GreenYes Digest V97 #104

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:13:08 -0500

GreenYes Digest Sat, 10 May 97 Volume 97 : Issue 104

Today's Topics:
Funding Recycling
glass: need data on heavy metals content
Heirloom Citrus
Product Stewardship Act
Some 80,000 industrial chemicals used today are not regulated, not required
to be tested, but may be in sewage sludge, renamed as biosolids.,
Valuing resources
Why is recycling under attack? Possibly due to the recycling of hazardous
sewage sludge renamed as biosolids to be spread of farmlands, gardens

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, 9 May 1997 17:11:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Funding Recycling

On the Upper Eastern Shore of Maryland, the tipping fee at the one landfill
that four counties share is $50/t which is scheduled to rise with each
additional cell. There is a $2.50/t recycling surcharge included in the
tipping fee, which was considered very good by the counties when the markets
were better. Now with markets lower the counties are having some budget
problems. Of course this shortfall is also the result of a recycling system
that is working by taking away trash from the landfill resulting in less
tonnage for surcharges.......

Surcharges seem to be ok, but only to a point, for as recycling improves and
grows, it will need more funds from a diminshing source.


<<Among other things, we may advocate for a statewide surcharge on landfill
tipping fees. The funds would be redistributed to support resource recovery
projects, initiatives, and research. Information on ways other states fund
recycling initiatives would be helpful to our cause. I am interesting in
hearing the actual $ amounts of disposal surcharges, taxes, and other
innovative ways to fund recycling.

Thanks a lot!

Kerrin O'Brien
Executive Director
Michigan Recycling Coalition
(517) 371-7073>>


Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 10:50:23 -0600
From: (Tony Tweedale)
Subject: glass: need data on heavy metals content

montana is about to change an administrative rule and waive a 10% opacity
standard for incinerators [though opacity would still be considered in bact
determination, in permit writing, & in the negligible risk determination
(quantitative risk assmnt.) required for incinerators].

the change is prompted at least in part to allow mt's 2 cement kilns to
burn glass, for its silica content. mt is at the end of the railroad lines
for shipping glass to market (ie it's expensive & the vol's are small), and
recently the markets collapsed, after a long time in intensive care.
apparantly it's hard to burn glass and achieve 10% opacity. 12%, maybe?...

if anyone could point me to *reliable* sources (more'n'one would be great)
of info for the heavy metals content of glass, i intend to forward it to
the person who'll be doing the risk assmsnt. i suspect they're used to
color glass, inter alia. data on *natural* metals levels in silica (and
whatever other ingredients bottle/container glass is made from) or in clear
glass would be great too.

replies to list are sufficient. thanks!

tony tweedale

MT-CHEER (Coaltn. for Health, Env. & Econ. Rights

Tony Tweedale || "I'm not going to get involved in
any of
Bx 7941 || that peer-reviewed mumbo-jumbo."
Missoula, MT 59807 || -Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
h) 406-542-1709 ||
fax 406-728-0867 ||
o) 406-728-0867, 543-0524 || " 'Are the people being protected?' || is too narrow a question."
|| -API lobbyists
meeting, 12/12/96
----------------------------|| "A species becomes extinct every 20 sec's.
Surely one must come into existence every 20 sec's?"
-Rep. Helen Chenowith (R-ID)


Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 01:11:49 -0400
From: Myra Nissen <>
Subject: Heirloom Citrus

I am looking for information on heirloom citrus.I have a large old great
fruit tree with wonderful pinkish greatfruit. Not much blush on the skin
and not very pink flesh, but the flesh is very sweet. The tree is no in
good health lately and I am looking to have it grafted. But I think it may
be valuable as an heirloom fruit tree and want to know more. Can anyone
steer me in somekind of direction.

Thanks, Myra


Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 12:00:36 -0400
From: "Blair Pollock" <>
Subject: Product Stewardship Act

>>From Fri Apr 11 00:55:10 1997
>Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:42:16 -0400
> "Blair Pollock" <>,
>From: William Earl Holman <>
>Subject: Product Stewardship Act
>Sen. Odom has filed SB 846, Product Stewardship Act (or Retailers to Take
>Back Hard-to-Dispose Goods).
>SB 846 applies to telephone books, Ni-Cd batteries, Hg oxide batteries,
>propane tanks, smoke detectors, pesticides, motor oil, antifreeze, oil based
>paint & solvents, white goods and other materials.
>We expect strong opposition from the retail merchants.
>Please thank Sen. Odom for introducing the bill.


Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 12:09:45 -0500
From: "Susan K. Snow" <>
Subject: Some 80,000 industrial chemicals used today are not regulated, not
required to be tested, but may be in sewage sludge, renamed as biosolids.,

Scientists tell me that industries use as much as 80,000 different
industrial chemicals to make consumer products in the U.S. About 300
are regulated or required to be tested. Of those tested, they are not
tested for immuno-toxic damage, neurological, cognitive/learning
disorders, reproductive disorders, disrupting hormones/the endocrine
system of wildlife, mammals, including humans. They are not tested on
multiple generations. They are not tested for synergistic effects--how
these chemicals react together in the environment and in our bodies.
The accumulative effects of all these chemicals are not taken into
consideration when regulations are written, from what I understand.

Yet, in the name of reducing pollution and recycling, the USEPA has
allowed hazardous sludge from publically owned municipal wastewater
treatment plants to be renamed as <biosolids> and sold as fertilizer to
farmers, gardeners, and other unsuspecting persons.

The state universities, government agencies, and corporations involved
in this effort tell you to look at their tests. Are they required to
test for dioxins? What about the 80,000 odd chemical not known or
required to be tested and therefore, not regulated.

WHY DESTROY PUBLIC HEALTH in the name of recycling?

Susan Snow


Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 12:57:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: (Michele Raymond)
Subject: Valuing resources

Amy Perry:

I gave my thing on recycling to the second graders today.

I came up with this analagy:
If you planted a tree, and nurtured it for 30 years -- would you sell it for
They all said "NO!"
Well thats what the federal government does.
So much for "valuing" resources.

How is the plastics ban bill coing?

Michele Raymond


Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 11:57:03 -0500
From: "Susan K. Snow" <>
Subject: Why is recycling under attack? Possibly due to the recycling of
hazardous sewage sludge renamed as biosolids to be spread of farmlands, gardens

A statement was made some time back regarding recycling under attack.
Perhaps, it's because of people like this (below from Wastenot
discussion list) who have made it their business to take toxic or
legally hazardous wastes and recycle them with the help of the USEPA
into toxic publically-owned municipal wastewater treatment facility
sewage sludge which has been renamed <bio-solids>), composted with
municipal solid wastes, and spread over farmlands to be used to grow our

This is incredible. Bone stupid. But are we trying to prove?

Of course, this waste should not go into our rivers, but it is; it
should not go into the air or be incinerated, but it is; and it should
not go into landfills to contaminate drinking water, but it is. Even
with all that, should it even when composted, go into the soil that
grows our food? Composting does not destroy organochlorines, PAHs,
toxic heavy metals, etc. It only destroys seeds and some plant viruses.

We need to detoxify materials before the waste is spread on the soil for
growing food. Physicians cannot cure most of the illnesses affecting
people and other animals today. This form of <recycling> is destroying
life on earth and the environment!

Susan Snow

[Below comes from: "WASTENOT Organic Waste Collection, Processing,

>My name is Phil Fredericks, president of EarthCare Technologies located
> at the U of Ark. Genesis Program. We develop systems and produce
>compost from sludge, septage, mixed MSW, restaurant and carwash trap
>waste, animal waste by-products, and yes even landfill leachate. For
>those of you that have been on other lists, eucalyptus, creosote,and a
>wide range of PAH's, chloronated and halogenated hydrocarbons including
>PCB's, dioxins, VOC's have all been in the mix. Before we get flamed by
>anyone, I would invite you to check out the lab reports issued by 6
>independent labs and 2 university labs from independently grabbed
>samples and check the final analysis of the finished product for the
>above mentioned contaminants as well as heavy metals, minor elements,
>salts and oh yes, before I forget, total coliform, salmenella,
>shigella, helmenth ova and enteric viruses. We would agree with the
>concern over land application of raw sludges and improperly
>bioremediated " composted" materials. We feel that there other major
>concerns that need to be addressed.
> 1) The most common polymer used in waste treatment plants today, are
> cationic acrylamides. According to the MSDS sheet these are Class 1
> carcinogens and mutagens at a level as low as 1ppm. These polymers are
> concentrated in the final sludge and Pres. Regan stopped the EPA human
> health testing in 1984, after his election. The most recent studies in
> '92 & '93 on rainbow trout and mice, clearly show the cancers and
> mutations appearing at levels below 1ppm. EarthCare is able to >hydrolyze
these polymers.
> 2) The CDC has identified 11 quasi antibiotic resistant pathogens that
> pass through the waste treatment plants, unaffected (look at the >crypto
outbreaks in food crops during the last 2 yrs).
> Our process is open for review. We believe that effective IS >necessary.
> If it's not safe for dumping in rivers, lakes or streams, or is
> unsuitable for landfilling, why would we want to land apply without a
> full remediation especially when the cost of treatment is comparable >to
the cost of disposal?
> Phil Fredericks
> EarthCare Technologies, Inc
> U of Ark. Genesis Program
> Engineering Research Center
> 700 W 20th
> Fayetteville, AR. 72701
> 501-575-5208 or fax- 7446


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #104