By Mike Caputo
But now the district's method of recycling has come under scrutiny from the state Department of Environmental Conservation, and a Supreme Court judge has sided with the state agency.
The district's recycling method does not require residents and business owners to separate recyclables from their garbage. Instead, all garbage is transported to Sanitary District 1's North Lawrence facility, where a private contractor separates the recyclables from the waste.
The state DEC informed the district in August 2006 that this kind of source separation is in violation of conditions under state law. DEC officials pointed out that source separation should be conducted by the resident or business before the garbage enters the waste facility. Sanitary District 1 filed a lawsuit against the DEC, arguing that its method fulfills source separation under state law.
The statute, enacted in 1992, states that municipalities are required to start a system of separating recyclables from waste. It states that the waste must be "left for collection" or "delivered by the generator." State Supreme Court Judge William LaMarca found the district's interpretation of the law to be without merit, since it is not the "generator" of the waste.
"The plain meaning of [the statute] is that recyclable and reusable materials must be separated from solid waste before they are delivered to the district's facility," LaMarca said in a court transcript.
"Since the district has not implemented procedures for the source separation of recyclable and reusable materials, the DEC's determination that the district was 'not conducting source separation of recyclables as anticipated and required' under the permit is not arbitrary or capricious or erroneous as a matter of law," the judge later said.
In the meantime, Sanitary District 1, which serves about 50,000 residents and commercial properties in the Five Towns and portions of unincorporated areas in South Valley Stream and Lynbrook, continues to provide its normal services. Both parties were granted discovery hearings to present further evidence, and the sanitary district plans to appeal the judge's decision.
Sanitary District 1's recycling method is the only one of its kind in the state, district officials said. The district also offers rear-door garbage collection to its residents, a service available in portions of nearby Merrick and only a handful of other areas in the state.
Longtime Sanitary District 1 attorney Nat Swergold described the collection system as "almost unique." He attributed the district's
competitive recycling rates to its ability to serve customers who decide not to separate the recyclables from the garbage.
Swergold, who has represented the district since 1972, said the service is tailor made for "the homeowner who elects not to separate [and] then takes the recyclable material and throws it in with the rest of the garbage. It gets picked up and it is never subject to recycling. It is all lost forever in the solid waste."
Swergold stressed that the district's recycling system is the least expensive method that brings in the highest percentage of recovery of recyclables. Attaining economic value for recyclables is an aspect highlighted under the state law.
Although Swergold said the district is meeting and even exceeding recycling expectations, activists like Adrienne Esposito, executive director of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, think otherwise.
"For Sanitary District 1 to pretend that their method works as good or better is simply, flatly wrong," Esposito said. "[Certain recyclables] get destroyed, they get wet, they get soggy. And when you mix your garbage and throw it into the one garbage truck, [number one], it is difficult to source separate, and number two, it destroys and devalues it on the recyclable market."
According to Esposito, the rate of each individual's solid waste has increased, while those for recycling have dropped across Long Island. In response to the declining pattern, the Citizens Campaign for the Environment is conducting an island-wide recycling assessment, with the results scheduled for release in the spring of 2008.
Swergold and Sanitary District 1 have argued that the district's recycling system has been in place for about 15 years under the close watch of the DEC. During that period, the DEC has not notified the district of any violations, Swergold said.
The DEC's decision to push Sanitary District 1 toward compliance with state law was fueled by a complaint sent in by a resident in June 2003. According to the lawsuit, the sanitary district indicated its intentions to begin separating materials in a permit renewal application with the DEC.
"What the law requires is clear - it requires source separation," said Peter Scully, regional director for the DEC. "We hope the sanitary district will move forward consistent with the [judge's] decision and implement the source separation recycling program like it indicated it would in its permit application."
Scully, also a former local government solid waste manager, does not foresee a huge economic hit to the district if it were to comply with state standards.
"We are quite confident that [with] very little trouble and no additional cost the sanitary district could implement the program in a matter of months that would bring it into compliance," said Scully, who said recycling containers may be the main additional cost. "We are hoping we can work with them to accomplish that."
Swergold stands by the belief that the district's current recycling system is the best fit along with the other special services it provides to residents.
"To maintain rear yard [collection], you have to have a system whereby the homeowner accomplishes recycling by simply putting the recyclables in the garbage," Swergold said. "Any other system would require that we have double crews, double trucks, double expense, double practically everything." Although the system is indeed "unique," Swergold emphasized that the district has every intention to recycle.
"Our district encourages recycling," Swergold said. "It is just done in a different methodology, that's all."
Comments about this story? MCaputo@liherald.com or 516-569-4000 ext. 210.
