1999 Adapt Bicycle Repair initiatives to other kinds of durable products
(electronics, appliances, furniture, construction materials and products.
Partner the vocational training programs in schools with organizations in
the repair industry which can use the skills (Partnership for the Homeless,
Goodwill, repair businesses, etc...)
Household Hazardous Waste
Products and packaging are manufactured using toxic, flammable, corrosive,
and/or reactive ingredients. As long as this is the case, there will be
waste with these properties. Though every effort should be made to reduce
generation of HHW, it should be of some interest that US EPA has signed a
Universal Waste Rule that streamlines regulations for the generation,
transport, treatment, storage and disposal of certain wastes (e.g.
batteries, mercury-containing thermostats, and pesticides). By granting a
conditional exemption from some RCRA Subtitle C requirements, the rule
should encourage state and local governments and manufacturers to establish
collection and recycling programs, and retailers to participate in them.
(Household Hazardous Waste Management News, Vol VI, #25).
1997 Institute a pilot program establishing one permanent household
hazardous waste dropoff center within a Sanitation garage for each borough.
Advertise this pilot program to all residents in the dropoff site
catchment areas via brochures distributed by Sanitation collection personnel.
1998 Produce and distribute to the public a report which assesses any
problems and successes of each dropoff site and recommends improvements in
education and operations.
1998 Introduce local legislation requiring all retailers of household and
automotive batteries to accept batteries, providing rebates to consumers;
as well as requiring that retailers charge a meaningful deposit on the sale
of all household and automotive batteries.
1998 Introduce local legislation requiring that DGS and city agencies
purchase less toxic or nontoxic products and packaging where currently such
alternatives are available. ("Toxic" includes heavy metals, solvents,
pesticides, and other pollutant precursors.)
1998 Prepare information on alternatives to purchase and use of toxic
products and packaging and distribute this via print and media campaigns,
as well as via the new DOS reuse hotline.
1999 Institute a battery exchange within all HHC facilities.
1999 Introduce local legislation requiring retailers selling hazardous
household products to pay a permit fee (as well as comply with mandatory
shelf labeling requirements and to disseminate information on HHW).
1999 Institute a city-wide program establishing permanent household
hazardous waste dropoff centers within all Sanitation garages. Advertise
this program to all residents. Implement recommendations as proposed in
1997 assessment.
Residential QBUFs (Quantity-Based User Fees)
In the 1992 SWMP at 7-4, DOS describes how QBUF systems operating
throughout the US have produced waste reduction rates of 18 to 29 percent.
Prior to the SWMP in 1992 it was well known that residential QBUFs were in
existence in towns and cities across the country, and DOS' consultants
included information about the great success of QBUF in the Plan and the
Waste Prevention appendix. In 1994 EPA released a major study indicating
that thousands of municipalities in the US have increased waste prevention
and recycling rates by 25-45% as a result of QBUF programs. Since a
reduction of this magnitude in the waste collection, processing, and
disposal, would save the City untold hundreds of millions of dollars, and
over long periods of time into the future, QBUFs were considered to be one
of the most important waste prevention initiatives in the Plan. In the
SWMP at p. 20-5, DOS states, "The expansion of the use of QBUF is one of
the central recommendations of the waste prevention program". The Waste
Prevention appendix also includes QBUFs as an often-repeated requirement of
achieving waste prevention for almost every material generated. In fact,
the very first recommendation of the Waste Prevention appendix (all 12 of
which are characterized as "the most effective waste prevention
strategies") is: "Establish Charges for Waste Services Based on the Amount
of Waste Generated".
To address implementation of QBUFs, in the 1992 SWMP a feasibility study
involving pilot-scale field testing and data gathering on how waste
quantities and compositions are affected by residential QBUFs, is discussed
repeatedly as being an important component of its waste prevention efforts
(see pp. 7-4, 7-7, 16-5, 19-5, 19-8, 19-23). This explains why DOS
committed in the Plan to undertaking pilot-scale field testing here in NYC;
we needed to test, and possibly invent, many alternative methods and
components of strategies for undertaking QBUFs in a densely populated urban
area.
1998 Study residential QBUF programs across the country; adapt the most
useful for NYC, and begin educational program to ready residents.
1998 Implement residential QBUFs in every residential building throughout
NYC. (Owners of single family dwellings, co-op and condo owners, and
landlords would be billed based on the amount of nonrecyclable waste
discarded; recyclables would be collected at no cost.)
1998 Design and conduct pilot tests of at least three alternative
residential QBUF operational strategies for assessing QBUFs to tenants in
multi-family buildings in each borough. Report to the public on results
and solicit input on design improvements.
1999 If 1998 pilot tests are successful, assess tenants QBUFs in
multiple-family dwellings. If 1998 pilot tests in multi-family dwellings
show problems, design and complete at least one additional pilot test
designed to overcome any problems. Report to the public on results and
solicit input on design improvements.
2000 If 1999 pilots are successful, assess tenants QBUFs in multiple-family
dwellings.
2001 Complete a study of residential QBUFs in each borough and housing
type. Provide the report to the public. Institute any modifications to
the program to improve the efficiency of the program.
INSTITUTIONAL AND CITY AGENCY WASTE PREVENTION
Institutional / Agency QBUFs (QBUIs)
The 1992 SWMP at p. 7-7 describes how the City should "develop and
implement a charge system" for institutions as a method of achieving waste
prevention. The SWMP's Waste Prevention appendix (pp. 82-88) delineates
in nearly every category of material the percentage of reductions which
would result from implementation of QBUFs in institutions. But then in the
Compliance Report, DOS has found institutional QBUFs to be unfeasible and
has taken credit for implementing the milestone.
1998 Determine for each municipal and non-municipal institution serviced by
NYCDOS a baseline waste generation rate for 1998.
1999 Institute a QBUI (Quantity-Based User Incentive) arrangement with
municipal and non-municipal institutions whereby the City and the
institution share (with the NYCDOS) any collection and disposal savings
achieved by reducing non-recyclables generation below the 1998 baseline via
waste prevention strategies employed by the institution. (Recyclables
should be collected for free.)
WASTE PREVENTION RESEARCH PROGRAMS
In order to implement certain waste prevention programs and economic
incentives, and to design effective waste prevention educational
initiatives and legislation, DOS must pursue carefully designed research
studies.
Measurement of Waste Prevention
DOS states (page 2-9 of the Update) that there is no way to measure the
impacts of waste prevention (i.e., volume and weight reduction, costs, and
cost savings), when DOS has helped finance a number of studies which have
already been completed by the Council on the Environment, which document
actual cost savings and volume of waste prevented as a result of businesses
and institutions having implemented well over 100 specific strategies.
Since City agencies can also implement these strategies, these data from
institutions and businesses could have been used and extrapolated to
estimate at least some of the positive impacts in the commercial and
institutional sectors caused by waste prevention programs DOS has
implemented to date. These data can also be valuable in projecting the
positive impacts of instituting these strategies in the commercial,
institutional and City agency sectors in future years.
early 1997 Reinstitute SAIC measurement methodology research study
late 1997 Finalize methodology to attribute causes of increases and
decreases in local, sector, and citywide waste generation rates (e.g., to
specific DOS programs, population changes, the economy, outside influences
such as federal legislation, court cases, changes in design/manufacturing
practices, etc...)
1998 and annually thereafter: Determine waste tonnages and volumes IN EACH
SECTOR that each of DOS' many waste prevention initiatives (including, but
not limited to each business in the Partnership, all agencies affected by
the Mayoral Directive on Waste Prevention, and those businesses studied by
CENYC) have addressed over the previous three years as well as those tons
and volumes which have been prevented, and analyze trends. Report on
results to the public.
Waste Generation / Characterization based on Products and Packaging Types
In the 1992 SWMP at p 20-1, DOS states: "Procedures will be designed and
implemented to develop and/or monitor the following types of data": "Waste
Generation and composition. New studies to update the existing one will be
required on a regular basis." "There are several objectives which future
waste generation and composition studies should serve. They can document
waste-prevention impacts.... They can help to design more effective
prevention programs if product categories, as opposed to material
categories only, are tracked....The City can conduct future
waste-generation studies using the same subsector residential,
institutional, and commercial categories that were used in the 1990
study... In future composition studies, particular attention should be
directed at the identification of product categories that can be used in
designing, implementing, and monitoring waste-prevention programs."
Certainly every five years the waste can be expected to change
significantly enough to affect the success of proposed waste prevention
programs. And a study less comprehensive than the materials (or
recyclables) -oriented one conducted in 1990, which included not only
generation sector, but also housing type, and population density, cannot be
expected to show accurately the generation of products and packaging in the
waste stream. DOS is now conducting a limited waste characterization study.
1997 Reinstate SAIC preliminary study of products and packaging-oriented
composition study.
1997 Undertake / support a product-to-packaging research study to
characterize and define what constitutes adequately and overly packaged goods.
1998 Expand current City-wide, products and packaging-oriented generation
composition study to include assessment of toxics in the waste stream, and
disaggregate study of the residential, institutional and commercial
sectors, and different types of housing and different locations within the
City during each of the four seasons.
1999 Based on 1998 study, target product and packaging types for special
waste prevention legislative initiatives, educational programs, and
economic incentives, and develop those initiatives.
2003 Undertake a comprehensive, City-wide, disaggregated products and
packaging-oriented generation and toxics composition study as above.
Repeat every five years.
2004 Based on 2003 study, target product and packaging types for special
waste prevention legislative initiatives, educational programs, and
economic incentives. Repeat every five years.
Direct Mail
DOS has chosen to begin a voluntary program with the Mail Preference
Service, to provide (upon request) postcards for people to send to MPS to
ask that they be removed from unwanted mailing lists. But the Plan
indicated DOS was committed to undertake a mandatory program.
1998 Complete a study of the Mail Preference Service postcard campaign to
determine the type and amount of unwanted mail which has been avoided as a
direct result of this campaign in NYC. Distribute to the public.
"Leave the Packaging Behind"
While DOS reviewed the German "green dot" system and decided it was good,
they rejected it because of our variation in packaging and labeling
requirements state to state. But certainly, the variability of packaging
and labeling requirements across the country was known before DOS undertook
this evaluation.
1999 Complete a pilot study to assess operational feasibility, and
economic, and environmental costs and benefits of allowing consumers to
leave secondary or nonessential primary packaging behind at retail stores,
and of requiring that retailers and manufacturers work together to reuse
(where possible) and recycle the packaging.
BUSINESS WASTE PREVENTION
Since its inception, the City's waste prevention programs have been
directed primarily at commercial waste prevention. We believe that since
businesses have a sufficiently large, built-in economic incentive to
benefit from self-imposed procurement and usage practices to promote waste
prevention of the commercial waste stream (i.e., Commercial QBUFs), without
the City spending its meager waste prevention budget on the commercial
sector. Furthermore, the administration of commercial QBUFS falls within
the purview of the Dept. Of Consumer Affairs. DOS needs to show a far
greater commitment to residential and institutional waste prevention
measures, as these are the sectors which do not already have the QBUF
incentive to reduce waste generation. Therefore, DOS should reduce the
amount of its staff resources devoted to commercial waste prevention, and
make the time it does spend in this sector result in greater beneficial
impacts on the purchasing and usage behaviors of New York City residential
households.
To increase its impact on the waste streams resulting from businesses, DOS
should change the nature of its programs away from being purely voluntary,
and more towards mandatory requirements. For example, the Waste Prevention
Partnership, described below, requests businesses to make commitments to
start programs or procedures to reduce waste, but does not enforce them in
any way. Instead of just asking for an open-ended commitment from dry
cleaners to take back hangers and offer reusable bags, DOS should require
that dry cleaners participating in the Partnership provide DOS and the
SWABs with annual reports of efforts made and monies spent on the program,
as well as tonnages of hangers, bags, etc... given out, received, and
disposed each month.
Another way for DOS, and the City as a whole, to increase the measures
businesses can take to reduce waste generated in the residential sector, is
via legislation. For example, a local statute requiring that all
supermarkets (or retailers) either charge a fee for shopping bags or
provide a rebate to those bringing their own, and to advertise which option
they employ on a sign on the front window, and at each cash register,
would eventually significantly reduce the quantity of plastic and paper
bags appearing in the residential waste stream. Legislative initiatives
are described below.
DOS' Waste Prevention Partnership
DOS reports working with groups representing thousands of businesses.
There is very little hard quantification of waste prevented by the effort.
The requirement of membership in the Partnership includes reporting waste
prevention amounts as they relate to the program.
We have noticed no change in the behavior of local businesses in the
partnership. For example, it is still common practice in many Manhattan
neighborhoods for Chinese restaurants to blitz large areas with take-out
menus frequently. Beyond that, when they deliver to a caller's home, they
include napkins, utensils and double bagging. Neighborhood dry cleaners do
not appear to be promoting hanger returns in many neighborhoods.
It is an accepted concept that even a small financial investment promotes a
"membership" to a greater level of commitment. But, we have seen no
evidence that all of the individual stores are aware of, much less consent
to carry out, the commitments made by the parent associations which are
members of the Partnership.
1997 Renew all agreements with Partnership association members requiring
that evidence be shown, on an annual basis, that every member store has
agreed to carry out the commitments to DOS made by the parent association.
Such agreements should also be revised to require hard numbers be provided
to DOS regarding the tonnage and volume in each category of product and
packaging which is addressed by the commitment (e.g. total numbers and tons
of hangers purchased each year) as well as that which is prevented (e.g.
numbers and tons of hangers brought back by customers). Costs of the waste
prevention program, as well as costs avoided by it, should also be
provided. In exchange, DOS can commit to publicize any positive result
agreeable to the Partnership member. Any Partnership member which does not
renew the agreement and undertake these commitments should be advised that
it will not continue as a member.
1998 Solicit 50 new members (associations or businesses) for the
Partnership, including businesses in the manufacturing sector. Target
businesses where the most waste prevention can be achieved. Continue this
on an annual basis.
1998 Produce and distribute to the public, on an annual basis, a report
describing the waste addressed and prevented by each Partner, as well as
costs and costs avoided.
Commercial QBUFs
On page 7-7 of the 1992 SWMP DOS laid out a blueprint for how the City
would institute commercial QBUFs, working with the Consumer Affairs
Department, thereby making private carting fees to commercial generators
more volume sensitive. But instead, DOS takes credit in the Compliance
Report for having satisfied this milestone by saying that private hauler
tip fees were increased at Fresh Kills.
1997 Prepare and distribute to all commercial establishments in NYC, an
informational booklet which describes clearly and succinctly the current
commercial QBUF requirements of private carters, and instructions on how
businesses can negotiate volume-based fees with their carters. Include in
the brochure a number at Consumer Affairs for businesses to call if carters
do not comply with the commercial QBUF requirements.
1998 Have Consumer Affairs complete a citywide study of the commercial
sector (by business type, borough, and carter) to determine the extent to
which commercial QBUFS are being adhered to.
1999 If the 1998 study shows that commercial rates are not, by volume,
uniform, citywide, then undertake a media campaign (radio and TV) to
educate businesses.
2000 If complaints and studies show that certain carters are not complying
with QBUF requirements, Consumer Affairs must implement an increased
enforcement program.
WASTE PREVENTION LEGISLATION
On p 16-3 of the 1992 SWMP DOS states that the City's near-term MSW
waste-prevention activities will focus on implementing backyard composting
program for all low-density neighborhoods, and on promulgating regulations
that prohibit the collection of grass clippings and their disposal at City
facilities, and a large number of additional programs, policies, and
regulations. On p. 19-7 of the SWMP, DOS pledges to pursue the following
legislative initiatives: (1) mandating signs in certain retail stores
discouraging use of bags, (2) providing economic incentives to businesses
that produce and consumers who acquire products that prevent waste, and (3)
requiring companies that send direct mail to include means by which
addressees can remove their names from lists. ONLY IF progress towards
adoption of these measures were insufficient, did DOS pledge to work with
other cities in a coalition to develop model legislation. But, according
to DOS accounts, this coalition has not produced viable results, since
consensus on nothing but weak measures has been attained.
Research Supporting Legislation
Advance Disposal Fees were considered in 1992 by DOS and its consultants as
one of the most important strategies for reducing waste generation, as
evidenced by frequent mentions in the Plan and the appendix. But ADF's are
not brought up in the 1995 update reports.
1998 Complete a study of possible local initiatives and legislation
involving the advance disposal fee concept (i.e., charging manufacturers,
distributors, and/or retailers for marketing products and packaging which
are disposable, nonrepairable, nonserviceable, contain toxic constituents,
are packaged excessively, unrecyclable, etc... based on the volume and
toxicity of waste generated).
The Mayoral Directive on Waste Prevention
On page 19-6 of the SWMP, among the specific components of the Plan
that DOS has committed to undertake, we read--"Issue a Mayoral Directive
mandating office waste prevention in city agencies and designating of a
waste prevention coordinator in each administrative unit. The directive
will address procurement practices and office procedures, such as two-sided
copying..." In the Mayoral Directive on Waste Prevention, agencies are
asked to provide data on waste prevented. These data can also be used to
quantify the impact of this Directive on agency waste prevention efforts.
Since all agencies did not respond equally well to this Directive, the data
can also be used to estimate the potential waste prevention were all
agencies to respond as well as the best agency, and therefore, the room for
improvement.
1998+ DOS shall issue a comprehensive report on an annual basis to the
public describing the policies and practices implemented and describing the
quantitative assessments by each institution of the waste prevention
policies and practices.
Waste Prevention Legislation
Directed at City Agencies
1997 Support Intro. 509 which would enact City procurement guidelines to
stipulate packaging restrictions as well as require DGS to review its
specifications and institute environmental procurement, among other
initiatives.
1997 DOS should introduce and lobby for local legislation to mandate
institution of a comprehensive set of waste prevention requirements at all
municipal agencies, as well as requirement that each agency document the
effectiveness of each requirement quantitatively (cost per ton, overall
cost, percent prevented, etc...) on an annual basis. Such waste prevention
practices shall address purchasing, maintenance, and disposition of all
types of durables, nondurables and disposables, as well as packaging.
Directed at Business for the Purpose of Reducing Residential Waste
1998 Introduce local (or support state) legislation to extend the State's
bottle law to noncarbonated beverages, and to containers sold in
restaurants or delis. 75% of unclaimed deposits and fines from these
should be earmarked for a waste prevention research fund.
1998 Introduce local legislation to require products sold in NYC be labeled
with (1) product-to-package ratio, (2) cost of packaging, (3) package
recyclability in NYC residential recycling program, (4) toxics content of
packaging (at a minimum chlorine, lead, cadmium, mercury), and (5)
secondary and postconsumer content in packaging.
1998 Introduce local legislation to promote sale within New York City of
products packaged with less or reusable packaging with more recycled
content, greater recyclability, and less toxicity.
1998 Introduce local legislation requiring that all direct mailers doing
business with consumers in NYC provide an invitation to customers to remove
their names from the mailing list and the name rental list, as well as
either a postage-paid postcard or a toll free telephone number for this
purpose, in each catalog or piece of mail distributed to consumers in NYC.
1998 Introduce local legislation to require products sold in NYC be labeled
with (1) average lifespan of product, (2) product warrantee period, (3)
toxics content of product (at a minimum chlorine, lead, cadmium, mercury),
(4) secondary and postconsumer content in product, (5) product
recyclability in NYC residential recycling program.
1998 Introduce local legislation, based on product-to-packaging research,
to discourage sale of overly packaged products and to provide incentives
for increasing recyclability, recycled content, refillability, reusability,
or reduced volume or toxicity of packaging.
1999 Introduce local legislation to require that a DOS Bring Your Own Bag
sign be affixed to each cash register, and to provide economic incentives
to businesses which reduce and persons who acquire products which prevent
waste (e.g., reusable products, products which consume fewer natural
resources in their operation, and products which contain fewer toxic
compounds).
1999 Introduce local legislation to require retailers to charge consumers a
set fee for shopping bags and disposable eating utensils, cups, plates and
napkins.
1999 Introduce local legislation to promote sale within New York City of
more durable, repairable products, products with longer warrantees, and
products which promote energy or water conservation, or other avenues of
waste prevention.
1999 Introduce local legislation requiring that all retailers of motor oil
be required to display a sign informing consumers where to bring used oil
for recycling.
1999 Introduce local legislation, based on the 1998 study, instituting the
ADF concept, to reduce the packaging, toxicity, and disposibility of
products marketed in NYC.
1999 Introduce local legislation to require mail-order companies doing
business with residents, business, or institutions in New York City to
include means in their mailings for customers to remove themselves from
their own mailing lists as well as from their name rental lists.
2000 Introduce local legislation to institute Advance Disposal Fees on
products containing toxic constituents and on disposable, nonrepairable,
nonserviceable, and multi-material (non-recyclable) products.
2000 Introduce local legislation to provide economic incentives to
refurbishers, second-hand, rental, cleaning, and repair stores (e.g.,
repeal sales taxes for these businesses); require stores to provide
information on the quantity of waste prevented before/after the law is
instituted.
2000 Introduce local legislation to ban the sale of plastic bottles and
jugs which are not recyclable in NYC's curbside program (e.g. PVC).
2001 Introduce local legislation to provide economic incentive to
purchasers of durable equipment which is designed to promote the reduction
in purchase / use of disposable products (e.g., commercial diaper / laundry
service, double-sided copiers, printers)
2001 Introduce local legislation to require retailers allot a minimum
amount of shelf-space for products packaged in refillable or packaging
returnable for reuse.
2001 Introduce local legislation to require retailers allot a minimum
amount of shelf space for products packaged in bulk.
Directed at Households for the Purpose of Reducing Residential Waste
1999 Introduce local legislation to permit the city government to impose
quantity-based user fees for the collection of residential solid waste
citywide.
LOBBYING AND OTHER ACTIVITIES
Direct Mail
1997 Commence lobbying for restructuring of postal rates for reducing junk
mail. Continue until rates have been restructured. Report to the public
annually on lobbying efforts and results.
1997 Commence lobbying for legislation that requires the undelivered mail
be returnable to the mailer at the cost of the mailer. Continue until this
has been achieved. Report to the public annually on lobbying efforts and
results.
1999 Commence charging the US Postal Service for the City's costs in
collecting and disposing of undeliverable junk mail delivered to NYC.
Multiple Cities Coalition
1997 and annually: Complete a report detailing lobbying efforts and results
of such efforts with respect to the State and Federal legislatures, the US
Conference of Mayors' Source Reduction Task Force, and other bodies.
Include in this report information gathered from the Task Force and other
sources.
Waste Exchanges, Hotlines
1998 and beyond: Expand Materials for the Arts, both in size and scope.
Allow citizens to take goods that arts organizations and city offices don't
want. Establish warehouses in all boroughs. Allow all non-profit
organizations to take goods. Increase advertising to potential donors.
1998 Establish Materials for the Schools, based on MFA.
1999 Expand DOS' planned Reuse Hotline to the World Wide Web and to a
Fax-Back system. Increase advertising for this.
IMPLEMENTATION OF WASTE PREVENTION INITIATIVES
Long-range thorough proposals for waste prevention policies, legislation,
and programs have been developed by the Manhattan Solid Waste Advisory
Board as well as by the DOS itself as early as 1991. However, relatively
low public awareness about waste prevention exists, and (therefore)
pressure on public officials and agencies to implement these programs and
policies has been lacking. A "culture" of waste prevention needs to be
promoted and committed to before significant programmatic initiatives are
put into place. The City should develop a higher profile means of
communicating the waste prevention information using a variety of
approaches and targeted to the range of audiences which need to hear the
messages.
1998 and beyond: All contracts with the private sector to collect,
transport, process, recycle, compost, and/or dispose of solid waste or
solid waste-derived resources, should include waste prevention services
(e.g., education, research) as a deliverable.
1998 and beyond: All recycling and composting education outreach should be
paired with the appropriate waste prevention educational outreach and
materials (e.g., outreach on mixed paper recycling should also include a
direct mail association post card to reduce generation of junk mail).
{We need some more objectives (bullets) here -- e.g. get a commitment from
the Mayor to use his office for WP blitzing} -- "Mayor's Daily waste
prevention moment", contests to design these "moments".
{Also, waste prevention proposals need to be presented in a way to
highlight the economic benefit to the city} -- use of new terminology
(Precycling), or campaign themes (Put Your Garbage Can on a Diet), and
pitched by better spokesmen (Yankees, Bette Midler, etc...)
LONG-RANGE WASTE PREVENTION GOALS
In 1988 the state Solid Waste Management Act required municipalities to
institute plans to achieve 8-10% waste prevention by 1997. In its original
Solid Waste Management Plan DOS committed to achieving a goal of 9% by
1997, and related the waste prevention initiatives to this 9% prevention
rate. However, since then, DOS has not seriously followed up on any of the
major initiatives in its plan to achieve this goal, and has not attempted
to measure the prevention achieved by programs it has implemented. The
foregoing pages list a number of educational, research, programmatic, and
legislative measures that will assist DOS in achieving and going beyond its
modest 9% waste prevention goal.
1999 Using a baseline year of 1998, achieve 7% waste prevention in each
sector (residential, institutional, agency, and commercial) through
efforts undertaken by the City to prevent waste.
2002 Achieve 9% waste prevention in each sector through efforts undertaken
by the City.
2006 Achieve 15% waste prevention in each sector.
2010 Achieve 20% waste prevention in each sector.
__ __
//\\ //\\ _ ___ __ o __
// \\ // \\ // \\ // \\ // \\ ||| //__\\
// \\// \\ \\__|| \\___// \\__// ||| \\___
// //
\_// \_//
Marjorie J. Clarke Environmental Scientist and Consultant
Address: mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu
New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 18:45:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Greg Smith <gsmith@essential.org>
Subject: Tires traveling
I'm interested in hearing about non-polluting or less-polluting ways to
deal with tires.
Greg Smith
|| Internet: gsmith@essential.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:54:25 -0800
From: Bob Harsell <riverboy@injersey.com>
Subject: trail building with recycled products
Inga VanNynatten wrote:
>
> Greetings!
>
> I am looking for case studies of trails built with recycled products.
> If you know of any trails in your area, please contact me. Information
> on product cost, durability, appearance, and site suitability would also be
> most appreciated.
>
> Example products could include:
> glass cullet
> glassphalt
> recycled asphalt product (RAP)
> recrushed cement
> plastic lumber
> compacted flyash
> china or porcelain
> any other innovative re-use of resources to build trails and\or trails
> ammenities.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Inga VanNynatten
> Intern, NPS-Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program
> 512-339-9679
Dear Inga,
The greenway and trails movement has consequences resembling
those of urban sprawl. People continually "move further out" to escape
conditions they have helped to create but are loath to correct. Often,
simply because they are derelict and unnoticed, certain small areas that
remain, in otherwise suburbia or sprawl, are suddenly noticed by somebody
and consequently loved to death with trails.
Who suffers? The wildlife. Most wildlife does not want to buddy
up with humans. The greenway and trail movement is further intrusion on
what little space we have left for them.
The introduction of the recycled materials you mentioned into the
last refuge of urban wildlife is a step that should be considered from
the point of view of wildlife.
Bob Harsell, Director,
Arthur Kill Watershed Association
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 16:13:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Wade <dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: trail building with recycled products
Bob:
Clearly there are some wildlife habitats that are too sensitive to bear
much, if any, human use.
But are you also suggesting that using recycled materials is somehow more
damaging to wildlife than the use of traditional building materials?
-----------------------------
Dave Wade
Recycling Coordinator
University of California, Santa Cruz
email: dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 14:23:36 +0600
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: WI Recycling legislation
On Friday, March 14th, the Wisconsin Legislative Council Special
Committee on the Future of Recycling recommended a number of bills on
recycling. In summary form, these include:
Continued funding of grants to local communities, at a level of $29
million a year.
Waste reduction, reuse and market development grants at over $5
million a year.
A ban on the sale of products containing intentionally added elemental
mercury
A ban on the landfilling or burning without energy recovery of wood
pallets.
Manufacturers's and retailers' responsibility to take back:
- telephone books
- Ni-Cd batteries
- mercuric oxide batteries
- automobile tires
- fluorescent lights with toxic levels of substances
- hypodermic needles
- propane tanks
- smoke detectors
- specified pesticide containers
- products with cathode ray tubes
A study to be done for the legislature on the environmental and
economic implications of dry-tomb landfills
A study for the legislature of the competitiveness of the solid
waste industry and identification of possible anti-trust violations
A study for the legislature of the future direction for solid
waste management in Wisconsin, including ways to be more
cost effective
I thank all those list members who helped provide suggestions for this
legislation. The actual bills, as introduced, can be seen on the Web at
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lc/recycle/recy.html Future updates of
this Web site will include amendments and the actual votes on this
bills.
reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: 20 Mar 97 01:32:28 EST
From: Myra Nissen <76275.1032@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Working Assests is looking for nonprofits to support
As many of you probably know, Working Assests is a long distance phone company
that supports social action. Not only are statments printed on 100%
post-consumer paper and does not charge for calling WA DC to voice your
oppinion, they also fund nonprofits:
Every year Working Assests selects 36 exceptional nonprofit groups to receive
funding. If you know of an organization that is doing outstanding work, then we
want to hear about them.
Qualifications:
1. The organization must be in existance for at least one year.
2. The organization must be national or international in its work.
3. The organization must work in one of the following issue areas: Peace,
Environment, Civil Rights, Economic and Social Justice.
Only nominations from Working Assests customers will be considered. For a
nomination to be complete the following must be submitted: 1) a copy of the
organization's most recent annual report; 2) a copy of the organization's proof
of nonprofit status; and, 3) a copy of the organization's most recent financial
statement.
Submissions are due by May 31, 1997. Send to Donations Manager, Working
Assests, 701 Montgomery Street, 4th Fl, SF, CA 94111. If you have further
questions, call 415/732-2045.
I just thought I would pass the information along.
My
------------------------------
Date: (null)
From: (null)
Best regards!
P.S. Bolding added for emphasis below. GRN's New Release had a different
headline, with the subhead being the lead on PR Newswire. By the way, for
anyone who did not see the New York Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution or
wire service articles last week -- two vice presidents of Coca Cola in
Georgia were indicted last week by a federal grand jury on charges of bribery
in connection with attempting to block union organizing at one of their
bottling plants.
__________________________________________________________________________
Grassroots Recycling Network, Georgia Environmentalists Offer Proposal
As Alternative To Legislation or Consumer Boycott
ATLANTA, March 19 /PRNewswire/ -- The Grassroots Recycling Network
today
issued the following release:
Coca-Cola Chairman Roberto Goizueta received a public challenge
today to
take voluntary action to reduce packaging waste from used bottles and cans.
A
newly formed, national coalition of recycling advocates joined with Georgia
environmentalists and Georgia State Senator Donzella James in issuing the
public challenge on the steps of the Capitol.
"Coca-Cola is the most widely recognized brand name in the world
say the
company's representatives and the soft drink industry leader," Lance King,
national campaign coordinator for the Grassroots Recycling Network said in a
simultaneous announcement in Sacramento, California. "We are challenging
Coke
to take voluntary action immediately so that billions of the company's soft
drink containers that are wasted in landfills or incinerators each year will
be reused or recycled instead.
"Voluntary action by Coke to show leadership in accepting
responsibility
for the packaging waste would go a long way toward averting the possibility
of
disruptive legislative battles or consumer boycotts by organized citizen
groups concerned about the more than 50 billion containers wasted annually,"
King said.
Concerned citizens and community groups brought together by members
of the
Sierra Club, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and the California
Resource
Recovery Association established the Grassroots Recycling Network. A total
of
12 groups from 5 states signed the letter to Coca-Cola publicly released
today.
The following is a list of the groups who have signed the letter to
Coca-Cola Chairman/CEO, Roberto Goizueta:
-- California Resource Recovery Association (San Diego, Calif.)
-- Non-Profit Recycling Council (New York)
-- Institute for Local Self-Reliance (Washington)
-- Kirkworks (Durham, N.C.)
-- Sierra Club National Waste Committee (Athens, Ga.)
-- Action for a Clean Environment (Homer, Ga.)
-- Californians Against Waste (Sacramento, Calif.)
-- Georgia Sierra Club (Atlanta)
-- Glynn Environmental Coalition (Brunswick, Ga.)
-- Natural Resources Defense Council (Los Angeles)
-- Planning and Conservation League (Sacramento, Calif.)
-- Save Atlanta's Fragile Environment (Atlanta)
The Grassroots Recycling Network proposed that Coca-Cola take 4
voluntary
steps to reduce waste and boost container recycling:
(1) Begin using recycled PET plastic in the company's plastic
bottles, a
step promised by Coca-Cola on December 4, 1990 but never implemented.
Technology to use 100 percent recycled PET in plastic bottles
was
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for food contact in
1994. The technology is being used in the United Kingdom and Belgium
already and was used briefly in Florida until a state recycling law
expired.
(2) Disclose in labels on containers the percentage of
post-consumer
recycled material in each type of container -- aluminum, glass or
plastic. The public has a right to know whether bottles and cans
being recycled by consumers are being used to make new containers.
At
present, consumers are misled because Coca-Cola promised in 1990 to
use recycled PET plastic to make new plastic bottles but the company
is not using recycled plastic in bottles sold in the United Sates.
(3) Re-establish a nationwide system of refillable containers
during the
next 5 years. Coca-Cola uses refillable containers in some foreign
markets. By returning to a system of refillable containers in the
United States as well, the company would provide many more jobs in
communities where the products are purchased and used.
(4) Commit to reinstate deposits on all containers sold by
Coca-Cola in
the United States within 18 months -- like the system the company
operated before. Manufacturers producing a product and consumers
using it need to take responsibility for the costs of disposal in
landfills or incinerators and for the wasted resources. Deposits are
effective economic incentives with a proven track record over several
decades that will double the rate of container recycling, reduce
litter, create local jobs and supply a steady stream of materials for
new bottles and cans.
The Grassroots Recycling Network asked Coca-Cola to respond by
March 26,
1997, since the company is already familiar with the technical and business
issues involved in taking these steps.
"What we are putting on the table today is an alternative to
protracted
battles in the legislature. Coke needs to halt its long-standing opposition
to governmental action which the public wants and accept responsibility for
the environmental and disposal costs currently passed on to local government
and taxpayers," Bob Woodall, Georgia Conservation Chair, said in a news
conference on the capitol steps in Atlanta.
CO: Grassroots Recycling Network
ST: Georgia
IN: ENV
SU:
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #60
******************************
$*$*$*$*$ 4 LINES REFORMATTED BY POPPER AT igc.apc.org $*$*$*$*$