Today's Topics:
BUY NOTHING DAY (2 msgs)
Fwd: EnviroStore is Online!
Hazardous Waste (& MSW) Landfill Review
Proposal for Zero Waste Legislation (4 msgs)
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, 11 Nov 1996 09:59:43 -0500
From: <B.Schaefer@facilities.utoronto.ca>
Subject: BUY NOTHING DAY
In the interest of making a point about the need to reduce the
rampant consumerism in the Western World, please pass the word:
Planetary BUY NOTHING DAY
November 29, 1996
A 24 hour moratorium on consumer spending
PARTICIPATE BY NOT PARTICIPATING!
For more information call 1-800-663-1243 or view the uncommercial at:
http://www.adbusters.org/adbusters/pop/buynothingday.html
***************************************
Barbara Schaefer, Recycling Coordinator
University of Toronto
6th floor, 215 Huron Street
Toronto, Ont. M5S 1A1 CANADA
phone (416) 978-7080 "The battle for Nature
fax (416) 971-2994 is a battle against
e-mail b.schaefer@facilities.utoronto.ca ourselves."
*****************************************
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:18:00 -0800
From: Krista_Henkels@pps.ucsd.edu
Subject: BUY NOTHING DAY
---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes ---------------------------
From: B.Schaefer@FACILITIES.UTORONTO.CA at @UCSD
Date: 11/11/96 10:05AM
*To: RECYC-L@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU at @UCSD
Subject: BUY NOTHING DAY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting thought for the Zero waste message....
krista
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: BUY NOTHING DAY
Author: B.Schaefer@FACILITIES.UTORONTO.CA at @UCSD
Date: 11/11/96 10:05 AM
In the interest of making a point about the need to reduce the
rampant consumerism in the Western World, please pass the word:
Planetary BUY NOTHING DAY
November 29, 1996
A 24 hour moratorium on consumer spending
PARTICIPATE BY NOT PARTICIPATING!
For more information call 1-800-663-1243 or view the uncommercial at:
http://www.adbusters.org/adbusters/pop/buynothingday.html
***************************************
Barbara Schaefer, Recycling Coordinator
University of Toronto
6th floor, 215 Huron Street
Toronto, Ont. M5S 1A1 CANADA
phone (416) 978-7080 "The battle for Nature
fax (416) 971-2994 is a battle against
e-mail b.schaefer@facilities.utoronto.ca ourselves."
*****************************************
>-- Saved internet headers (useful for debugging)
>Received: from listserv.brown.edu by mail.ucsd.edu; id HAA15498 sendmail 8.6.12
>Received: from stanley.cis.Brown.EDU (stanley.cis.brown.edu [128.148.128.155])
>Received: from BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU by BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (LISTSERV release 1.8b)
>Received: from BROWNVM (NJE origin SMTP@BROWNVM) by BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (LMail
>Received: from bureau-de-poste.utcc.utoronto.ca by BROWNVM.brown.edu (IBM VM
>Received: from facilities.utoronto.ca ([128.100.202.8]) by bureau-de-p
>Received: from FANDS/SpoolDir by facilities.utoronto.ca (Mercury 1.21); 11 Nov
>Received: from
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegas
>Message-ID: <5799DD16A9@facilities.utoronto.ca>
>Date: Mon, 11 N
>Reply-T
>Sender:
>From: B
>Organization: Facilities And Services
>Subject
>To: Multiple recipients of list RECYC-L
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 18:35:22 -0500
From: CRRA@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: EnviroStore is Online!
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: gregg.foster@homepower.org
To: crra@aol.com
Date: 96-11-08 19:44:39 EST
Gary, please forward this message to the listserve. Thanks.
PLEASE CHECK OUT THE NEW ON-LINE ENVIROSTORE. THIS IS THE RESULT OF A
GRASSROOTS EFFORT IN RURAL NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TO PROVIDE JOBS THROUGH
RECYCLING. A SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PRODUCTS BEING
PRODUCED CAN BE FOUND AT HTTP://WWW.ENVIROSAVE.COM.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 96 14:50:19
From: jennie.alvernaz@SFSIERRA.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Subject: Hazardous Waste (& MSW) Landfill Review
G. Fred Lee & Associates
________________________________________
27298 E. El Macero Dr.
El Macero, California 95618-1005
Tel. (916) 753-9630 Fax (916) 753-9956
e-mail gfredlee@aol.com
Novermber 7, 1996
Via e-mail
Dr. William Sheehan
Sierra Club National Waste Committee
268 Janice Drive
Athens, GA 30606
Dear Bill:
I wish to bring to your attention that I have recently completed a generic
discussion of the problems with the approaches being used today to permit new
or expanded-continued operations of US EPA RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste
landfills. Beginning in the early 1980s, I have been involved in hazardous
waste landfill matters on behalf of various clients and governmental
agencies. This work started in 1982 when I assisted the city of Brush,
Colorado in evaluating the potential impacts of a then proposed hazardous
waste landfill that threatened Brush's domestic groundwater supply. As Dr.
Jones-Lee and I work with clients, we frequently submit major reports for the
client to the regulatory agencies on issues. We will also frequently develop
a paper based on our experience. In the case of the work with Brush,
Colorado we developed a paper entitled "Is Hazardous Waste Disposal in Clay
Vaults Safe?" This paper was judged by the Water Resources Division of the
American Water Works Association to be the best paper published in the
journal of the American Water Works Association in 1984. In the early 1980s,
that paper was influential in causing Congress, through the General
Accounting Office, to strengthen the hazardous waste landfilling regulations.
In the early 1990s, as a result of the work that we did with the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Dr. Jones-Lee and I
developed an extensive report on the problems with permitting the continued
and expanded operations of the Azusa Landfill in the San Gabriel Basin. This
report was converted to a generic discussion of these issues, "Municipal
Solid Waste Management in Lined, 'Dry Tomb' Landfills: A Technologically
Flawed Approach for Protection of Groundwater Quality." I have had over
2,000 requests for copies of that report. Many of these requests come from
the Internet listing of this paper by Rachel's Hazardous Waste News.
This past year, starting with the work that we did with Greenpeace in Mexico
in helping Greenpeace review Mexican hazardous waste regulations which were
proposed to be the same as the US EPA RCRA Subtitle C regulations, Dr.
Jones-Lee and I have been involved in the review of several hazardous waste
landfills, including a landfill located near Fort Wayne, Indiana where we
assisted New Haven, Indiana evaluate the potential impacts of the continued
operation and expansion of a hazardous waste landfill that threatened that
community's groundwater resources. Further, this past summer we assisted the
Ypsilanti Township, Michigan in evaluating the potential impact of the
proposed continued operation (relicensing/permitting) of a hazardous waste
landfill that threatened that community's groundwater supply. Recently,
based primarily on the report that we developed for the Ypsilanti Township,
we have developed a generic discussion of the problems with the permitting of
continued operations as well as the expansion of US EPA RCRA Subtitle C
(hazardous waste) landfills. This paper is a follow-up to our 1992 solid
waste landfill report. It bring up-to-date our discussion of the literature
pertinent to the failure of liners, the inability to reliably monitor lined
landfills, etc. While the focus of this paper is hazardous waste
landfilling, it has direct applicability to municipal solid waste landfills
since exactly the same kinds of problems occur with US EPA RCRA Subtitle D
(municipal solid waste) landfills as are occurring with RCRA Subtitle C
(hazardous waste) landfills. Landfill applicants for both types of landfills
present the same kinds of distorted information as is discussed in our most
recent review of this topic.
This review consists of 80 pages of discussion of various aspects of
landfilling of municipal solid waste and hazardous waste. It specifically
discusses the US EPA RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations and the
inappropriate interpretation of these regulations that is occurring by
regulatory agencies, such as the US EPA and the state agencies, that are
permitting these landfills. In general, the regulatory agencies are not
fulfilling the requirements set forth in the regulations of preventing the
escape of hazardous waste constituents from the landfill for as long as the
wastes in the landfill will be a threat. We have also provided examples of
statements made by state and federal regulatory agency personnel in public
hearings in which they are supporting the permitting of the proposed landfill
expansion where we discussed the unreliable information that is provided in
support of this expansion.
As with our other papers and reports, we make them available at no cost to
anyone interested. I am sending a copy to you via US mail. If you announce
the availability of this report through your e-mail network, please indicate
to anyone that they may obtain a copy directly from us if they will provide
us with their US post office address.
If upon review of this write-up you have any questions or comments on it,
please bring them to our attention.
Sincerely yours,
G. Fred Lee, PhD, PE, DEE
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:45:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Wade <dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Proposal for Zero Waste Legislation
I think looking beyond 50% to Zero Waste is a good idea, and I agree that
now is the time to be thinking about the upcoming legislative session.
I also agree that there are going to be jurisdictions looking to duck the
50% requirement of AB939, and that Prop. 218 is going to further limit the
ability of local governments to raise fees.
HOWEVER, I do not agree that we should exchange the definite goal of 50%
in the year 2000 for the idealistic but perhaps unachievable goal of zero
waste sometime in the undefined, maybe never to arrive future. That would
send the wrong message to the public. Can't you just see the headlines
"State Abandons Ambitious Goal; Legislators, Industry decides goals are
too costly"!
We have to get to a 50% waste reduction before we get to zero waste, and
we need measurable goals and target dates to track performance.
Otherwise, we are just talking about "pie in the sky".
-----------------------------
Dave Wade
Recycling Coordinator
UC Santa Cruz
email: dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:21:02, -0500
From: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS)
Subject: Proposal for Zero Waste Legislation
Dave Wade writes:
I think looking beyond 50% to Zero Waste is a good idea, and I agree
that
now is the time to be thinking about the upcoming legislative session.
I also agree that there are going to be jurisdictions looking to duck
the
50% requirement of AB939, and that Prop. 218 is going to further
limit the
ability of local governments to raise fees.
HOWEVER, I do not agree that we should exchange the definite goal of
50%
in the year 2000 for the idealistic but perhaps unachievable goal of
zero
waste sometime in the undefined, maybe never to arrive future. That
would
send the wrong message to the public. Can't you just see the
headlines
"State Abandons Ambitious Goal; Legislators, Industry decides goals
are
too costly"!
We have to get to a 50% waste reduction before we get to zero waste,
and
we need measurable goals and target dates to track performance.
Otherwise, we are just talking about "pie in the sky".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Hello Dave:
I think there is some confusion about the Zero Waste concept vis-a-
vis the AB 939 mandates. As for the AB 939 mandates and associated
regualtions, there are so many holes in the methodologies and
reporting that jurisdictions can show 25% and 50% on paper without
doing any significant waste reduction, recycling, or composting (most
of the base year numbers are bogus, and the new, unlimited ADC credit
along with transformation credit in the medium term planning period
can bring the "diversion" numbers up pretty quickly). CIWMB staff
are so busy going through all the numbers that very few resources are
dedicated to technical assistance and market development. The end
result is that it seems that we are going nowhere fast.
On the other hand, the Zero Waste policy statement (as I understand
it), is not about mandates and methodologies, but is about evening
the playing field and introducing (true) market force incentives to
slowly move us away from a wasting infrastructure. No mandates, no
penalties, no numbers magic.... but just policy to make the right
things happen in the real world. If I am interpreting this wrong, or
someone else has a different interpretation, we should talk about it.
Dave Reynolds
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:40:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Wade <dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Proposal for Zero Waste Legislation
Hi Dave:
Your explanation of the Zero Waste concept sounds pretty much like
my understanding of it, so I don't think there's any confusion on my part.
Steve Suess asked for comments andI responded to the list of folks he
sent the proposal to.
I stand by my coment about the need to have measurable progress standards
on the way to a less wasteful society and economy. If there are problems
with the AB939 accounting methodologies, then let's fix them, not throw
out the whole piece of legislation
If at the same time, we can advance social, economic, and legislative
changes that encourage Zero waste and discourage waste, then there will
be no reason for anyone to fudge their numbers.
But if we back down now on ambitious, but tangible goals, and exchange
them for some dream of a more perfect society, then I believe we are no
more likey to succeed than those marxists who thought the state would
wither away in their perfect societies.
-----------------------------
Dave Wade
Recycling Coordinator
UC Santa Cruz
email: dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 21:46:38, -0500
From: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS)
Subject: Proposal for Zero Waste Legislation
Hello again, Dave:
Thanks for your reply. I agree that we need a sound measurement
system, and I have forwarded some related ideas to the CIWMB.
However, mandates (as opposed to goals) without an appropriate
economic structure, markets, technical assistance and market
development will inevitably lead to backlash. Therefore, it pleases
me when I hear about a focus on these latter issues, because I think
that it gets at the root of the problem, and hence has a better
chance of achieving our goals.
Regards,
Dave Reynolds
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:29:44 -0400
From: rjh1@kepler.unh.edu (Becky Herman)
Sorry everyone has to read this:
Thanks, Russel, for the info you
sent via snail mail! (I lost your email address)
-Becky
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
R.J. HERMAN
Recycling Coordinator
Grounds and Roads Dept.
21 Waterworks Rd.
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824-3519
PHONE: (603)862-3100
FAX: (603) 862-0139
EMAIL: rjh1@christa.unh.edu
http://unhinfo.unh.edu/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V96 #19
******************************