent to landfills so both

its material and energy values were effectively wasted. The glass residue consisting of

broken mixed glass had no market value or it would not end up in landfills. Yet the

temporary suspension of glass and plastic collection was derided as “anti-environmental”.

Since its inception, the curbside recycling efforts of the Department of

Sanitation’s have been the subject of intense scrutiny. Although the size and density of

New York represent an enormous waste management challenge, DOS has developed a

collection infrastructure and awareness of recycling in all of its residential communities

through innovative public education efforts and some research initiatives (e.g.

composting). However, the success of any recycling system depends on public response

(to actually set apart recyclable materials) and markets for recyclable products that are

beyond the jurisdiction of municipalities, no matter how large they may be. For example,

the estimated (Life After Fresh Kills 2002, Table B-5) total of potentially recyclable paper

in the DOS-collected MSW (4.5 million tons total) is about 1.5 million tons. Yet, the

amount of paper that was set aside by New Yorkers for collection by DOS amounted to

only 0.39 million tons, i.e. 26% of the maximum available in the MSW. Also, as shown

in Table 3, for lack of markets, only 27.5% of the materials in the MGP collected by the

city were actually recycled. Obviously, there is a long way to attaining the 100%

9

recycling rates expected by some, even for recyclable materials, let alone the fact that

some materials like disposable diapers are not recyclable by any stretch of imagination.

POSSIBILITIES FOR INCREASING RECYCLING RATES

Sending bales of plastics to landfills is not limited to New York City. EPA reports

that only 5.4% of the plastics generated in the U.S. were recycled in 2000 (Municipal

Solid Waste in the U.S.: 2000 Facts and Figures (www.epa.gov). It is an environmental

paradox that the U.S. is digging up new oil fields and coal mines in pristine areas and, at

the same time, converts greenfields to brownfields also greenfields by burying nearly 20

million tons of fuel in the form of plastics. It is regrettable that the environmental

organizations that rightly oppose opening oil exploration in Alaska are not taking any

interest in the vast new deposits of combustible and putrescible materials spreading over

the land.

With respect to glass, an obvious response to the low NYC recovery is to avoid

breakage on route between kitchens and MRFs. This will require modifying the present

collection system so that bottles are not crushed during handling of the “blue” bags or by

compaction of the waste in the DOS trucks. By itself, this will increase the cost of

collection since it depends on the volume of material collected. However, the collection

cost may be decreased by changing from the NYC two-stream of recyclables (“paper”

and “MGP”) to a single combined stream of all recyclables. This single stream would

then be sent to new, automated MRFs that separate marketable materials from non-

recyclable residues.

Such a system is partially used by the City of Phoenix, Arizona. It consists of

collecting two streams, the “black bag” waste that, unfortunately, in Arizona goes to

landfills and a “recyclable” stream (equivalent to the NYC combined paper and MGP

streams) that goes to two modern MRFs. Single-stream MRFs have been in use since the

late 1980’s, with facilities currently also operating in Los Angeles, Seattle, and Palm

Beach, amongst other cities (Todd 2002). The simplicity and lower cost of collecting one

stream of recyclables appeals both to citizens and municipalities, for different reasons.

The 27th Avenue MRF of Phoenix, AZ

10

Figure 1 shows the flowsheet of one of the two single-stream MRFs of Phoenix,

AZ. This facility was designed by the McGuire Group in collaboration with Resource

Recovery Technologies (RRT) of Melville, New York. The total capital cost was eight

million dollars in 1999 (Phoenix Public Works Department). It has a capacity of 100,000

tons per day and is based on recovery technology common to other modern single-stream

MRFs in the U.S. (Biddle 1998). The capital cost of this MRF amounted to about $80 per

annual ton capacity ($30,000 tons per daily ton capacity). A third facility is scheduled for

completion in 2005.

Figure 2. Schematic of single-stream materials recovery facility in Phoenix

As shown in Figure 2, the sorting of waste starts on the tipping floor where

bulky, non-recyclable items and scrap metal are removed. The remainder of the stream is

then loaded onto an inclined conveyor belt by means of grapples and front-loaders.

11

Workers then further screen the conveyed material for bulky items unsuitable for the

automated separation equipment. The first automated device is the primary screening

machine which sifts out small particles such as dirt and broken glass using vibrating

horizontal screens.

The oversize material passes over the screens and is deposited at the top of an

inclined sorting “table”. The table surface consists of a number of conveyor belts that

move in a horizontal direction. As the materials move down the inclined table, the paper

materials tend to “stick” on the conveyor belts, are conveyed across the incline, and are

discharged off to one side of the table and onto conveyor belts below it. Metal, glass, and

plastic containers, and other objects tend to roll down the surface of the inclined “table”,

and fall onto a conveyor belt disposed underneath the base of the sorting table. This

stream is first conveyed past a magnetic separator that collects the ferrous objects. The

remaining objects are conveyed through an inclined conveyor belt where the heavy glass

containers roll through a rotating curtain of heavy chain while the lighter plastic and

aluminum containers continue to move on the conveyor belt. The glass containers are

then separated manually to sort the glass stream into flint, amber, and green glass. The

plastics-aluminum stream is sent through an eddy current separator to recover aluminum

and then the plastic containers are sorted manually.

The paper stream resulting from the inclined sorting table is also subjected to

magnetic separation to recover any ferrous materials. Workers then manually sort the

remaining material into newspaper, telephone books, cardboard, mixed paper, and high-

grade paper streams. Using this technology described above, the city of Phoenix diverted

82,236, i.e. 76.9% of the collected recyclables. This material represented 14.3% of the

573,834 tons of MSW collected by Phoenix in 2001. Table 4 shows the tonnages of

“theoretically available” recyclables in the total MSW stream of Phoenix, the combined

tonnage of source-separated recyclables, the tonnages actually recycled at the MRFs and

the capture rate of each material.

Table 4. Performance of Phoenix MRFs

Materials Estimated

tons in MSW

As % of total

MSW

Total

collected

recyclables,

Actually

recycled,

tons

Actually

recycled as

% of total

Recycled

material as %

of collected

12

tons collected recyclables

Paper 218,631 38.10% 70,906 66.29% 86.22%

Metal 44,759 7.80% 3407 3.19% 4.14%

Glass 31,561 5.50% 3198 2.99% 3.89%

Plastic 60,253 10.50% 4725 4.42% 5.75%

Targeted

materials

355,204

61.90%

106,970

82,236

76.88%

100.00%

All other

materials

218,630 38.10%

Total MSW 573,834 100%

Landfilled: 491,598 85.7%

Table 5 compares the performance of the NYC and Phoenix recycling programs.

It can be seen that the current collection efficiency of NYC is 16.6% vs 18.6% for

Phoenix. However, assuming that collection of recyclables in Phoenix can increase by

50%, when the third MRF is started in 2005 the Phoenix overall recycling efficiency will

increase to 27%. The NYC MRF recovery efficiency (2000) was 69.8% vs 76.9% for

Phoenix. The tons of recycled materials were nearly the same at about 0.06 tons per

person. The one advantage of NYC is that it sends 550,000 tons of MSW per year to

waste-to-energy plants that generate electricity. This resulted in 77.9% of the NYC MSW

being landfilled vs 85.7% of the Phoenix MSW.

Table 5. Comparison of Phoenix (2001) and NYC (1999) MRFs

NYC Phoenix

Population (2000) 8,008,000 1,321,000

Collected residential MSW, tons 4,525,000 573.834

Collected Paper + MGP, tons 672,000 106,970

Collected Paper+MGP, as % of total MSW 14.9% 18.6%

Actually recycled Paper+MGP, tons 431,050 82,236

Actually recycled Paper+MGP, as % of total MSW 9.5% 14.3%

Actually recycled Paper+MGP, as % of Paper+MGP to MRFs 64.1% 76.9%

Tons of MSW to Waste-to-Energy 550,000 0

Recyclables recovered, tons per capita 0.05 0.06

13

MSW to Waste-to-Energy, tons per capita 0.12 0

Conclusions

The results of the Todd study (1) showed that despite an apparent all-out effort by

DOS to collect paper and MPG, less than one third of the generated materials were

actually source-separated by the citizens; the rest never reached the MRFs or recycling

plants. Also, for lack of markets, even at zero or negative prices, nearly 90% of the

plastic and glass that was collected by DOS in the MGP stream, at a considerable cost to

the City, ended up in landfills.

Another interesting finding was that building large, modern MRFs such as the

ones in Phoenix, may increase the 1999 rate of NYC recycling by as much as 50%.

Commingled collection of recyclable materials, as is done in Phoenix, AZ, will reduce

the present number of recyclable collections from two to one and, properly implemented,

will reduce glass breakage. Since collection represents the largest fraction of recycling

costs, this should have a significant impact on overall program costs. Single-source

collection of recyclables also simplifies separation at the source, thus increasing the

amount of collected recyclables. Also, investing in a few well-designed MRFs will

provide better jobs and will improve the neighborhoods where small and antiquated

MRFs are located.

New York’s Department of Sanitation explored the possibility of building city-

owned Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in the early 1990s (Dubanowitz 2000) but

the plans were halted by opposition from private recyclers as well as by lack of political

support. The overwhelmingly negative reaction to Mayor Bloomberg’s suspension of

glass and plastic recycling suggests that perhaps now there is sufficient motivation and

public support to address and improve the NYC recycling program.

References: TO EDITOR, REFERENCES BELOW WILL BE COMPLEMENTED

WITH REFERENCES NOTED THROUGHOUT THE TEXT

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Annual Waste Reduction and Recycling

Questionnaire (Carl Smith of the City of Phoenix Dept. of Public Works), 2001.

Biddle, David, MRF Designs Around Single Stream Recycling BioCycle: August

14

1998.

Biddle, David. “Comparing Recycling Programs in Major U.S. Cities.” BioCycle:

September 2001.

Bloomberg, Michael R. “Presentation of Preliminary Budget for Fiscal 2003.” New York

City Office of Management and Budget: Feb.13, 2002.

http://nyc.gov/html/om/html/2002a/budget_2003.html

City of Chicago Department of Environment, Blue Bag Recycling Program Results,

2001. http://www.ci.chi.il.us/environment/BlueBag/Results.html.

City of New York Independent Budget Office, Overview of the Waste Stream Managed

by the NYC Department of Sanitation: February 2001.

City of New York Independent Budget Office, Closing Fresh Kills Means Mounting

Costs to dispose of New York City’s Garbage.Inside the Budget: No. 77, Feb. 5, 2001.

City of New York Office of the Comptroller: Bureau of Management Audit. Audit of the

New York City Department of Sanitation’s Recycling Program. June 29, 2001

City of Phoenix Public Works Department. This is the MRF Where Phoenix Recycles,

1998.

Dubanowitz, A.J. Design of a Materials Recovery Facility for Processing the

Recyclable Materials of New York City Municipal Solid Waste, M.S. Thesis, Columbia

University 2000.

Earth Engineering Center and SIPA, Life After Fresh Kill”, Report to NYC

Administration, December 2001, Columbia University (www.columbia.edu/wtert).

Egosi, Nathiel. Resource Recovery Technologies. E-mail correspondence. April 2002.

EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Municipal Solid Waste in the

United States: 2000 Facts and Figures, EPA530-R-02-001, www.epa.gov, June 2002.

NYC Department of Sanitation: Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and

Recycling. New York City Recycling in Context: A Comprehensive Analysis of

Recycling in Major U.S. Cities. August 2001.

NYC Department of Sanitation: Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling.

Recycling: What do New Yorkers Think? 5 Years of Market Research. Fall 1999.

New York City Department of Sanitation: Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and

Recycling. “What happens to my recyclables?” June 1995.

15

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dos/html/bw_what/index.html.

Recyclers World. RecycleNet Waste Paper Index – Online Market Prices, May 15,

2002. http://www.recycle.net/price/paper.html.

Recycling Manager, Recycling Manager Archives, American Metal Market, LLC:

2001. http://www.amm.com/recman/recprmnu.htm.

SCS Engineers. New York City Waste Composition Study. 1991.

Todd, C.E., Technical and Economic Analysis of the New York City Recycling System,

M.S. Thesis, Columbia University. 2002 (www.columbia.edu/wtert).