Today's Topics:
Dec/Jan Recyclecene
GreenYes Digest V96 #32
Leaving the Waste Management Ghetto?
Once more on waste prevention (2 msgs)
Zero Waste
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to postmaster@ucsd.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 12:34:56 -0500
From: STEVESUESS@aol.com
Subject: Dec/Jan Recyclecene
The drop dead deadline for the Dec/Jan issue of RecycleScene is December
1,1996. Things MUST arrive to me via e-mail, FAX, post, courier, dogsled, or
whatever by the end of that date.
The reason for this definate date is that if we do not get it together
by then, then it will not get done before Christmas and we will ose a month!
Not good.
I, and all of the RecycleScene subcribers thank you in advance for your
submissions...
Stephen Suess
(408) 462-1565
FAX 462-4368
986 Tower Place
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
PS: Please pass this on to anyone youy know who might wish to make a
RecycleScene submission.....I am sorry to say, but I do not have everyones
e-mail addressss..
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: 25 Nov 96 16:19:01 EST
From: "Richard R. Rust" <73641.2242@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V96 #32
In research conducted by a graduate student of mine at NC State University,
almost 10 years ago, funded by Phillips Petroleum Co. associated with
development of their "Supac" landfill synthetic daily cover (substitute for
eathen daily cover), we determined that the "life cycle" cost of owning and
operating a typical unlined (pre-Subtitle D) landfill serving a population of
approx 150,000 in NC was $8 per ton. "Life cycle" cost includes the cost of
replacing the landfill with an identical (unlined) one at the end of it's life.
The "Life cycle cost" cost for a lined subtitle D facility (with leachate
collection & treatment) was $40 per ton.
Randy Bowen and I subsequently wrote a book titled "Waste Not.. Want Not.. &
What Not" which addresses how landfills compete with recycling; the motives for
big waste haulers to become involved in recycling (and their mind-set once they
do get involved in recycling); and some of the accounting magic which is used to
hide the true costs of landfilling vs. recycling.
In order to compare apples to apples, the savings resulting from defraying the
replacement cost of the landfill should be attributed to the cost of recycling.
The cost of replacing the landfill includes "site selection" and it's attendant
consumption of public employee manhours, legal costs, etc. (too bad there is not
a doolar figure for the trauma suffered by a community locked in a site
selection battle); site exploration, design, permitting, construction,
operations, closure, and 30 years of post-closure care (see 40CFR258 for more
details).
It would be best to structure an arrangement where the "true costs" are
reported, and there is no conflict of interest between landfilling and
recycling. This is hard to do if each is treated as a profit center or separate
contract, and impossible to do if a big waste hauler is involved since the
pricing terms of the contracts are tied to transportation, figured on sliding
scales, and are thus impossible to figure what is going to collection, hauling,
landfilling, or recycling. These costs are well guarded secrets, not for public
consumption. The waste hauler is a business. As such, his mission is to
maximize the wealth of the shareholder. He will juggle figures as necessary to
soothe public opinion and ultimately secure the contract.
After 15 years as an engineering professor, extension agent, researcher of solid
waste disposal technologies, author of "regional" waste disposal studies,
designer of landfills & material recovery facilities , etc; I think folks are
best served by managing waste at the community level without the benefit of big
waste hauler contracts (which evolve into much more control than you might like
to give them). They have incentive to make things look complex (high mistique
for laymen, and grave consequence if mismanaged). A former boss of mine at Law
Engineering, Inc., said " Where there is confusion, there is profit".
Good luck!
RRust
73641.2242@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 96 07:01:49
From: jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: Leaving the Waste Management Ghetto?
The National Recycling Coalition Board of Directors added the
following primary goal to its Strategic Plan at the board meeting on
November 8-10:
"Promote recycling as a means of sustainable resource development,
rather than as a component of solid waste management."
------------------------------
Date: 25 Nov 96 12:45:58
From: Richard Kashmanian <Kashmanian.Richard@epamail.epa.gov>
Subject: Once more on waste prevention
I'd like to respond to John Reindl's and David Reynold's responses to my 11/13
posting.
First, I oftentimes agree with Dave's sentiment -- let's get on with the work
and stop all this effort and bother with writing and rewriting definitions.
However, I have also learned that if great ideas are not well packaged and
presented, there will be few supporters and followers. As Oliver Wendell Homes
said, "Words are the skins of ideas." As an aside, think of some of the recent
Presidential races and how certain words were carefully used to affect
perceptions and influence so many voters and the final outcomes: "Are you
better off now?," "Liberals," "Read my lips," and "Risky tax scheme."
Second, my concern with the term "waste prevention" is that it implies that
whatever is created is "waste", including the product and package, even if it
is reused, composted, or recycled. John tried to strike a balance between
material and waste, but he later referred to composting and recycling as
methods "to divert waste from landfills." This demonstrates my point. Why
should compost and recycling feedstocks be referred to as "waste" or
"discards"? "Waste prevention" implies that if it is not source reduced, it is
or will become "waste". Maybe a compromise is to just refer to it as
"Prevention," so this issue is avoided entirely.
Third, I'd like to comment on something else John said. His example of source
reduction dealt with no longer producing and/or consuming a product. Well,
let's say that there is a product that contains toxic constituents. Then,
along comes a substitute without the toxic constituents. This is an example of
source reduction -- however, the product was not "prevented" from being
produced, only the use of the toxic constituents was prevented. The
manufacture of this non-toxic product still produces emissions, just like will
occur with composting and recycling. So source reduction does not always refer
to the prevention of a product being made or consumed, or the total prevention
of pollution -- it also refers to less of something being used or produced. On
the other hand, even if composting and recycling create emissions, they
typically recover/ reprocess much more material than they lose through unwanted
materials and emissions/discharges. We need to be careful about what is left
in and what is left out in these sort of discussions.
I'm sure this topic sounds pretty boring and unimportant to most of you. But
when you start to tire hearing people refer to recycling as "Let's Talk Trash"
or "From Trash to Treasure" or "Playing with Trash", or refer to composting or
using compost as "Disposal," or that a new compost facility or compost bin will
compost "Trash" or "Contaminated Paper," Etc. Etc. Etc. , and then in their
next breath they will say that we have to build markets or increase demand for
compost or recycled materials, you will begin to understand why this issue is
so important to composting and recycling, as well as source reduction. Then
again, maybe I will continue to be a voice in the beautiful wilderness.
Happy Thanksgiving and take care,
Richard Kashmanian
kashmanian.richard@epamail.epa.gov
P.S. This 11/25 message from Jennie Alvernaz indicates that the NRC Board of
Directors is thinking along similar lines -- emphasize resource conservation:
The National Recycling Coalition Board of Directors added the
following primary goal to its Strategic Plan at the board meeting on
November 8-10:
"Promote recycling as a means of sustainable resource development,
rather than as a component of solid waste management."
************************************************
David said:
Many folks were not happy with the phrase "source reduction" because
they thought that the layperson would not understand what it meant,
and, considering the sound bite society in which we now live, that
taking the time to define it would lose people. Therefore, "waste
prevention" has become a popular substitute for "source reduction."
Note that (in my book, at least) "waste prevention" and "waste
reduction" are not synonymous. I consider recycling and composting
as "waste reduction" activities, becasue these processes take
matierals that have the potential of becoming solid waste and
diverting them to a productive use. This reduces waste (by finding a
use for a material rather than discarding it), but does not totally
eliminate,or prevent waste (due to by-products from the
recycling/composting chain). A "waste prevention" measure totally
eliminates any potential for waste.
Some people in the field may respond "stop with the definitions and
just get on with it," but as Richard Kashmanian so eloquently points
out, interpretations have an influence over behavior and actions, so
this should not be taken lightly.
Regards,
Dave Reynolds
************************************************
John said:
I know how particular you are with definitions, but I must strongly
disagree with calling composting and recycling waste prevention.
The waste (or material, if you will) was not prevented from being
created, therefore I do not believe that it should be called
prevention.
As an example, If I buy a newspaper and then either recycle it or
compost it, I still consumed a newspaper. To prevent the use of the
material, I would need to not buy/consume that newspaper. This, is my
mind, is true waste/material consumption prevention, while recycling
and composting are methods to divert the waste from landfills, etc.
John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 14:28:31, -0500
From: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS)
Subject: Once more on waste prevention
Richard
>First, I oftentimes agree with Dave's sentiment -- let's get on with
the work
and stop all this effort and bother with writing and rewriting
definitions.
_____________
Actually, this is the sentiment of many others, but not completely
mine. If you look at my original post, you will see that I agree
with the importance of definitions and words.
>Third, I'd like to comment on something else John said. His example
of source
reduction dealt with no longer producing and/or consuming a product.
Well,
let's say that there is a product that contains toxic constituents.
Then,
along comes a substitute without the toxic constituents. This is an
example of
source reduction -- however, the product was not "prevented" from
being
produced, only the use of the toxic constituents was prevented. The
manufacture of this non-toxic product still produces emissions, just
like will
occur with composting and recycling. So source reduction does not
always refer
to the prevention of a product being made or consumed, or the total
prevention
of pollution -- it also refers to less of something being used or
produced.
___________________
This is why we should talk about waste preveniton and waste reduction
in "cradle-to-grave" terms, rather than single product terms.
Regards,
Dave Reynolds
Enviro-nomics
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 08:48:49 -0400
From: WOODY GETZ <WGETZ@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Zero Waste
Dear ?????,
Well, you're definitely here. I have 2 suggestions:
1) Lurk for about a week or 2 catching the FYI style info as well as
the several threads that are simultaneously under discussion. Then when
you feel comfortable asking a question or adding some perspective, jump
in!
2) When you jump in, let the rest of us know who you are. There are
many benefits to providing a "signature" at the end of your posting,
including, but in no way limited to:
* We get to know who you are and/or represent. This means not only
the organization, but possibly a city/region. This can put
specifics of an answer/question into constructive perspective.
* Providing name/signature let's others currently in your
organization know that someone is active here on their collective
behalf.
* Providing geographic identity (this is often in organization name)
allows others in that area who are not members to decide to make
contact either because they are from that specific area and want
to join or because they are near that area and either would like
to share info and or possibly create a coalition on a mutual
effort.
Finally ... "Welcome!"
Reduce, ReUse, Recycle, Compost - It's a small planet!
Woody Getz
Sierra Club, Western Maryland Group/Maryland Chapter
CRoWD (Citizens for Responsible Waste Disposal)
FAR (Frostburg Area Recyclers)
Member, Allegany County (MD) Solid Waste Management Plan Committees,
1991-92 & 1995-96
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V96 #33
******************************