GreenYes Digest V97 #95

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:53:13 -0500

GreenYes Digest Thu, 1 May 97 Volume 97 : Issue 95

Today's Topics:
Coke's response to Web site inquiry
grass clippings
Grass clippings - quantities
GreenYes Digest V97 #94 -Reply
junk mail reduction
Mining Waste and TRI
Municipal recycling questions
Municipal recycling questions -Reply
ONP Market Situation

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 18:26:51 -0500
From: Pete Pasterz <Pete.Pasterz@USDWP.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Coke's response to Web site inquiry

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

This attached is the (non) response I received when inquiring about Coke's
lack of PETE
committment. Maybe others can visit and ask the same/similar questions?

Pete Pasterz
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from ( [])
by (8.7.5/MSU-2.10)
id JAA115303; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:04:49 -0400
Received: from smap@localhost by
for <> via smapdV1.3
id JAA27777; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:04:48 -0400
Message-Id: <>
Received: from [] by
for <> via SMTP (smap V1.3)
id sma027770; Wed Apr 30 09:04:22 1997
Received: from by ATLE01.ATL.KO.COM (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.06 (346.8
3-18-1997)) with SMTP id 85256489.0047A90D; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:02:43 -0400
Received: by (IBM AS/400 ANYMAIL/400 MIME V3R2M0) Wed,
30 Apr 1997 09:02:22 -0500
Sensitivity: none
Priority: normal
Importance: normal
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:04:12 -0500
From: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

This E-Mail response is being delivered by an automated process
that can not accept a reply to this message. If you wish to
reply to this message, please visit us again on our web site
at and submit another E-Query.

Thank you for your comments, your original question/comment was:

Why have you backed out of your comittment to use 25% post-consumer
recycled ...PETE plastic in your packaging?You are NOT "recycling"
unless you buy and ...use recycled materials.

Our response is as follows:

Thank you for contacting The Coca-Cola Company via e-mail. We
appreciate your taking the time to let us know your feelings,
Mr. Pasterz.

We want to assure you that The Coca-Cola Company is committed to
the environment, and all of our packaging is recyclable. In
addition, we will share your comments and concern with our
Environmental Affairs department.

If you have additional questions or comments, please visit our
Web site again.

Jennifer Bernbrock
The Coca-Cola Company
Industry and Consumer Affairs



Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:16:43 -0700
From: Chris Garton <>
Subject: grass clippings


I co-authored a green waste source reduction program for the City of
Folsom, CA (northern California just outside of Sacramento). We were
told that around here, a lawn of 1,000 square feet (average lawn size)
will generate 300-400 pounds/year.

I hope this helps you with your research.

Chris Garton
Recycling Specialist


Date: Wed, 30 Apr 97 13:55:14 EST
Subject: Grass clippings - quantities

Here are two measurements we use in the New York City
metropolitan area, appropriate for the northeastern U.S...I
hope they are of use to you.

Gray Russell
Compost Project Manager
Bronx Green-Up
The New York Botanical Garden
Bronx, New York 10458-5126
ph. #: (718) 817-8024
fax #: 718-817-8018

Gray Russell
Compost Project Manager
Bronx Green-Up
The New York Botanical Garden
(718) 817-8024

May 27, 1994


Reference Source: Bruce Van Duyne
Market Specialist
Passaic County
Recycling and Solid Waste Program

1,100 square feet of lawn yields 400 lbs. of clippings annually.

A lawn measuring 50 ft. X 100 ft. yields 1 ton of clippings per

(Source: The Passaic Record, Wednesday, August 19, 1992)


1/4 acre of lawn produces 3,000 lbs./year, or 100 lbs. per week
during a 30 week season.

Therefore, 1 acre of lawn produces 6 tons of clippings per year.

(Source: Julie Sullivan, NYS DEC "Just Mow It" Program, 5/27/94).


Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 15:25:17 -0500
From: Bill Carter <>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #94 -Reply

Wayne Fenton writes:

I am looking for any available information regarding average grass
clippings generation rates, such as number of pounds per 'X' square
feet, per average residential lot, etc., over a growing season. I am
interested in data from throughout North America.

I would also like to find out about current management practices for
grass clippings (e.g., collected at curbside, banned from collection, etc.)
and estimated costs (per household, per ton) for whatever type of
program or service is offered.

I am not familiar with scientific data on generation rates of grass
clippings in Texas. If there are, the most likely person to know about
them is
Marty Baker
TX Ag Ext Service
PO Box 220
Overton, TX 75684
fax 834-7140
The primary management effort addressing grass clippings in Texas is
the "Don't Bag It" program developed by the Texas Agricultural Extension
Service about 10 years ago, which has more recently entered the public
domain under the generic term "grasscycling." It involves leaving grass
clippings on the lawn to decay into the turf naturally, and includes a set
of guidelines for adjusting mowing, watering, and fertilization practices to
optimize the self-regenerative contribution of grass clippings. We have
literature from the Extension Service explaining these principles, with
specific mowing-height guidelines and other recommendations specific to
each of a dozen sub-regions of Texas. There are outreach program
guidebooks including sample promotional literature and suggestions on
recruiting demonstration lawns in your community, etc.

There are many Texas cities that have Don't Bag It outreach programs.
We also have a statewide Master Composter program promoting Don't
Bag It practices as well as backyard composting and green yard care
practices, which also has a local outreach network active in many cities.
A few cities, notably Dallas, have implemented collection/disposal bans
on grass clippings -- some also ban leaves and light branches. Dallas
reported that total municipal waste collected in the first 6 months of the
ban (April-Sept 1993) was down 22% from the same months of the
previous year. This was partly due to dry weather, which reduced the
output of grass clippings, but that also indicates the significance of grass
clippings as a percentage of the city's waste stream. Two neighboring
communities implemented grass clippings bans at around the same time,
and their waste-collection reductions were comparable -- 21% to 24%
below the same months of the previous year.

There are many obvious factors that can cause the rate of grass
clippings generated to vary by location and year to year: degree of
shade, rainfall, length of growing season, fertilization practices, etc. My
observation in Austin has been that intensively managed 1/4-acre lawns
can generate 100-200 lbs of bagged grass clippings per week
throughout the active grass growing season, which are often over 40
weeks in many parts of Texas. Other same-size lawns which are rarely
watered, never fertilized, and never raked until the clippings are dry, may
generate one 5-lb bag every 2 weeks.

The Extension Service's Don't Bag It literature reports that one city of
18,000 homes estimated that the weekly set-out of grass clippings was
more than 700 tons. It gives a rule-of-thumb estimate that leaving grass
clippings on the lawn can provide "up to two pounds of nitrogen per
1,000 square feet" on an annual basis. It also states that grass clippings
usually contain "over 4% nitrogen." Those are some of the relevant
statistics I could find in a quick review.

You might also want to look into the Cost-Benefit Analysis of Home
Composting Programs in the United States, done by Applied Compost
Consulting of Berkeley CA for The Composting Council
( It includes estimates of yard trimmings diversion
attributable to backyard composting programs in a large sampling of
communities. One community cited in this study reportedly estimated a
diversion of over 2000 lbs/year per household that used grasscycling.

Bill Carter, Program Specialist
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Recycling Section, Office of Pollution Prevention & Recycling
MC114 P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087 USA
(512) 239-6771


Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 16:27:15 -0400
From: "" <>
Subject: junk mail reduction

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC5583.60A16D40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Beth: Thanks for your help. I called Michelle. However, your link =
suggestions are very good. So we'll see if Michelle's info is a =
duplication or additional. Visit my "Stop Junk Mail" page:=20


Lynn Landes

Sent: Monday, April 28, 1997 5:25 PM
Subject: RE: junk mail reduction


I am happy to have you link my letter to to your campaign site. I=20
cannot give permission to print the addresses directly. Our office=20
signed a copyright licensing agreement with the Town of Chapel Hill=20
and are not to alter the camera ready original work without=20
permission. If you wish to use the Junk Mail Terminator Kit as your=20
source, you should contact Michelle Minstrell directly at the number=20
listed in my letter.

There are plenty of other places that addresses for direct=20
marketers may be found and you may wish to link with them directly. The =
advantage to=20
this is that these sites usually have more detailed information=20
about direct marketers - like TRW is a credit card mailer. My=20
experience from receiving responses back from individual marketers is=20
that the Direct Marketing Association is the primary list seller. =20
Having consumers contact this one company will eliminate the majority=20
of your unwanted mail. =20

Sites to check out: (doesn't work)

Also, the message following mine has some information seemingly contrary =
to a=20
news article I have. He states that bulk mail "is a major profit=20
center" for the postal service. =20

I have a clipping from the Missoulian, Sunday, July=20
21, 1996. The article entitled "GAO: Bulk Mail cost Postal Service=20
big" is reprinted from The Washington Post, by Bill McAllister. The=20
General Accounting Office in a report to Congress stated that it=20
could find pinpointed losses of $168 million in fiscal 1994. (this=20
from the bulk business mail program) You may wish to follow up with=20
this claim as well as the one below to accurately reflect the costs=20
of BBM to the Postal Service.

I will be out of the office for the remainder of this week. Should=20
you have any questions, I will return to the office on Monday, May 5.

Thanks for contacting me. Good luck!

Beth Graves

> From: "ZERO WASTE AMERICA, Inc." <>
> To: "'BETH GRAVES'" <>
> Subject: RE: junk mail reduction
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 08:19:52 -0400

> Beth: I am putting a "Stop Junk Mail" campaign on my site and would =
like to either: 1) link this letter or 2) print the addresses and other =
material in the "Terminator Kit." Which would you suggest
> Lynn Landes
> ----------
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 1997 1:23 PM
> To:
> Subject: junk mail reduction
> To GreenYesers,
> In response to some of the discussion about junk mail, I thought I=20
> would weigh in on some of the efforts being undertaken in North=20
> Carolina.
> DPPEA, the Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental=20
> Assistance, has licensed the "Junk Mail Terminator" kit from Orange=20
> County, NC. The kit consists of 15 pre-printed postcards to the=20
> largest direct mailers. An instruction sheet is also included with=20
> tips on how to try and keep you name off marketing lists. DPPEA=20
> licensed the kit for $25/year and printed 25,000 to distribute for=20
> free to any city or county requesting them for distribution to =
> We have given some to cooperative extension agencies and businesses =
who gave=20
> them to employees. We figured if people had the postcards in hand=20
> already, they would be more likely to actually request that their=20
> name be removed from lists.
> The kits cost us $0.16 each to print plus the cost of envelopes=20
> (6 x 9). The whole campaign has likely cost less than $5,000. The=20
> campaign has been very popular among local governments and has=20
> resulted in MANY newspaper articles across the state. To date, we=20
> have distributed 21,500 kits.
> One reporter I worked with for the High Point Enterprise conducted=20
> some additional research and uncovered some information I was unaware=20
> of and thought may be of interest to this group. The article=20
> appeared on Jan. 12, 1997 and was written by Robert Warren. =20
> The following is an excerpt:
> "For junk mail that bypasses every effort, the US Supreme Court=20
> provides a solution: US Postal Service Form 2150. In 1970, several=20
> direct marketers appealed to the US Supreme Court a law they said=20
> 'impoverished' them. The law, created in 1968, allowed citizens to=20
> stop any mail they felt was 'erotically arousing or sexually=20
> provocative.' Instead of overturning the law, the Supreme Court=20
> slapped the direct marketers 'upside the head.'=20
> 'Every man's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did =
> seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he=20
> finds offensive,' Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the majority. =

> Offensive can be a dry goods catalog, according to the Supreme Court,=20
> simply because the householder objects to the contents or text=20
> touting the merchandise.
> Form 2150 is free and only requires your name and address and the=20
> sender's. If the mailing doesn't stop, it is the postmaster's=20
> responsibility to send a certified letter to the sender and enforce=20
> the law."
> Sorry for the length. Prior to his article, I had been unaware of=20
> this form. One more tool to fight junk mail!!
> By the way, anyone wanting to license the kit may call Michelle=20
> Minstrell, Chapel Hill, NC, 919-968-2788. They charge $1.00 for the=20
> kit if you live outside Orange County. If you are thinking of=20
> licensing the kit and want to preview one,=20
> I would be willing to send one to you at no charge. Send me your name =
> mailing address.
> Beth Graves
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:40:41 -0600
> From: George Dreckmann <>
> To:, =
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: GRN Campaign Ideas -Reply
> If we are going to target Junk Mail then we need something that people
> can do as direct action that cuts into the profitability of the =
business, both
> for the USPS and the mailers because, despite the reduced rates, Junk
> Mail is not corporate welfare, it is a major profit center for the =
> What we have to do is get people to return all postage paid mailers,
> stuffing envelopes with all the stuff that was send to them in the =
> When i suggested this locally, a USPS employee said that stuffing =
> envelops full would jam their high tech machines. To which I =
> excatly!=20
> When junk mail lacks a postage paid return mailer then we tell folks =
> remove their address label and take the junk to the big blue recycling =
> on the corner and let the USPS handle it. Afterall, they boast of =
> the nations largest paper recycling program. Let's make a good thing
> even better.
> As we call for these actions, we tell folks that junk mail is =
> worhtless to your local recycling program so the best way to get it
> recycled is to give it back.
> This type of action puts the stuff back where it came from and calling =
> this type of guerrilla warfare on junk mail would generate lots of =
> and would outrage the USPS and junk mailers. Who could ask for more.
> Calling for legislation on stuff like this just sets us up to lose to =
the Gucci
> loafer crowd. Lets hit them where it hurts and fight legislative =
battles on
> the larger issues like forest subsidies, minimum content etc.
> "Oh Atlanta, got to get back to you."
> Lowell George
> Pax,
> George Dreckmann
> Recycling Coordinator
> City of Madison, WI
> Beth Graves
> Waste Management Analyst
> NC Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance =
> 919-715-6506 or 800-763-0136
> web site:

Beth Graves
Waste Management Analyst
NC Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA)
919-715-6506 or 800-763-0136
web site:

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC5583.60A16D40
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Shortcut to STOP JUNK MAIL.URL"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64


------ =_NextPart_000_01BC5583.60A16D40--


Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 00:10:54, -0500
Subject: Mining Waste and TRI

For those of you who wrote to the EPA a few months back to request
that the Toxics Release Inventory be expanded to include mining
wastes..... Congratulations, it paid off!! See article below.

Dave Reynolds

MINING TRUTH: The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday
a final rule expanding the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program to

include the hardrock mining industry, according to a Mineral Policy
Center press release. Under the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, the mining industry will now be required to report

toxic chemicals resulting from extraction and mine processing. "By
requiring the industry to report both types of wastes, the American
public and local communities receive a true picture of the magnitude

of mining industry pollution," said Phil Hocker, President of the MPC.


Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 14:34:52 -0700
From: Mehrdad Azemun <>
Subject: Municipal recycling questions

Hi folks:

A few quick questions--most of you are probably aware of the
controversial Blue Bag recycling program in Chicago. If you haven't
seen the news, Waste Management was recently penalized by City Hall for
landfilling recyclables during the months of January and February.

So my questions are:

*Have any of you read of any contractor (WMX or othewise) landfilling
recyclables during that same period this year, becuase of the slight
slump in markets?
*What kinds of measurements of cost-effectiveness have you seen for
municipal recycling programs? I know it's impossible to come up with an
apple-to-apple comparison, but we're trying to see how our supposedly
cheap program stacks up to other cities.

That's all for now. Please send replies directly to me at
Thanks much! Mehrdad Azemun, Chicago Recycling Coalition


Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 16:28:57 -0400
From: Wayne Fenton <>
Subject: Municipal recycling questions -Reply


I have been advised of landfilling of recyclables by BFI from a small
community outside of London, Ontario (reported to me by a municipal
councillor). At the same meeting, another councillor from a neighbouring
community stated that he was aware of Laidlaw also having dumped
recyclables, although this one seemed less certain. I'm not sure of the
time periods involved, but I can follow up if you wish.

Re: measurements of cost-effectiveness, we are involved in the
development of a computer model that will attempt to take into account all
environmental costs and benefits (e.g., saved energy from secondary
materials, additional energy from collection of separate streams, etc.).
I'm not sure if that is the type of info. you are seeking -- if so, let me

Re: specific costs, it is always a question of how your contract is
structured, when tenders were issued, etc. The City of London has a
very attractive contract with Laidlaw Waste Systems (now doing
business in Canada as Canadian Waste Services). The tender was
issued mid-1994. The tender included collection processing and
marketing of materials (ONP, OMG, OBB, OCC, MWP, metal, plastic and
glass containers, aluminum foil). London is a very conservative city and
left all revenue (and all risk!) from the sale of materials with Laidlaw.

The low bidder at that time was Laidlaw at a price of $5.70 per
household per year ($Canadian) from March 1995 to August 1999. I'm
not sure about your area, but this is a very good cost for curbside
recycling in Ontario. However, it was largely due to good timing and
good luck on the part of London, as the contractor obviously counted on
revenues remaining at late 1994 levels. As such, it is obviously difficult
to compare with other communities.

Hope this helps.

Wayne Fenton
Project Manager
London/Middlesex Waste Mgt. Plan

>>> Mehrdad Azemun <> 04/30/97 05:34pm >>>
Hi folks:

A few quick questions--most of you are probably aware of the
controversial Blue Bag recycling program in Chicago. If you haven't
seen the news, Waste Management was recently penalized by City Hall
landfilling recyclables during the months of January and February.

So my questions are:

*Have any of you read of any contractor (WMX or othewise) landfilling
recyclables during that same period this year, becuase of the slight
slump in markets?
*What kinds of measurements of cost-effectiveness have you seen for
municipal recycling programs? I know it's impossible to come up with an
apple-to-apple comparison, but we're trying to see how our supposedly
cheap program stacks up to other cities.

That's all for now. Please send replies directly to me at
Thanks much! Mehrdad Azemun, Chicago Recycling Coalition


Date: Wed, 30 Apr 97 10:37:00 PDT
From: <>
Subject: ONP Market Situation

Here in Minnesota, the ONP situation is abysmal! Haulers are cut back to 50
- 10% of normal deliveries to the local mill. Other large recyclers are only
accepting #8 and for b/t $25 - $45 a ton. Is this a regional problem or are
others seeing the same problem? Whats going on: lack of export markets;
reduced demand for boxboard; oversupply?

If it gets much worse, we are going to experiement with ONP bales as parts
of dikes to contain the Red River!


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #95