GreenYes Digest V97 #53

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:58:59 -0500


GreenYes Digest Thu, 13 Mar 97 Volume 97 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:
Apologies
Bill S. 207
EPA dioxin reassessment -Reply
Extrended Producer Responisbility
Landfill reading
Request for Examples of Industry Retreat from Recycling
tipping fees at private mrfs (2 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: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 05:43:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: Apologies

I wish to apologize for the multiple postings of the same message - I keep
getting error messages from my mail server saying the messages I were
sending were undeliverable. Well, I guess they were deliverable. Oh well......

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 05:26:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: Bill S. 207

The Library of Congress has a legislative service called Thomas which can be
an invaluable resource for both obtaining information about S.207 and for
tracking its progress through the current Congress. Thomas can be accessed
at the following address : http://thomas.loc.gov/. When you get to the
home page, one way you can get the full bill text is to look under BILLS and
select Bill Text for the 105th Congress (1996-1997). You will then be taken
to a search form where you enter S.207 to get the full bill text which you
can also download. From this same page you can also follow links to
references made to the bill in the Congressional Record as well as its
status in the Congress.

===========================================================================

At 12:44 PM 3/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I am worried that this legislation will not address the most important
>subsidies affecting virgin materials and recycling -- tax deductions in the
>form of depletion allowances and tax-based energy subsidies. It is my
>understanding that the bill is aimed at subsidies in the form of direct
>government funding because the conservative members of the coalition to
>eliminatye corporate welfare are ideologically uncomfortable with changes
>that would in any form increase taxation. However, I do **not** know this
>for certain. Is anyone conversant with the details of the proposed
>legislation?
>
>At 11:11 AM 3/11/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>This is new legislation to reform or eliminate "corporate welfare". I
>>recently read about this Bill in the March 3, 1997 issue of Waste Age's
>>Recycling Times. Check it out. Some say the Bill could level the playing
>>field for the recycling industry.
>>
>>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Program on Solid Waste Policy
>School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
>Yale University
>205 Prospect Street
>New Haven,CT 06511-2106
>USA
>203-432-3253 (telephone)
>203-432-5912 (fax)
>pswp@yale.edu
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 14:04:31 -0500
From: LAWRENCE MARTIN <MARTIN.LAWRENCE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV>
Subject: EPA dioxin reassessment -Reply

EPA has been continuing its study of dioxin, revising the dioxin study
and submitting chapters for EPA Science Advisory Board review. The
stickist chapter, on dose-response is on its way to SAB review now.
When that has been worked over the chapter on risk communication is
scheduled. I believe that will finish the peer review, but it is
possible it may go through another cycle depending on SAB
recommendations. In any event, it is unlikely the report will be
released before fall .
-Lawrence Martin
ORD Office of Science Policy
Region, State & Local Staff
202.260.0673

>>> <s_hammer@ix.netcom.com> - 3/11/97 10:24 PM >>>
(My apologies for any cross-postings.)

In 1994, the U.S. EPA released a draft assessment investigating
exposure to
dioxin-like compounds. The assessment came under fire from a number
of
industries which claimed that the analysis overstated the risk and/or
their
role in dioxin generation.

Does anyone have any ideas of what's happened since then? Is EPA
planning
to release a final report in the near future?

Thanks.

Steve Hammer
Hammer Environmental Consulting
5294 Sycamore Ave.
Bronx, NY 10471
(718) 548-5285
s_hammer@ix.netcom.com

Steve Hammer
Hammer Environmental Consulting
5294 Sycamore Ave.
Bronx, NY 10471
tel: (718) 548-5285
fax: (718) 548-5257
s_hammer@ix.netcom.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 08:50:10 -0500 (EST)
From: michele@raymond.com (Michele Raymond)
Subject: Extrended Producer Responisbility

Dear members:
A reporter from BNA Daily Env Report asked some very direct questions after
a recent speech I gave on take-backs in the European Union. She kind of
drew some sweeping conclusions from my comments and now will run a
clarification of her story today, she says.

She asked "does EPR (producer responsibility approach) WORK?"

I said I believe it kind of works for traditional materials -- it MAY
alleviate the need for the MANY little laws we have in the U.S. on
purchasing preferences, content mandates, etc. However, it has not worked
too well for plastics. That is partly because of several factors:

1. In europe they expect ALL plastics to be collected from consumers and
somehow magically recycled -- not time is given to phase in different resins
as markets develop.
2. Current economics dictates use of virgin resins -- there is no direct
incentive to use the material in this widepread industry that includes many
little processors
3. Barriers in food contact
4. power of resin producers who want ot continue market share in virgin, and
who are pushing energy recovery, and feedstock "recycling"

The BNA story implied I said that EPR "stabilizes" recycling markets. I did
not say that. I merely said that there are several advantages to EPR in
general.

A. It gets cities out of the "marketing" business and turns it over to the
private sector -- if they bungle it is their cost.

B. Commodity prices still fluctuate!! But what EPR seems to do in SOME
cases is that when PRICES collapse, the local dealers and recyclers do NOT
go out of business. Because industry MUST ensure a market.

I am not endorsing the concept, but trying to provide some analysis which is
not from an environmental group or industry -- and this seems to be lacking
in the public sector.

Europeans and Asians are committed to the concept, and it is spreading to
Canada.

I hope this little bit is of some help to those of you in policy.

Michele Raymond
Publisher
State Recycling Laws Update
Recycling Laws International
Riverdale MD
michele@raymond.com
http://www.raymond.com/recycle
301/345-4237

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 14:48:17 -0800 (PST)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <david@kirkworks.com>
Subject: Landfill reading

For those wanting some reading and research materials on landfills, checkout
the website http://members.aol.com/gfredlee/plandfil.htm produced by Dr. G.
Fred Lee, PE, DEE of G. Fred Lee & Associates, gfredlee@aol.com. A
sampling of titles whose full text is available online is as follows:

Recent Publications on Landfills - Solid and Hazardous Waste and Groundwater
Quality Protection

Lee, G. F. and Jones-Lee, A., "Dry Tomb Landfills," MSW Management, 6:82-89
(1996).
Lee, G. F. and Jones-Lee, A., "Three R's Managed Garbage Protects
Groundwater Quality," Accepted for publication MSW Management (1996).
Lee, G. F. and Jones, R. A., "Municipal Solid Waste Management in Lined,
`Dry Tomb' Landfills: A Technologically Flawed Approach for Protection of
Groundwater Quality," Report of G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA,
68pp. March (1992).
Lee, G. F. and Jones-Lee, A., "Impact of Municipal and Industrial
Non-Hazardous Waste Landfills on Public Health and the Environment: An
Overview," Report to State of California Environmental Protection Agency
Comparative Risk Project, Berkeley, CA, 45pp, May (1994).
Lee, G. F. and Jones-Lee, A., "Subtitle D Municipal Landfills vs Classical
Sanitary Landfills: Are Subtitle D Landfills a Real Improvement?," Report of
G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, Ca, July 1996.

PERMITTING OF LANDFILLS
Lee, G. F. and Jones-Lee, A., "Practical Environmental Ethics: Is There an
Obligation to Tell the Whole Truth?," Published in condensed form
"Environmental Ethics: The Whole Truth" Civil Engineering, Forum, 65:6 (1995).
Lee, G. F. and Jones-Lee, A., "Recommended Design, Operation, Closure and
Post-Closure Approaches for Municipal
Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Landfills," Report of G. Fred Lee &
Associates, El Macero, CA, 14pp, August (1995).
Lee, G. F. and Jones-Lee, A., "Cost of Groundwater Quality Protection in MSW
Landfilling" Report of G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, (1996).
Lee, G. F. and Jones, R.A., "Review of Proposed Landfills: Questions That
Should be Answered," Report of G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA (1991).

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 19:44:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "William P. McGowan" <6500kai@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>
Subject: Request for Examples of Industry Retreat from Recycling

Sorry to be a contrarian, but here's what Kimberly Clarke is doing, not
only with their company but with Scott, which they recently acquired.

Vision 2000 is K-C's goal to reduce to zero the emissions their
manufacturing facilities send to disposal, either through recycling or
other means. At this point, they have, according to their own numbers,
achieved about 80% of this goal in their domestic plants; gloabally, they
are bit further behind, but this is evidence that big business is
actually stepping to the plate.

I know this because my firm is one of many that 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

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 19:34:26 -0800 (PST)
From: "William P. McGowan" <6500kai@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>
Subject: tipping fees at private mrfs

Blair--

As dsomeone who has made a living in recycling's priivate sector, I would
make the following suggestion:

A perfect MRF is a concrete building with a lot of power available. All
equipment shhould be bought used--there is a lot on the market from all
of those operators who thought that $200 a ton corrugated, and $100a ton
mixed paper, would last forever.

Do not let anyone convince you that the MRF will cover its costs if it
costs over $1 million to build. Sure, consultants will sell you the most
expensive thing they can get you to buy off on, but will they guarantee
to run it at a profit for the first three years. If their answer is "no"
then you arre dealing with the wrong group. My advice is to use your
local recycler--they have equipment that is mostly paid for, and they are
much higher on the learning curve than anyone else. And in today's
market, that is invaluable.

Bill McGowan
Rincon Recycling
UCSB

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 05:29:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: tipping fees at private mrfs

>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 03:51:01
>To: "William P. McGowan" <6500kai@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>
>From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@mail.concentric.net>
>Subject: Re: tipping fees at private mrfs
>
>I would like to reply to Bill McGowan's comment that no MRF that cost's
over $1 million to build will be unprofitable. I believe: 1) there is no
convenient rule of thumb with respect to MRF capital costs for predicting
profitability and 2)focusing on just the capital costs misses the point of
what determines MRF profitability. The most successful MRF operators (this
meaning they cover their costs and achieve a respectable ROI) are those that
have an acute sense of marginal costs with respect to each material they
handle under different market conditions and at different tonnage levels.
Costs such as the capital investment needed to realize a particular cash
flow affect marginal costs but a variety of other controllable and
non-controllable costs affect marginal costs as well, in particular labor,
the quality of the incoming material streams and the processing strategies
needed to be the lowest cost producer with regard to the customer's
specifications. Each project will be different. In some cases this will
mean that an existing recycling operation may be the best choice for a MRF
(particular for small quantities - under 50TPD) and in other cases a new
facility (using a retrofited building or even a new shell) may make more
sense. Anyone who put more money into a facility than was justified by the
project simply did not look at the marginal cost issues closely enough for
all reasonable scenarios. This is the kind of analysis that spreadsheets
were invented for (with the final analsysis being tempered by operating
experience and good ole gut feelings about the future). A mechanical rule
of thumb is not an adequate substitute.
>
>R.M. Guttentag
>
>
>At 07:34 PM 3/12/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>Blair--
>>
>>As dsomeone who has made a living in recycling's priivate sector, I would
>>make the following suggestion:
>>
>>A perfect MRF is a concrete building with a lot of power available. All
>>equipment shhould be bought used--there is a lot on the market from all
>>of those operators who thought that $200 a ton corrugated, and $100a ton
>>mixed paper, would last forever.
>>
>>Do not let anyone convince you that the MRF will cover its costs if it
>>costs over $1 million to build. Sure, consultants will sell you the most
>>expensive thing they can get you to buy off on, but will they guarantee
>>to run it at a profit for the first three years. If their answer is "no"
>>then you arre dealing with the wrong group. My advice is to use your
>>local recycler--they have equipment that is mostly paid for, and they are
>>much higher on the learning curve than anyone else. And in today's
>>market, that is invaluable.
>>
>>Bill McGowan
>>Rincon Recycling
>>UCSB
>>
>>
>>
>

------------------------------

End of GreenYes Digest V97 #53
******************************