greenyes-d Digest V98 #6

greenyes-d-request@earthsystems.org
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:24:22 -0500


greenyes-d Digest Volume 98 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:
[GreenYes] Fwd: Vinyl Siding [ GaryLiss@aol.com (by way of Shay=
Mi ]
[GreenYes] Used oil filter recycling pro [ "John Reindl"=
<reindl@co.dane.wi.us ]
[GreenYes] CAP reform [ Groupe de Bruges=
<bruges@wanadoo.fr ]
[GreenYes] Decopiers [ Bruce Nordman=
<bnordman@dante.lbl.g ]
[GreenYes] Fw: Landfill Bans for Used Oi [ "Bill Sheehan"=
<zerowaste@grrn.org> ]
[GreenYes] Fw: Activists use Internet to [ "Bill Sheehan"=
<zerowaste@grrn.org> ]
[GreenYes] Waste Management [ "RecycleWorlds"=
<anderson@msn.fullf ]
RE: [GreenYes] Used oil filter recycling [ "McCormick, Rod"=
<rod_mccormick@env ]

Administrivia:
************************************************************
This is the digest version of the greenyes mailing list.=20
If should ever need to unsubscribe from this digest, write=20
a letter to greenyes-d-request@earthsystems.org with the=20
subject unsubscribe. Address letters to the list to=20
greenyes@earthsystems.org
************************************************************

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 09:51:32 -0500
From: GaryLiss@aol.com (by way of Shay Mitchell <shay@earthsystems.org>)
To: greenyes@earthsystems.org
Subject: [GreenYes] Fwd: Vinyl Siding
Message-Id: <199812101450.JAA03939@gaea.earthsystems.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"

In a message dated 12/9/98 4:20:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, recycle@loa.com
writes:

<< Subj: Vinyl Siding=20
Date: 12/9/98 4:20:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: recycle@loa.com (RI Resource Recovery Corp.)
Sender: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
Reply-to: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
To: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov (Multiple recipients of list)
Does anyone know of an end-user (in southern New England preferably) that
recycles vinyl siding from homes? =20
Thanks for the bandwidth :)
John Trevor
Public Education Program Mgr.
RI Resource Recovery Corporation
65 Shun Pike, Johnston RI 02919
401/ 942-1430 ext. 112
recycle@loa.com

www.rirrc.org >>

Return-Path: <jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov>
Received: from rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (rly-zd03.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.227])=
by
air-zd02.mail.aol.com (v53.20) with SMTP; Wed, 09 Dec 1998 19:20:32
1900
Received: from valley.rtpnc.epa.gov (valley.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.16])
by rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id TAA18070;
Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:20:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from valley (valley [134.67.208.16]) by valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
(8.8.7/8.8.0) with SMTP id TAA12446; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:20:18 -0500
(EST)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:20:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981209141611.006b56f0@loa.com>
Errors-To: jwhitehe@erg.com
Reply-To: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
Originator: jtrnet@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov
Sender: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "RI Resource Recovery Corp." <recycle@loa.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov>
Subject: Vinyl Siding=20
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: EPA's "Jobs Through Recycling" Grants Network
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Does anyone know of an end-user (in southern New England preferably) that
recycles vinyl siding from homes? =20

Thanks for the bandwidth :)
John Trevor
Public Education Program Mgr.
RI Resource Recovery Corporation
65 Shun Pike, Johnston RI 02919
401/ 942-1430 ext. 112
recycle@loa.com

www.rirrc.org

***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send a message to greenyes-request@earthsystems.org
with the subject unsubscribe. If you should have any problems, please
write to www@earthsystems.org. =20

GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling Network web site:=20
http://www.grrn.org
***********************************************************************
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:14:27 -0600
From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
To: GreenYes@earthsystems.org, recycle@environlink.org,
waste@cedar.univie.ac.at
CC: koziap@co.dane.wi.us, Katersj@uwgb.edu
Subject: [GreenYes] Used oil filter recycling programs
Message-ID: <100DF68A51F2@co.dane.wi.us>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Wisconsin is putting together a report on setting up a used oil=20
filter recycling program.

I'm looking for information on which states, provinces or countries=20
have used oil filter recycling programs that are either sponsored by=20
government or industry trade associations.

So far. I have the following:

Iowa - study
Florida - ban on landfilling
California - ban on landfilling
Texas - ban on landfilling
Minnesota - ban on landfilling
Delaware
Pennsylvania

Alberta, Canada - industry sponsored program
Manitoba, Canada - " "
Saskatchewan, Canada - " "

I would appreciate knowing of any other government or industry=20
sponsored programs for used oil filters.

Thanks much,

John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI
=09

reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone

***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send a message to greenyes-request@earthsystems.org
with the subject unsubscribe. If you should have any problems, please
write to www@earthsystems.org. =20

GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling Network web site:=20
http://www.grrn.org
***********************************************************************
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:35:22 -0500
From: Groupe de Bruges <bruges@wanadoo.fr> (by way of Shay Mitchell
<shay@earthsystems.org>)
To: greenyes@earthsystems.org
Subject: [GreenYes] CAP reform
Message-Id: <199812101833.NAA06696@gaea.earthsystems.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"

AGRICULTURE: THE RECONQUEST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. OUTSIDE MARKETS MUST
NOT INCITE AGRICULTURE TO TURN ITS BACK ON EUROPEAN SOCIETY
In order to contribute to the actual debate about the reform of the
Common Agricultural Policy in the European Union, the Bruges Group sent
an open letter to the members of the European Parliament. You can read
this paper on our web site:

http://perso.club-internet.fr/geyan/bruges

L'AGRICULTURE DOIT RECONQUERIR L'UNION EUROPEENNE : LE DEVELOPPEMENT DES
EXPORTATIONS NE DOIT PAS INCITER LA PAC A SE DETOURNER DES EUROPEENS
Afin de contribuer aux d=E9bats en cours sur la r=E9forme de la Politique
Agricole Commune, le Groupe de Bruges a adress=E9 une lettre ouverte aux
parlementaires europ=E9ens. Ce texte est d=E9sormais disponible sur notre
site internet : http://perso.club-internet.fr/geyan/bruges

*****************************************
GROUPE DE BRUGES
104 Rue du Plein Soleil
34980 Saint Gely ~ France
Tel : (0)4 67 84 89 44. Fax : (0)4 67 84 89 45
*****************************************

***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send a message to greenyes-request@earthsystems.org
with the subject unsubscribe. If you should have any problems, please
write to www@earthsystems.org. =20

GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling Network web site:=20
http://www.grrn.org
***********************************************************************
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:07:23 -0500
From: Bruce Nordman <bnordman@dante.lbl.gov> (by way of Shay Mitchell
<shay@earthsystems.org>)
To: greenyes@earthsystems.org
Subject: [GreenYes] Decopiers
Message-Id: <199812102105.QAA08797@gaea.earthsystems.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"

Regarding the query on the "Decopier" from ImageX Technologies,
that "erases" paper for subsequent reuse.

As this is effectively source reduction, not recycling, of the
paper, I've followed such products for several years, and included
information on my web site ("Cutting Paper") on that topic.
The bottom line is that the devices would appear to have potential
application in niche markets/uses, there are reasons to believe
that they aren't likely to be a good choice for the average office
for a variety of reasons. I've excerpted the discussion of these
from the web site below.
I have a press release from Ricoh and have reviewed the ImageX web
pages. If anyone has additional information, or any direct experience
with the device, please let me know. Thanks.

[ the following text from:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/paper/ideas/html/future.htm
though it is better to go to the "Cutting Paper" home page:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/paper/=20
then click on 'Ideas' then 'Future'. ]

Erasing Paper

Many people have noticed that most of the copy paper in recycling bins
is in good condition apart from the print or copy on it. If one could
only 'erase' the toner of the page, it could be reused as (nearly) new.
At least two companies have seriously explored this option.

In 1993, the Ricoh company issued a press release announcing the "Paper
Recycling System", a technology for removing toner from copy paper.
However, within a few years they decided not to turn the
technology into a product.

In 1997, ImageX Technologies announced that they had developed a
technology call ed "decopying". The Decopier removes the toner from
laser printers and copiers.

There are significant challenges to the use of such products. Marks
from pens and pencils may remain on the paper. Staples and tears may
make the paper more likely to jam. Perhaps the biggest problem is
the cost of collecting the paper in good form, then feeding it through
the 'erasing' machine, and possibly inspecting it for damage or marks.
While the Decopier makers claim that the cost of the machine can be
recovered after processing slightly less than 2 tons of paper (750
reams), it isn't clear how labor costs are accounted for. There is
also the issue of buying the removal chemicals and disposing of the
waste toner.

Perhaps the best use is to remove the information from sensitive
documents. The decopier makers note this. Shredding, the usual
option, can be expensive and requires its own machines or an outside
contractor. Another possible use is for expensive paper, such as
paper used for high quality color rendition with inkjet printers.
The savings would be much higher, but it would probably require a
different technology than has been developed to date.

Bruce Nordman
BNordman@LBL.gov
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
510-486-7089; fax: 510-486-4673

http://www.lbl.gov/~bnordman

***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send a message to greenyes-request@earthsystems.org
with the subject unsubscribe. If you should have any problems, please
write to www@earthsystems.org. =20

GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling Network web site:=20
http://www.grrn.org
***********************************************************************
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 01:08:29 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <zerowaste@grrn.org>
To: "GreenYes" <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
Subject: [GreenYes] Fw: Landfill Bans for Used Oil Filters
Message-ID: <018f01be24ce$a09477a0$7d2e56d1@desktop>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[Forwarded message in response to John Reindl's request for information on
state oil filter recycling programs. The author is Jim Nickerson, an oil
filter processor from Texas and president of Nickco Recycling, Inc.
(nickco@internetwork.net) --bill sheehan]

Hi Bill

A little general info about recycling filters.

The Filter Manufacturers Council (FMC) is an industry group made up by the
different manufacturers of filters. They have a hotline where people can
call to find where they can have their filters recycled. They put out a
lot of articles to mags and papers about filter recycling. Their primary
purpose as I see it is to put on a good front that the manafactures are
doing their part in and for recycling the products they make. BUT They
are continually the biggest thorn in our side.

Their opinion is that if
the public is well enough educated then the filters will be recycled.
They are aginst landfill bans of filters. This is pure (as we say in NE
Texas) bullshit. Reason being is that the filters are a negative value
item. What I mean is that the filter as it comes off a car or even after
it is drained and crushed has a negative value. This is not set by
people like me but by the steel mills. The steel mills will NOT pay for
whole used oil filters, crushed or uncrushed. A uncrushed filter can
contain as much as 35% oil and 12% paper. A crushed filter will at a
MINIMUM contain 12-13% oil and 13% paper. Steel mills are not in the
business of buying waste, they want clean steel.

What we as oil filter processors do is seperate the used oil filter into its
components (steel,oil,and filter media). At this point the components can
be sold and recycled because of their purity. There are a few steel
mills/foundries that take the used oil filters that have been crushed
and mix them into their steel batches for melting.

There are problems associated with this process.
(1) If to many filters are put in at once then the emisions from the
stacks are to high becuse of the burning oil.
(2) Because of these filters the gases sometimes flow up into their
baghouses and ignite the filters in the baghouses.
(3) The mixing of the filters into the steel mix allow oil to escape
into the envionment.
(4) When filters are handled this way the oil and paper media is
incinerated, not recycled. Some steel mill people say that they are
recovering the energy that helps melt the steel. This is laughable and a
sign of how big business will practically say anything to try to sell
something to the goverment.
(5) To the best of my knowledge there is no steel mill in the US that
pays for the filters that have been drained and crushed.

This gets back back to the filters having a negative value. There are
several steps in a filter being recycled .
Generators- The people that create the used oil filter. Lube stores,
garages, truck stops, etc.
Transporters/collectors- People who pick up the filters from the
generator and transport them to a storage/processing location.
Processors- People (like myself) who thru several different types of
processes seperate the filter into its components or in the case of the
few, crush the filter to be taken to the steel mill.

Lets go thru each step and I will hope to explain why I say that filters
are a negative value item. If the steel mill will not pay for the filter
and the processor incurs expenses processing the filter then the
processor must charge the transporter to accept his filters. Then the
transporter must charge the generator to pick up his filters. If the
generator has to pay to have his filters picked up then the filters have
a negative value.

This is why for high percentages of filters to be recycled THERE HAS TO
BE A LANDFILL BAN for used oil filters. With a landfill ban each
generator will have approx the same cost to have his filters recycled.
This means that one generator does not have a cost that his competition
doesn't have. Without the landfill ban a generator may want to have his
filters recycled but if his competition is not then he will have an
extra cost that his competitior doesn't and in most cases will not
choose to have the filter recycled. In Texas and the other landfill ban
states that I know off, here is how it is done. There are no state
dollars given to the generator, transporter, processor, or steel mill. It
is totally driven thru the free market. There are rules that say how
long filters can be stored before going to the next step. This is
necessary agin because of the filters having a negative value. These
rules will vary among each state.

Another thing that speaks well of the landfill ban on filters is that in
states where there is a landfill ban the prices to the generators for
pick up and recycling of their filters is MUCH cheaper than in states
without the landfill ban. The reason for this is is that where the
filters are banned from the landfills business will fill the void,
competition will take over and drive the prices down.

There is no down side to recycling filters:

-- Creates jobs (over 500 in Texas)

-- Keeps oil laden material from the landfills and thus the water supply
(3 million gallons of oil kept out of Texas landfills each year from
recycling used oil filters)

-- Recycles materials which otherwise would be lost (aprox 13,000 tons of
steel are recycled from used oil filters each year in Texas)

In short I believe that items such as used oil filters need to be banned
from landfills, regulated until they have a positive value and no
environmental risk and then let the free market take it from there.

As far as the states mentioned in the message:

The program in Florida is a ban on commercial filters only.

The program in California is not actually a ban but a used oil
filter has to have a haz determination if not recycled, thus most are
recycled. I think this is correct.

Rhode Island has a ban but all the companies servicing them are from out
of state. They are probably being landfilled in those states where these
collectors are from.

Pennsylvannia did some kind of minor program trying to get people to
recycle their filters. Did this in concert with the FMC. Was window
dressing.

And the others mentioned in the message ....

I hope this helps. If I can help in any other way please let me know.

I am going to send you a draft of a filter bill we are going to try to
get passed in the upcoming Texas legislature this year in an e-mail as
soon as it is cleanedup a bit. Its in the final stages of being written.

thanks
jim

***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send a message to greenyes-request@earthsystems.org
with the subject unsubscribe. If you should have any problems, please
write to www@earthsystems.org. =20

GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling Network web site:=20
http://www.grrn.org
***********************************************************************
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:06:11 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <zerowaste@grrn.org>
To: "GreenYes" <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
Subject: [GreenYes] Fw: Activists use Internet to slow trade liberalization
Message-ID: <002001be2510$6b151200$ab4d56d1@desktop>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----Original Message-----
From: Margrete Strand-Rangnes <mstrand@citizen.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list MAI-NOT <mai-not@essential.org>
Date: Thursday, December 10, 1998 5:30 PM
Subject: (mai) Katz: Activists use Internet to slow trade liberalization

Katz: Activists use Internet to slow trade liberalization

US business leader sees free-trade threat

BY JACK LUCENTINI
JOURNAL OF COMMERCE STAFF
12/10/98

NEW YORK -- Increasingly mobilized by the Internet, labor and environmental
activists are a growing threat to free trade
and an open global economy, a business leader said Tuesday.

Abraham Katz, outgoing president of the U.S. Council for International
Business, gave the keynote speech at the organization's
annual dinner on Tuesday. =20
....

"The enemies of an open market system have marshalled a serious
counterattack on further liberalization of trade and
investment and on multinational companies as the main agents of
globalization," said Mr. Katz, who joined the council after a
long career with the State Department.

Officials of the business group have been alarmed about what they see as
growing threats to business, often spurred by the
Internet. For instance, recent charges that Nike Inc. mistreats its workers
in southeast Asia were largely spread across the
electronic medium.

Organized labor and environmental groups are pushing for unilateral
sanctions against offending countries and companies, Mr.
Katz said.=20
....=20

Another initiative of the business group that Internet-mobilized activists
have derailed is the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment. That would standardize rules so that each country would have to
treat outside investors the same way. It would
protect investors from government interference such as arbitrary seizure of
property.

Opponents say it would give multinational corporations unprecedented power
to challenge governments' consumer, labor and
environmental laws.

*********
Public Citizen Global Trade Watch
To subscribe to our MAI Listserv send an e-mail to mstrand@citizen.org, or
subscribe directly by going to our website,
www.tradewatch.org

***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send a message to greenyes-request@earthsystems.org
with the subject unsubscribe. If you should have any problems, please
write to www@earthsystems.org. =20

GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling Network web site:=20
http://www.grrn.org
***********************************************************************
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:38:23 -0600
From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
To: "GreenYes" <greenyes@ucsd.edu>
Subject: [GreenYes] Waste Management
Message-ID: <01be2513$e7ec9340$0eb7b8c7@compaq>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

According to the 12/10/98 Wall Street Journal ("Waste Management, Andersen
Agree to Settle Holder Suits for $220 Million), Waste Management settled
claims by its investors that alleged the hauler had defrauded investors by
overstating profits during the period 1994-98 to hide the poor returns from
its diversification efforts. This became apparent after the company
restated its earnings for that period after forcing Dean Buntrock off of
the Board of Directors.
____________________________________
Peter Anderson
RecycleWorlds Consulting
4513 Vernon Blvd. Ste. 15
Madison, WI 53705-4964
Phone:(608) 231-1100/Fax: (608) 233-0011
E-mail:recycle@msn.fullfeed.com

***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send a message to greenyes-request@earthsystems.org
with the subject unsubscribe. If you should have any problems, please
write to www@earthsystems.org. =20

GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling Network web site:=20
http://www.grrn.org
***********************************************************************
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:54:06 -0500
From: "McCormick, Rod" <rod_mccormick@env.gov.mb.ca> (by way of Shay
Mitchell <shay@earthsystems.org>)
To: greenyes@earthsystems.org
Subject: RE: [GreenYes] Used oil filter recycling programs
Message-Id: <199812111452.JAA15820@gaea.earthsystems.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"

Manitoba's Oil Stewardship Program has had a pretty good initial response.
In the first six months from it's launch in April, 1998, it has attracted
550,000 filters. Considering I estimated 1,500,000 filters are sold in a
year, and there were only limited initiatives to recover used filters
before, I think that is a strong response. Of course there may have been a
backlog of filters waiting for the program to start.

The industry run program collects 50 cents or $1.00 on each filter sold in
the province. The incentives for filters are substantial. Licenced
transporters are paid between $80 and $170 per drum of filters collected and
recycled. The price increases as one moves away from the major population
areas.

For more background see <http://www.gov.mb.ca/environ/wrap.html> and follow
the links to used oil.

Rod McCormick
WRAP Officer
Manitoba Environment

Compliments of the Season and lets all hope for a little less garbage next
year.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Reindl [SMTP:reindl@co.dane.wi.us]
> Sent: 1998-Dec-10 11:14 AM
> To: multiple recipients of
> Cc: koziap@co.dane.wi.us; Katersj@uwgb.edu
> Subject: [GreenYes] Used oil filter recycling programs
>=20
> Wisconsin is putting together a report on setting up a used oil=20
> filter recycling program.
>=20
> I'm looking for information on which states, provinces or countries=20
> have used oil filter recycling programs that are either sponsored by=20
> government or industry trade associations.
>=20
> So far. I have the following:
>=20
> Iowa - study
> Florida - ban on landfilling
> California - ban on landfilling
> Texas - ban on landfilling
> Minnesota - ban on landfilling
> Delaware
> Pennsylvania
>=20
> Alberta, Canada - industry sponsored program
> Manitoba, Canada - " "
> Saskatchewan, Canada - " "
>=20
> I would appreciate knowing of any other government or industry=20
> sponsored programs for used oil filters.
>=20
> Thanks much,
>=20
> John Reindl, Recycling Manager
> Dane County, WI
> =09
>=20
> reindl@co.dane.wi.us
> (608)267-1533 - fax
> (608)267-8815 - phone
>=20
> ***********************************************************************
> To unsubscribe, send a message to greenyes-request@earthsystems.org
> with the subject unsubscribe. If you should have any problems, please
> write to www@earthsystems.org. =20
>=20
> GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling Network web site:=20
> http://www.grrn.org
> ***********************************************************************

***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send a message to greenyes-request@earthsystems.org
with the subject unsubscribe. If you should have any problems, please
write to www@earthsystems.org. =20

GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling Network web site:=20
http://www.grrn.org
***********************************************************************