GreenYes Digest V97 #48

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:59:38 -0500

GreenYes Digest Sat, 8 Mar 97 Volume 97 : Issue 48

Today's Topics:
GreenYes Digest V97 #47
landfill bans (2 msgs)
Multi-family Unit Pricing
Stop Chemgold - need more help - write letters (fwd)

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, 07 Mar 1997 18:28:17 -0500
From: "Blair Pollock" <>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #47

At 04:30 AM 3/7/97 PST, you wrote:
>GreenYes Digest Fri, 7 Mar 97 Volume 97 : Issue 47
>Today's Topics:
> 2x/week trash collection
> Caribbean Recycling Conference, Training and Exposition
> Mandatory Recycling Summary (2 msgs)
> Please post
> Unit Pricing in Austin
>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
>The City of Greensboro NC made a transition several years ago from2x per
week res. MSW collection in automated trucks to 1x MSW and 1x commingled
recycling and all they did was buy/lease new round barrels that could be
serviced by their automated trucks. They contracted with FCR to build and
operate a MRF to handle the commingled recyclables. Contact: Elizabeth
Treadway (910-373-2867)
>Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 07:21:14 -0800 (PST)
>From: (Brenda Platt)
>Subject: 2x/week trash collection
>The DC Dept. of Public Works recently cancelled its curbside recycling
>program. I am working, along with others, to bring it back. Currently,
>the City offers twice-a-week trash collection to 30% of the homes it
>serves. My preliminary data indicates that the City could save more than
>$2 million a year by eliminating this second day. This one step alone
>could provide most of the funding for the recycling program it cancelled,
>which cost the City $2.5 million a year. I have some data on communities
>that have either started or expanded their recycling and composting
>programs without increasing their solid waste management budgets by
>eliminating the second trash collection day. Can anyone help me identify
>other communities who have done this or sources of data on this? Much
>Brenda A. Platt
>Institute for Local Self-Reliance
>2425 18th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009
>(202) 232-4108 fax (202) 332-4108
>ILSR web page
>Date: 06 Mar 97 07:36:00 (-0500)
>Subject: Caribbean Recycling Conference, Training and Exposition
> Air fare to Trinidad:
> 1) Out of Miami $351.00 round trip, taxes included.
> 2) Out of New York $396.95 round trip, taxes included.
> Contact: 718 282 9299 ask for Basyl Barrow or Wilfred Thomas AND
> mention my name, Horace Morancie. Or call me at 212 264 6801 or 718
> 495 4977 (home).
>______________________________ Reply Separator
>Subject: Caribbean Recycling Conference, Training and Exposition
>Author: at internet
>Date: 3/4/97 9:27 AM
>We are pleased to Offer ReCaribe '97. This annual conference and
exposition wil
>l be held
>May 4-8, 1997 at the Trinidad Hilton and Conference Centre, in Port of
Spain Tri
>ReCaribe '97 builds upon the success of the 1994 Island Waste Management
>nce, held in
>Nassau, The Bahamas in January, 1994, and the 1995 Caribbean Waste
Management Co
>nference, held
>in San Juan, Puerto Rico in November 1995.
>This year's conference focuses on waste reduction and recycling
opportunities, w
>ith emphasis
>on businesses, offices, hotels and resorts.
>1) To examine the present and future business opportunities in waste
>and recycling
>in the Caribbean;
>2) To discuss innovative solutions to solid waste issues as they pertain
to Car
>3) To facilitate a review of the problems and weaknesses in the
development of
>national waste
>reduction and recycling programs; and,
>4) To provide opportunities for the exchange of information and ideas
among gov
>ernment and
>commercial waste management professionals and experts from the Caribbean
and els
>The four-day conference includes plenary sessions, workgroup sessions,
> training
>sessions, technical tours, a 2-day exhibition hall, and the Annual General
>ng of ReCaribe.
>In addition to sessions, there are opportunities to network during planned
>receptions, lunches, and breaks. There are optional events prior and post
>rence including
>eco-tours and golf excursions.
>The solid waste management situation in the Caribbean has been undertaken
in the
> past by
>individual countries with assistance from the Pan American Health
Organization a
>nd other
>international agencies. Despite these national efforts there has been
limited p
>Regional efforts have mainly been administered through organizations such
as the
> Caribbean
>Environmental Health Institute in St. Lucia. During the past decade,
several at
>tempts to
>develop an association of solid waste professionals in the Caribbean were
>essful. A
>growing interest in both the public and private sectors on waste reduction
and r
>ecycling has
>resulted in recent action, the formation of ReCaribe.
>Re (for recycling) and Caribe (for the wider Caribbean) is the acronym for
the W
>ider Caribbean
>Waste Reduction and Recycling Alliance. ReCaribe was established by
>at Clean Islands
>International's 1995 Caribbean Waste Management Conference in Puerto Rico
>( in which professionals from the Caribbean and
North Ame
>participated. ReCaribe is an alliance of individuals, organizations,
>tives of
>industry and governments dedicated to improving waste management practices
>gh education and
>the use and adaption of appropriate technology and methodology in the Wider
>bbean region.
>At this year's conference, we are expecting over 200 delegates and 30
> from the wider
>Caribbean region, United States, Canada, and Europe.
>Conference participants will include public and private sector waste
>and recycling
>professionals, environmentalists, and representatives from relevant
regional and
> international
>non-profits and non-governmental organizations, as well as representatives
of ma
>suppliers, and service contractors of recycling equipment and services.
>Caribbean participants will include representatives of solid waste
management pr
>environmental health agencies, and other government agencies; commercial
> contractors and
>equipment suppliers; and representatives of non-governmental organizations
and n
>North Americans will include representatives of companies involved in
>ing, supply
>and/or service of solid waste management activities, as well as
>of international
>Resource persons will include regional and international solid waste,
> and
>environmental management experts and consultants.
>Of interest are presentations of reports related to all aspects of waste
>ion and
>recycling as related to island communities, particularly reports on
projects whi
>ch are or would
>be successful in smaller communities of the wider Caribbean.
>Presentations will be selected for their relevance to the conference's
focus (th
>e advancement of
>waste management techniques.)
>Prospective speakers are invited to fax a brief abstract and brief bio to
>7-4554. Please
>no more than two pages. Authors will be notified of their status and
>For more information, contact Randy Brown at Clean Islands International at
>) 647-2500.
>The official language of the conference will be English.
>In the United States, contact:
>Randy Brown
>Executive Director
>Clean Islands International
>and Administrator for ReCaribe
>(410) 647-2500
>In Trinidad contact:
>Ronald A. Williams
>Caribbean Coordinator
>(809) 629-2572
>Edison Garraway
>Chief Executive Officer (Ag)
>Trinidad and Tobago Solid Waste Management Company Ltd.
>(809) 625-6678
>In Canada contact:
>David Baird
>Clean Islands International
>New Brunswick, Canada
>Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 07:18:15 -0800 (PST)
>From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <>
>Subject: Mandatory Recycling Summary
>Durham City Council Public Hearing Testimony
>Banning Recyclables from a New Landfill or Transfer Station
>The First(?) Internet-Based Testimony for a Durham Hearing From Around the=
>David -- as you know, your next door neighbors instituted a ban on
commercial OCC at landfill effective Mar 96 after a four month education
period. MSW declined 5% from 61,100tpy to 57,900 tpy despite a 4% pop.
increase in the county in 1995-96. We don't think much went out of county
since most is hauled by local govts and UNC. The ban was correlated with a
collection ban ordinance by local governments including tagging of
containers, notification of generators and non-collection from offending
customers followed by civil fines. In the past month or two OCC has
reappeared in landfill loads in greater quantities and fines are being
levied regularly at the landfill. The Townof Chapel Hill has hired a solid
waste enforcement officer to deal with commercial scofflaws. There is some
reported drive by dumping of OCC esp. in apartment dumpsters. Overall solid
waste continues to decline in Orange Co. despite pop. growth.
>Submitted by David Kirkpatrick, Durham City-County Environmental Affairs=
> Board
>Monday, March 3, 1997
>Message posted to an internet email list for recycling practitioners:
>"Durham, NC is considering enacting a ban on recyclables from its new
>landfill or transfer station. Curbside recycling is now provided weekly for
>News, Glass, Aluminum Cans and Foil, Steel Cans, PET bottles, HDPE bottles,
>OCC, Aseptic packages, and Magazines. More than a dozen drop-off centers
>are provided for the same commodities. Commercial collections of Glass and
>OCC are provided by the city, with other commodities collected by private
>recyclers. The city has a population of 155,000 and the entire county of
>200,000. =20
>"The logic for the ban is that the entire community should share the
>responsibility for reducing waste if one neighborhood has to shoulder the
>burden of a new landfill. The ban could be implemented by a three month
>education campaign, followed by warning tickets on refuse containers
>containing targeted recyclables, followed by non-collection of containers
>with targeted recyclables, followed by actual tickets and fines.=20
>"My questions for list members are: What percentage increases in tonnages
>and participation rates have your communities seen when instituting
>mandatory recycling? Have there been any articles or studies of the impact
>of instituting mandatory recycling/landfill bans? What feedback do you have
>on best ways to educate/ encourage/ enforce?
>"Thanks in advance for any feedback,=20
>David Kirkpatrick"
>Summaries of responses:
>"We conducted a voluntary pilot program in Madison that had participation
>rates in the 70-75% range depending on the neighborhood. When our program
>went mandatory it went up to 92% and is currently at 97%.
>"I think the landfill ban is a good way to go. It is what we use here and
>it seems to work.
>"Enforcement is a tough one. In Madison we have yet to issue a ticket. In
>fact it is not really clear who would issue them. I'd suggest that one
>place you will need enforcement is at the landfill/transfer station. =20
>"It is a fine line between wise enforcement at turning people off. We have
>chosen to walk away from the issues as diversion and participation remain
>high. We continue to educate=85"
>George Drechmann, Recycling Coordinator, Madison, Wisconsin =09
> =09
>"When the mandatory separation requirement went into effect in San Diego the
>participation jumped from 30 - 40% to 80 -90 %=85
>"They used a coordinated approach with logo, colors and slogan and various
>media releases, press conferences wards, events=85 =20
>"Our reaction in a urban southern California coastal population was across
>the board ( single family, multi family, commercial and industrial
>generators) would separate if it was convenient e.g., at the regular trash
>area; and made sense=85"=20
>Richard Anthony, California Resource Recovery Association Board member
>"The stakeholders (in Halifax, Nova Scotia) set out an ambitious goal of
>75-88% diversion based on aggressive recycling, comprehensive backyard
>composting and source separated central composting and C&D diversion. =85
>"A wide range of recyclables have been banned from landfill and during the
>next year all organics will be banned. =85 The minimum diversion is 50% and=
> I
>believe we will exceed that=85=20
>"So, with all of this attention on alternatives, the Halifax region has
>moved from a 4% (recyclables) diversion range four years ago to 25% today =
>and that does not yet include organics diversion which will come over the
>next 9 months.
>"Our conclusion therefore is that bans work. They are driving the strategy
>at this stage. Considering we narrowly avoided an incineration solution
>(effectively accounting for one third of the province), we have made a major
>change of attitude and opinion."
>Peter J. Kidd, Learning Materials Consulting Services, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
>"In my past research documenting record-setting programs, I found that the
>majority of communities with 40% or higher recycling levels had mandatory
>programs. See ILSR's "Beyond 40 Percent: Record-Setting Recycling and
>Composting Programs" and EPA's "Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting
>Options: Lessons Learned from 30 U.S. Communities" (produced by ILSR).
>Other factors, of course, are important in spurring high participation and
>recycling levels: providing convenient collection service (such as curbside
>and drop-off, providing bins), targeting a wide range of materials for
>collection, establishing economic incentives (such as volume-based trash
>fees), and undertaking comprehensive educational and promotional=
> activities."
>Brenda Platt, Institute for Local Self-Reliance
>"New York City on educate/encourage/enforce (mandatory recycling through):
>Radio, television and newspaper public service announcements. Community
>newsletters, letters to community groups. House to house, door to door
>delivery of flyers. Telephone numbers for local contacts and inquires.
>Violation warnings. Fines."
>Horace Morancie, General Services Administration, New York
>"In 1991 Dane County, Wisconsin banned recyclables from the landfill it
>operated. We did before and after waste sorts and estimated a 22% diversion
>rate. The study was published in the 4/93 issue of Resource Recycling."
>Peter Anderson, RecycleWorlds Consulting
>Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 14:58:27 -0800
>From: John McCabe <>
>Subject: Mandatory Recycling Summary
>Apparently there was a glitch with the posting I previously attempted.
>Here's one more:
>The state of Rhode Island instituted mandatory recycling (for businesses and
>residents) in 1988. In 1992, I coordinated a study of the commerical
>sector, and calculated that mandatory recycling had increased diversion by a
>minimum of 23%.
>See the March 1993 issue of Resource Recycling for more information.
>John McCabe, Recycling Specialist
>City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Environmental Services Division
>(510) 238-SAVE (general line),
>This is my "official" City of Oakland account.
>Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 14:07:31 +0000
>From: <> (Susan Appel - Nuts n Bolts Recycling)
>Subject: Please post
>March 1997
>Dear Recycling Colleague:
>Nuts 'n' Bolts is looking for a general manager. We need a new level of
>experience and skill to evolve our recycling business. For me, a general
>manager will mean that I can reduce the number of hours spent running
>the business and re-discover life beyond recycling (is there such a
>life?) For the new general manager, it will mean an exciting long-term
>opportunity to be part of a growing, dynamic small business. We have 20+
>years in the business and intend to be around at least 20 more.
>Please pass on a copy of this job announcement to any potential
>candidates. This job offers a unique opportunity to that hands-on
>manager with experience in both the physical (operations) side of
>recycling as well as the personnel, policy and growth management side.
>This is not the job for someone who wants to keep her/his hands clean.
>Please note that letters of interest and resumes are due by March 17,
>Thank you in advance for your assistance. Please call me with any
>Susan Appel
>Nuts 'n' Bolts Recycling
>2533 Westlake Ave N
>Seattle, WA 98109-2235
>Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 01:10:06 -0500
>From: "Marjorie J. Clarke" <>
>Subject: Unit Pricing in Austin
>I'm glad to hear that Austin's unit pricing pilot program, which I read
>about a few years ago and was quite well documented, is now going citywide.
> Though I don't know which volumes will be most popular, some data
>indicates that the trend will go down after a while in any event. (AFter
>all, that is the purpose of unit pricing schemes).
>What I would be very interested to know is what Austin's (or any other of
>the 2800 U.S. communities which charge by the can, bag, etc..) experience
>is with multi-family dwellings. I have been asking this question for over
>5 years because it is the single impediment to considering unit pricing for
>New York City. In these 2800 cities and towns there must be at least a few
>that administer quantity-based user fees in apartment buildings. How are
>the tenants charged? How do you enforce the program in a building where
>everyone brings the waste to the basement or throws it down a chute? Any
>answers would be greatly appreciated.
> __ __
> //\\ //\\ _ ___ __ o __
> // \\ // \\ // \\ // \\ // \\ ||| //__\\
> // \\// \\ \\__|| \\___// \\__// ||| \\___
> // //
> \_// \_//
> Marjorie J. Clarke Environmental Scientist and Consultant
> Address:
> New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272
>End of GreenYes Digest V97 #47


Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 09:02:17 -0800
From: John McCabe <>
Subject: landfill bans

Envirolink and GreenYes-ers,

I'm interested in the potential for California having a landfill ban on
source separated yard trimmings and untreated dimensional lumber.

If your state has a ban (say for yard trimmings), I'd appreiciate it if I
could get my hand on the text of the ban. E-mail (posting to this list or
to me directly) is ideal, and reference to a web site is also welcomed. You
can also mail me the text: John McCabe, City of Oakland PWA/ESD, 1333
Broadway, Suite 330-A, Oakland, CA 94612.

Thank you *very much* in advance.
John McCabe, Recycling Specialist
City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Environmental Services Division
(510) 238-SAVE (general line),

This is my "official" City of Oakland account.


Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 12:22:30, -0500
Subject: landfill bans

John and GreenYes list:

I am a little concerned about the latest discussions on landfill bans.
If there is a matching demand-side market strategy for the targeted
materials (or strong markets exist) then go for it! If not, then I
feel that landfill bans are an oversimplified, superficial respone
to a symptom, but do not get at the root of the problem. The result
is a non-sustainable mechanism (i.e., isolated supply-side mandate)
that will bring more bad press to recycling down the road. I know
that there has been some backlash in both Florida and Wisconsin along
these lines (maybe the Wisconsin folks on this list can give us some
more information).

Regarding John's interest surrounding potential bans on source
separated yard trimmings in California: Would this ban still allow
for green waste to be used as alternative daily cover (or would you
be looking to change the present law)? If green waste is not allowed
to be used as ADC under the ban, can we find markets for the flood of
material? Although I was not overjoyed when the ADC allowance came
about, one must consider that this outlet has allowed communities to
build up a source separated collection infrastrucutre for green waste.
California is making advances in in the area of standards and
process development related to application of processed, recovered
urban green waste to various crop lands. When markets develop, there
will hopefully be enough economic incentive to move the already
collected green materials away from ADC and to higher value

And as for a ban on untreated dimensional lumber in California....
this may make more sense than an all out ban on lumber, because
California does not come close to the type of markets that exist in
Washington and Oregon.

Dave Reynolds
From: John McCabe <>
Subject: landfill bans

Envirolink and GreenYes-ers,

I'm interested in the potential for California having a landfill ban
source separated yard trimmings and untreated dimensional lumber.

If your state has a ban (say for yard trimmings), I'd appreiciate it
if I
could get my hand on the text of the ban. E-mail (posting to this
list or
to me directly) is ideal, and reference to a web site is also
welcomed. You
can also mail me the text: John McCabe, City of Oakland PWA/ESD,
Broadway, Suite 330-A, Oakland, CA 94612.

Thank you *very much* in advance.
John McCabe, Recycling Specialist
City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Environmental Services Division
(510) 238-SAVE (general line),

This is my "official" City of Oakland account.


Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 12:45:14, -0500
Subject: Multi-family Unit Pricing


My experience with unit pricing in general is that the most
successful programs are built on careful pre-planning, community
involvement, and education. Without this, the most effective
structure may not be developed, and there will also be the risk of
misinterpretation, where the rate payers may feel that the "scheme"
is more about gouging than equity.

In looking at unit pricing and multi-family logisitics, you
identified the addtional challenges. Special bags or tags could be
sold to the residents, but if the disposal area is not secure, how is
this enforced? To make sure the chutes or dumpster areas are
available only to the variable rate payers, a magentic card reader or
other automated system could be used, but this can be costly.

I guess the bottom line is that you need to come up with what is most
effective for NYC, and your efforts in seeking information along
those lines are appreciated. Jan Canterbury of EPA's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response has performed a great deal of research
on unit pricing. She prepared the EPA report "Pay-As-You-Throw:
Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing," and it is a valuable reference
document (report #EPA530-R-94-004). I have not talked with Jan for
quite awhile, but the number I have on file is: (703) 308-7264.

Good luck.

Dave Reynolds


Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 10:05:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Wade <>
Subject: Stop Chemgold - need more help - write letters (fwd)

The following message is information regarding proposed open pit mining
near the Colorado River on the California/Arizona border. The mine would
have potential impacts on scenic and recreational values of the area, as
well as impacting water quality and wildlife habitat.

Dave Wade


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:02:44 -0700
From: Carolyn Chase <>
Subject: Stop Chemgold - need more help - write letters

Thanks to the many of you who have already written against the proposed
open pit, cyanide heap-leach gold mine in eastern Imperial County, Southern
California. Please stop and think if there are other people, places or
lists that you can forward this to and zap it along!

BLM-El Centro last week has extended the comment period - again- on the
Imperial Project until MARCH 24. We really need to get in a many more
as possible.

Note from Daniel Patterson <>:
"I suspect that BLM may be considering denying Chemgold's
proposal and they are seeking as many comments against the project as they can
get to back up a rejection. Maybe, maybe not, but I used to work for BLM and
I think that's what may be happening here. We need nationwide comments to
stop this one. "

Write to: Bureau of Land Management, 1661 South Fourth St., El Centro CA
92243. ATTN: Keith Schone Fax (619) 337-4490


Chemgold's Imperial Project is a proposed open pit, cyanide heap-leach gold
mine on Indian Pass Road in eastern Imperial County, 1 mile from Picacho Peak
Wilderness, 3/4 mile from Indian Pass archeological site, 2 miles from Indian
Pass Wilderness, and 2 miles from critical habitat for the desert tortoise,
an endangered species.

This mine would disrupt alluvial plains and wide braided washes which support
large desert trees and shrubs, important sources of forage and shelter for a
variety of wildlife. "Mitigation" proposed would be planting seeds and
seedlings,.to substitute for huge, ancient, slow-growing trees, to compensate
for the destruction of 100 acres of mature micropyll woodlands, an endangered

Pits, waste piles, and leach heaps would destroy 49 archeological sites, and
"disturb" 1356 acres of 1598 acres of BLM public lands. It would also
disturb 57 more acres for power and pipe lines for wells to the mine site.
Four water wells would be drilled, to provide 100 gallons/ minute. One well
has already been drilled illegally.

The biggest of the 3 pits would not be backfilled. Too expensive, says
Chemgold. The mine would leach up to 150 tons of ore and leave waste rock
piles of 450 tons, with 24 hour operation, 7 days per week, for 20 years.
Pits would be 400, 760, and 800 feet deep, one 270 feet below the water
table. Several drainages would be diverted around the mine.

This project is one of the many horror stories of the 1872 Mining Law.
Chemgold will pay no taxes, and will leave taxpayers the cost of cleanup
after mining ends, or when this subsidiary goes broke and/or abandons
operations. Chemgold is a wholly owned subsidiary of a wholly owned
subsidary of a Canadian Company called Glamis Gold, Ltd. Yet it can leave
deep pits and 400 foot waste piles fenced with chain link and barbed wire --
and this is public land!

We need all of you to write, to give BLM the courage to just say no. I know
most of you have not been there. This is not your back yard. But that is
part of the problem: There are very few environmentalists in Imperial County,
but there are very many exploiters. A lonely, overworked environmentalist,
Edie Harmon, asks that you write, to give strength to the good guys on the
ground in BLM. We can't wait for the repeal of the 1872 Mining Law, though
such effort is underway. Hooray!. (Please write the President, your Senators,
and your Representative, asking for its repeal.)

Right now, sit down and write BLM, saying you support the No Action
Alternative, that you object to their choosing a new open pit mine as the
"Preferred Alternative," even before getting public input for such a massive
project on public lands.

Write to: Bureau of Land Management, 1661 South Fourth St., El Centro CA
92243. ATTN: Keith Schone Fax (619) 337-4490 Thanks!


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #48