GreenYes Digest V97 #55

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:58:53 -0500

GreenYes Digest Sat, 15 Mar 97 Volume 97 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
[Fwd: E I C A C T I O N 03-14-97]
D.Reynolds Remarks on Integrated Waste Management
Internet Message
Request for Examples of Industry Retreat from Recycling
URGENT Sign-on Letter
Waste Policy Institute making the rounds (2 msgs)
Waste prevention at food service facilities

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: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:18:03 -0600
From: "Susan K. Snow" <>
Subject: [Fwd: E I C A C T I O N 03-14-97]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thought the information within, may be of interest to you. It just goes
to show that this Congress is more interested with protecting corporate
profits than freedom of speech, state's rights, or safe drinking water,
public health and the right to life of the unborn is death comes from
exposure to toxic chemicals.
Susan Snow

Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <>
Received: from ( [])
by (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
id PAA25564 for <>; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:33:33 -0600
Received: from ( [])
by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA18589;
Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:56:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: by with ADMIN;14 Mar 1997 15:03:16 U
Received: from ( [])
by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA18037
for <>; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:51:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: 14 Mar 1997 14:56:34 -0500
From: "eicinfo" <>
Subject: E I C A C T I O N 03-14-97
To: "ESA Action" <>
X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2

EICAction - Friday, March 14, 1997
In This Issue:
Fireworks Are Safe
Democrats Bolt On Clean Air
Coastal Caucus Meeting
Violations of Ambient Air Quality Standards
Inside the Beltway
<the latest news from DC>
Fireworks Are Safe
Fireworks are safe from the proposed new clean air health standards despite
industry radio ads to the contrary. On Friday March 7, 1997, "Warren White, a
senior research associate in chemistry at Washington University, said he was
making a joke at a meeting of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee last
year when he referred to a 20-year-old study in St. Louis that found air
contaminants after a fireworks display. It was a tongue-in-cheek statement.
I wasn't arguing that we should be concerned about fireworks displays," White
said this week."(Post -Dispatch Washington Bureau). White's tongue-in-cheek
statement was being cited as proof that the new regulations being proposed by
the Environmental Protection Agency are a threat to the American way of life
and are therefore too stringent. This radio ad was sponsored by Citizens for
a Sound Economy, an industry funded think tank in Washington.

Senators from Fossil Fuel States Waivering on Clean Air
Five Democratic senators from fossil fuel states (Robert Byrd D-WV, Wendall
Ford D-KY, John Glenn D-OH, Charles Robb D-VA and Jay Rockefeller D-WV) are
circulating a letter to be sent to Administrator Browner asking that the
Environmental Protection Agency: reaffirm the current clean air standards, and
conduct additional monitoring of PM and related air quality issues. The
Senators are not supporting their own administration; their letter echoes
arguments by fossil fuel industry lobbyists regarding the science and the
cost-benefit analysis behind the proposed EPA standards.

Spotlight on the Field
<local and regional action>
Coastal Caucus Meeting
On May 4 and 5, 1997, the Clean Water Network and American Oceans Campaign
will hold a Coastal Caucus Meeting at the Crystal Sheraton Hotel in Arlington,
Virginia. The meeting will include: strategy and message development
discussions on coastal polluted run-off programs; estuary protection; right to
know (beach water quality and fish consumption advisories); and federal
funding for coastal programs. For more information send a fax to (202)
544-5625 or send an email with your name and address to
Attention Ted Morton.

Related News
<from around the country and the world>
Violations of Ambient Air Quality Standards
Even though there have been decreases in air pollution in the last twenty
years, 171 areas of the country still continue violating one or more of the
national ambient air quality standards, according to a White House report
entitled_Environment Quality_. The report is an annual report of the White
House Council on Environmental Quality. The CEQ report stated that, "one area
of the country violated the nitrogen dioxide standard, whereas ten areas
violated the lead standard. Thirty-one areas continue to violate carbon
monoxide standard, forty-three violated the sulfur dioxide standard and
sixty-eight areas continue to violate the ozone standard"(Daily Environment
Report, March 11, 1997, pA-6).

Final Word
<inspiring or alarming items in the news>
In a proposed new limit on free speech, manufacturers of household chemicals
and pesticides have crafted and proposed legislation that would prevent the
state of Arizona from telling consumers about alternatives to dangerous
household chemical products unless there is scientific evidence to back up
their claims. The bill has passed in the Senate and is awaiting House

Please forward and post. Edited by Melinda Glazer, Peter Kelley, and Jim
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to with
"unsubscribe esa-action" in the subject field. To request a subscription,
e-mail with "subscribe" in the subject field and your name
organization, and interests in the message body. Or, fax 202-797-6530. News
and items for SPOTLIGHT ON THE FIELD are always welcome at the same addresses.



Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:43:27 -0500 (EST)
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <>
Subject: D.Reynolds Remarks on Integrated Waste Management

I would like to applaud David Reynold's 3/14/97 comments to the list on the
issue of the economics of integrated MSW management. They address some of
the core issues that should concern anyone who endorses the resource
management approach for residual materials. Unfortunately, despite David's
comments about the availability of documentation showing the positive
economic results of recovery (or diversionary) oriented integrated MSW
practices, recent published criticisms of recycling such as John Tierney's
NYT article of 6/30/96, indicate to me that this documentation is still not
sufficiently well known or understood by the educated lay public. I am not
even sure that our own profession has a sufficient appreciation of the
complex operational and financial interpendencies that are created by a true
integrated MSW management structure.

David raises some interesting comments relating to the problem of the "rate
and date" policy approach that causes "economic priciples and market
realities" to be ignored. A very astute observation for it points to the
tension that exists at the core of integrated MSW management which is how to
balance public policies with the need to "be sensitive to market
relationships" as David puts it. Let me give an example (which I am sure
some members of this list will not like - my apologies).

A resource management model for residual materials, I assume, would say that
these materials should flow to the end point that can utilize them as a
resource at the lowest cost to the system that manages them (based on the
public or private infrastructure that is available for that system to use).
Let's take ONP as an example. We would all prefer to see that ONP is
productively utilized for its fiber content. However, because the value of
paper fiber is determined by commodity market forces, it can happen from
time to time (some may say even right now) that the total (current) cost to
recycle paper as fiber exceeds the competive cost to dispose of it. Even
worse, what if future market forces causes the value of ONP's BTU content on
a per ton basis to exceed its per ton value as fiber? On an open market
basis the answer would be to base your decision on the pricing signals that
these markets are sending. Residual materials should be allowed to flow
freely in response to the markets that are economically preferable. New
market equilibria may be created as a result of these material flows perhaps
resulting in better pricing for fiber in the long run.

However, we are forgetting about the waste management hierarchy which states
that recycling should precede energy recovery and disposal. Based on this
policy consideration, the answer for most would be to do whatever is
necessary to sustain ONP recycling as long as it can utilized productively.
This may mean using revenues from more profitable residual materials to
subsidize ONP recycling. But what if these revenues are not available? Do
we then continue to pay for ONP recycling based on the argument that it will
positively affect front-end and back-end disposal costs? If so, for how
long? Could it be argued that we are providing a back door public subsidy
to the paper recycling industry? Maybe we are but from a policy point of
view that still would be preferable to disposal.

My purpose here is not act as a covert partisan for the WTE industry but to
illustrate what I perceive as the dilemma of how to harness the power of
free markets (for both material and energy products) to maximize waste
diversion rates without resorting to public policies that artificially
sustain or constrain the free movement of these materials to these markets.
However, I also recognize the validity of promulgating public policies that
defend our need for an environmentally and economically sustainable society.
David alluded to existing analyses in his message that he feels addresses
this dilemma well. I feel we should bring them to the explicit attention of
this list for public review (if previous messages to this list have already
done this please forgive me but I have not seen them)and promote the ones we
agree are sound with appropriate backup documentation.

R.M. Guttentag


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:55:11, -0500
Subject: Internet Message

Roger and List Members,

Regarding Roger's comment:
However, I also recognize the validity of promulgating public
policies that
defend our need for an environmentally and economically sustainable
David alluded to existing analyses in his message that he feels
this dilemma well. I feel we should bring them to the explicit
attention of
this list for public review (if previous messages to this list have
done this please forgive me but I have not seen them)and promote the
ones we
agree are sound with appropriate backup documentation.

Here is a must read:

Strategic Recycling: Necessary Revolutions in Local Government
by Kay Martin
List price of $29.99 available through Darkhorse Press, 4227 East
Main Street, Suite 116, Ventura, CA 93003 Telephone: (805) 658-

Kay is Director of Solid Waste Management for Ventura County, CA (I
have suggested to Kay that she should requisition a name change to
Solid Resources Management :-) ) In Part 2 of the book, where Kay
states that local government must "steer" and not "row," she
articulates and illustrates in superb fashion the ultimate realities
that we must all face. As a side note, in one section Kay mentions
the responsibility that certain industry associations must have with
respect to playing a proactive, rather than a defensive, role. But
if we put the spotlight on the real world right now, this
responsibility is, for the most part, absent.

Dave Reynolds


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:49:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Request for Examples of Industry Retreat from Recycling

In a message dated 97-03-12 22:46:17 EST, (William
P. McGowan) writes: Sorry to be a contrarian, but here's what Kimberly
Clarke is doing, not only with their company but with Scott........ Vision
2000 is K-C's goal to reduce to zero the emissions their manufacturing
facilities send to disposal, either through recycling or other ... achieved
about 80% of this goal ... evidence that big business is actually stepping
to the firm is ... helping K-C acheive
these goals. I assume, naively I admit, that K-C, which is based in
Atlanata, has been invited to the gathering in Atlanta later this spring...
Bill McGowan... Rincon Recycling.
Bill; I don't think so, how much post consumer recycled paper, plastic and
glass do they use for their products and packages as compared with virgin
resoucrces. If the recycled content in in their products and packages is
nearly or over 50% or they are willing to step forward and pledge this by
2001 as a Corporate goal; and they also willing to endorse and implement a
zero waste policy (zero waste. jobs from discards and design, end welfare for
wasting) along with their current very efficient business plan; then I would
recomend, nay I would demand, to the steering committee that they be invited
to Atlanta to make that pledge at the conference . Rick Anthony, Recycler.


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:56:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Alicia Culver <>
Subject: URGENT Sign-on Letter

Hi Folks:

Here's a letter urging Congress to prod EPA to issue strong rules
to curb organochlorine pollution from pulp and paper mills. This letter
also supports adoption of a federal government purchasing policy for
totally chlorine-free paper products.

We have a tight time frame for sign-ons, but if you are able to turn this
around by Monday, March 18th, it will make it onto the hill and into a
press packet at a news conference next Thursday. Sorry for the crunch!

lorax1@mindspring.comFAX # TO:

THANKS, Alicia Culver (Government Purchasing Project)
>Subject: Revised Cluster Rule sign-on
>TO: Clean Water and Dioxin Activists
>FROM: Elise Hoerath, National Wildlife Federation
> Jessica Landman, Natural Resources Defense Council
> Mary Wells, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
>RE: Pulp and Paper Cluster Rule Sign-on
>We have all worked very hard to craft a unified voice and message on
>the critical issue of EPA's upcoming pulp and paper cluster rule. We
>have revised this critical communication to members of Congress on this
>important issue to address concerns of several of our coalition members.
> This revised letter reflects a resolution of those concerns.
>For those of you who have already signed on, please let us know by the
>deadline of Friday, March 14 if these revisions change your decision. IF
>YOU ON THE LETTER. We apologize for any confusion or
>inconvenience that this may cause. If you have any questions, feel free
>to call Elise at (202) 797-6898 or Mary at (202) 667-4500.
>Dear Representative:
>The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about to make a
>decision regarding the level of dioxin and other related toxics that the
>pulp and paper industry will be allowed to release for the foreseeable
>future. EPA is developing comprehensive Clean Air Act and Clean Water
>Act (CWA) standards for the industry in one rulemaking, the "Cluster
>Rule." According to the most recent Toxics Release Inventory, pulp and
>paper mills have the highest pollution rate (pounds per facility) of any
>industry sector, an average of 457, 457 pounds of reportable toxics per
>facility per year, making them a major source of toxic pollution.
>The undersigned public interest groups representing millions of
>Americans believe that both the law and sound public health policy
>demand that the EPA require pulp and paper mills to install Totally
>Chlorine-Free (TCF) technology. Further, the federal government should
>help create a market for environmentally superior TCF paper products by
>giving them strong preferences in federal procurement.
>Totally Chlorine-Free technology has clear and dramatic environmental
>benefits compared to the use of chlorine-based bleaching agents. Most
>important, TCF technology enables mills to reuse their water so that they
>can "close the loop" and cease discharging altogether, an important goal
>of the CWA. TCF processes do not create dioxin or the wide range of
>organochlorines that are known to persist in the environment for
>decades, rise up the food chain, and eventually lodge in human tissue.
>Many of these substances have been linked to cancer, as well as
>endometriosis, reproductive abnormalities, impaired immune systems, and
>behavioral and learning disorders. As a result of these pollutants,
>several states advise against eating lobster tomalley and fish caught
>downstream of mills.
>Switching to TCF technology will also make America's pulp and paper
>industry much more competitive internationally by lowering operating
>costs. TCF processes use significantly less water and energy . TCF
>technologies also decrease liability costs, chemical costs, and effluent
>and sludge disposal treatment costs, and avoid dangerous, and
>sometimes fatal, chlorine accidents. TCF technology is clearly both
>technically and economically available. World wide more than 60 mills
>use TCF processes, including the Louisiana Pacific mill in Samoa,
>California. These plants have demonstrated that we need not
>compromise in paper quality to use TCF processes.
>Unfortunately the EPA is not even considering TCF as a regulatory
>option. EPA's proposed rule presents two options. Option A calls for
>merely switching from elemental chlorine to chlorine dioxide in the
>bleaching process. Chlorine dioxide substitution is completely
>unacceptable as it decreases but does not eliminate the discharge of
>dioxin and other toxic organochlorines. Chlorine dioxide also prevents
>mills from going closed-loop because it makes the wastewater too
>corrosive to recycle through the plant so it must be dumped into the
>nearest stream.
>Option B calls for the use of oxygen in the pulping process (oxygen
>delignification) while still allowing chlorine dioxide as a bleaching agent.
>Oxygen delignification technology is a necessary first step towards a
>closed-loop, TCF future. Nearly one-half of pulp produced in the U.S.
>already is made using oxygen delignification or extended cooking.
>Contrary to industry claims, hard economic data show that the
>annualized costs of Option A and Option B are virtually identical.
>In addition to Options A and B, EPA is considering incentives to mills to
>move towards TCF processes. We strongly support the federal
>government establishing procurement preferences for chlorine-free
>paper products to help create a stable market for these products. Since
>President Clinton issued his first Executive Order directing the federal
>government to buy recycled and other environmentally preferable
>products, a growing number of unbleached and non-chlorine bleached
>products have come onto the market. Chlorine-free products may contain
>recycled content that has not been rebleached with chlorine-containing
>compounds, which we support. These products include tissues, paper
>towels, coffee filters, printing and writing paper, file folders and copy
>The federal government, as the nation's single largest consumer of paper
>products, could have a dramatic impact on stimulating the market for TCF
>paper products in the United States. In order to achieve this, the federal
>government should issue a clear procurement directive to buy
>chlorine-free paper products as long as they contain the minimum amount
>of recycled content required under the existing Executive Order, are
>cost-competitive, and meet the government's needs. In doing this, the
>federal government would be following in the footsteps of several
>states, such as Vermont, Oregon, and Massachusetts, as well as
>several cities, such as Chicago, Ann Arbor, and Seattle, which have
>similar incentives in place.
>This upcoming regulation of the pulp and paper industry presents a
>tremendous opportunity to eliminate dangerous toxic discharges from
>one of the most polluting industries in our country and to require and
>reward pollution prevention through use of TCF processes. We ask you
>to support TCF technologies through both new regulation and federal
>Laurie Valeriano
>WA Toxics Coalition
>4516 University Way NE
>Seattle WA 98105
>206-632-8661 (fax)


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:30:33 -0700
From: (Carolyn Chase)
Subject: Waste Policy Institute making the rounds

It's funny how the world unfolds when you connect in....

So I had a volunteer for San Diego Earth Day here yesterday making basic
media follow-up calls on Earth Day events.... he happened to get a hold of
a reporter at the San Diego Business Journal who said- hey - this isn't
about Earth Day but we're looking for someone to comment on environmental
issues...who can you suggest....

I take the call and it turns out that a guy by the name of Jay
Winston-Porter of the Waste Policy Insitute has been in town doing a media
tour. Fromwaht she said this is an obvious part of efforts to attack
recycling. She had other-anti-recycling materials at hand - but as a person
seemed very supportive of other views.

Her first setup and question to me was - The WPI is stating that recycling
is not always good for the environment and that more recycling will not
lead to better environmental results. Don't you think that 50% is too high
a goal for waste reduction?

What followed was a wide-ranging invterview where I covered zero waste, a
resource recovery-based economy and jobs creation and subsidies for
waste....along with a few other colorful local stories with waste mgmt

She persisted in trying to force me to answer the paper vs plastic issue
and what did I think about scientific studies which showed it's
uneconomical to recycle. I stressed that cost data summarized on a national
basis is irrelavent to any local decision about the costs of waste and
whether or not it's better for the env to landfill or recycle....she shared
wtih me that JWP is even stating that using a ceramic cup is worse for the
environment than using disposable-plastic cups (mostly becuase of the water
they say you have to consume to wash it!). I told here this was perfect
example of a conclusion based on questionable behavioral assumptions, and
in any case, such a determination could not be made without knowing the
source of the cup and region in which it would be washed and what happened
to the water.

I persisted in trying to back her into a values and principles and
relevancy discussion about the impacts of growth and how waste elimination
is the best argument for any process, except for those who have invested in
waste....I mean I told her I thought that the name for the institute said
it all. They want Waste Policy, not waste elimination....and that this is
unsustainable for a number of reasons which has led to major investments
in waste reduction and elimination...etc etc. becasue of common, snesible
principlas that any person can less waste is better than
more waste - a position that bureaucracies seems to have a hard time
understanding. The job before us is really to overcome subsidies for waste
and create system that give people what they want - which is to recycle and
for that recycling to make a difference for the environment.

This report will run the week of March 24th..and we'llsee how it comes out
vs JWP....but the great additional news is that she is now saying they will
do one of their full-page profiles on me for Earth Week!

On a roll

(with sesame seeds)

ps. seems to me we should track down his schedule and call the media in
other places where this is going on.

Carolyn Chase, Editor, San Diego Earth Times,
Please visit ;-)

Tel: (619)272-7423 (SDET)
FAX: (619)272-2933
P.O. Box 9827 / San Diego CA 92169

'You've got to conserve what you can't replace'
Support C-QUAL
Californians for Quality of Life, Citizen's Political Action Committee
P.O. Box 9212, San Diego CA 92169

"Every citizen is involved in politics; it's just that some people do
politics, some have it done to them."


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:21:16, -0500
Subject: Waste Policy Institute making the rounds


Welcome to the world of J. Winston Porter. I watched his pitch at
last year's Olberg hearings - California Assembly (Keith Olberg was
chair of the Natural Resources Committee at the time) and he
constantly referred to (in some many words) 25-30% as being the point
of diminishing returns, without presenting any hard data.
Additionally, Porter and others providing testimony during these
hearings were limiting their discussion to the residential waste
stream, where only part of the opportunity lies. Every community has
unique characteristics and different opportunities for waste
diversion. All of the alternatives need to be explored and the best
options chosen. It has become clear to me over this past year that
the Waste Policy Institute is not interested in being solutions
oriented. Did you happen to ask about WPI's source of funding?

Dave Reynolds


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:19:46 -0800
From: (Linda Christopher)
Subject: Waste prevention at food service facilities

Connie Cloak was the Environmental Manager for the Cracker Barrel
restaurant chain. She knows a great deal about restaurant waste reduction.
Her phone number in California is 707-573-9808. Unfortunately, she is out
of town for a couple of weeks and I don't have her e-mail.

Another resource is the California Integrated Waste Board's web site. It
has many examples of California businesses that successfully reduced their
waste. One particularly impressive restaurant in Sacramento called "Eat
Your Vegetables" outlines their waste prevention program on the webe site.
Check out:

then go to waste prevention information exchange.

Linda Christopher
Education Director
Garbage Reincarnation Inc
707-584-8666 x11
707-584-8291 Fax
Snail Mail
PO Box 1375
Santa Rosa, CA 95402


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #55