Today's Topics:
EPR, Take-Back Legislation, & Refundable-Deposits on Everything!
glass crushers (2 msgs)
Producer Responsibility - Continued Discussion
Quarrying at the ashton court site is imenent!
Radical web sites bared from search engins?
recycling rates for major cities (2 msgs)
recycling rates for major cities, V9 (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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loop-Detect: GreenYes:98/55
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:31:44 +0900
From: oldxeye@crisscross.com (Hop)
Subject: EPR, Take-Back Legislation, & Refundable-Deposits on Everything!
In response to part of what I had earlier said, ie.:
>>waste should be returned to the manufacturer - after all,
>>the originator is in the absolutely best position to be
>>able to re-use, recycling, or redesign a product.
David L. Turner <Dturner@ysi.com> wrote:
>Perhaps the originator is in a slightly better position
>than the consumer, but not the best position by far. It is
>likely to be true in the future, but now and for the near
>future, it is not.
>
>The recycling and reuse processes for most manufacturers
>are not trivial. If a process involves making the material
>to be recycled or using material or parts ONLY used for one
>thing (e.g., a bottle) it is easier to recycle or reuse
>than if the product has many parts and types of material in
>it (e.g., a VCR).
>
>We make electronic instruments which consist (primarily)
>of a case and a printed circuit board. The cases have metal
>and other parts in them that make them unacceptable to the
>suppliers of plastic for reclamation. We cannot remove the
>electronic parts and reuse them without testing them like
>the manufacturer does. Reusing them without complete
>testing is unacceptable and creating test equipment for
>all the parts we use would require us to duplicate a large
>portion of the electronics part manufacturer's factory. We
>are left with a printed circuit board we can send for lead
>reclamation and the rest to save for the future or
>landfill. We are looking into a company that reclaims
>electronic parts, and are hopeful that works out, but in
>the end most of the material will be landfilled
>
> ......
>
>We send scrap plastic parts back to our supplier for
>regrinding when we can. They don't take everything
>however, and if a plastics plant can't use it, we, a
>manufacturing organization, will be even less likely to be
>able to use it. We also reclaim metals, recycle paper and
>cardboard, and are investigating recycling/reclamation of
>electronic parts, but these practices have taken a long
>time to implement. We are working on introducing the
>process of Life Cycle Analysis in our designs, and I hope
>and believe we can make the situation better with this.
I'm sure you will. Congratulations and good luck!
A suggestion I'd offer, which reaffirms the point I was earlier trying to
make (and also partly answers the concerns you have expressed above) is
that your organisation is also a customer. The parts and components you
purchase could be beneficially returned to your suppliers. I know this will
not happen overnight, but sooner or later it will if consumers such as your
own company express this desire 'enthusiastically enough' to your
suppliers. The Life Cycle approach you are embarking upon may act as a
catalyst, if not a justification, for this expectation of them.
In terms of the situation you described above, ie.:
>We cannot remove the
>electronic parts and reuse them without testing them like
>the manufacturer does. Reusing them without complete
>testing is unacceptable and creating test equipment for
>all the parts we use would require us to duplicate a large
>portion of the electronics part manufacturer's factory.
It could (one day) mean that the original electronics part manufacturer
receives back, tests, and resupplies, the parts that you currently have no
valuable use for. The same 'material flow' approach (ie. return to the
originator for re-use, recycling, or redesign) could equally apply to other
components in your product when it is not able to be re-used in its
entirety.
Hop.
P.S. I like your motto:
>Profit is the result and reward of
>doing things right and doing the right
>things. Therein lies the balance.
> Randy Berger, Comdial Corporation
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:59:16 -0600
From: Anne Morse <AMorse@nt1.co.winona.mn.us>
Subject: glass crushers
Tara,
See also:
Andela Tool & Machine
RD#3 BOX 246
Richfield Springs, NY 13439
(315)858-0055 email: andela@recycle.net
RMS-Ross Corporation
44325 Yale Road W
Sardis, B.C. Canada V2R 1A9
(604)792-5911
>----------
>From: IngaV@mail.utexas.edu[SMTP:IngaV@mail.utexas.edu]
>Sent: Sunday, March 01, 1998 5:29 PM
>To: TARA PIKE; greenyes@ucsd.edu
>Subject: Re: glass crushers
>
>Tara,
>
>Try JD Porter with the Andela Glass Pulverizer. 512-708-9875.
>
>Inga
>
>Inga VanNynatten
>Master's Student
>Community and Regional Planning Program
>Uunviersity of Texas
>
>512-478-3630 home
>512-339-9679 work
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 00:56:25 +0100
From: CMPBS@greenbuilder.com (CMPBS)
Subject: glass crushers
Andela makes a glass crusher that can crush to different sizes. Check with J.D.
Porter in Austin at 512/708-9872. G. Vittori
--
http://www.greenbuilder.com
telnet://fc.greenbuilder.com:3000
modem: 512.462.0633
---
Green Building Professionals Directory at
http://www.greenbuilder.com/directory/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:10:21 -0500 (EST)
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: Producer Responsibility - Continued Discussion
At 01:36 PM 3/2/98 +0900, you wrote:
>Re: GreenYes Digest V98 #51
>>I would like to avoid
>>situations where a focus on container (or non-durable product) reuse /
>>recycling diverts our attention from durables reuse / recycling.
>
>I have no reason to disagree with you on this. I support the same treatment
>for durable and non-durable products at the end of their (re)usable life
>ie. that they be returned to their originator. Perhaps you should continue
>to advocate the benefits of re-use and recycling generally, and of durable
>goods specifically (when you wish to use an example), but without appearing
>to undermine the efforts of those who pursue the same objectives, but
>choose to use containers as their example. I'm sure that they think, as I
>do, that their pursuit of greater industry responsibility extends beyond
>packaging to durable goods as well.
>
>Regards,
>Hop.
>
=========================================================
Dear Hop:
Your response elicits the following perspective I have regarding the role of
debates on this and any other discussion list. As I see it, the main
purpose of lists such as GreenYes is to discuss ideas, theoretical and
practical, and to produce reasonably grounded and clearly expressed
arguments regarding their merits. This is what I think I have been doing.
If my point of view "undermines" a particular position or issue, it is only
through the force of my reasoning (I hope) and nothing more. My only
loyalty is to the promotion of the free exchange of ideas that are based on
good will and sound thinking. If, during the course of these dialogs,
cherished ideas (including those that I espouse)get bruised or even
"undermined" then hopefully it will lead to their improvement or replacement
by even better ideas.
With regard to your specific concern expressed in your message. As I
understand your responses, we are not in any disagreement over any
substantive principles. Further, I expressed no opposition to those who are
diligently working in favor of non-durable product reuse / recycling. I
merely expressed the opinion that there could be situations where, based on
conditions left unspecified in my messages, it may be better to put more of
our immediate efforts into durable product end-of-life management. If you
think that statement has the power to "undermine" efforts to promote further
container reuse / recycling you are giving me far more credit than I deserve.
Regards,
Roger M. Guttentag
E-MAIL: rgutten@concentric.net
TEL: 215-513-0452
FAX: 215-513-0453
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:30:23 -0000
From: "Ben Edwards" <lostit@gifford.co.uk>
Subject: Quarrying at the ashton court site is imenent!
My Email Address book has died (I hate computers) and I am sending this
message to list of email addresses I have colected. Sorry if anyone is
afended and categoriese this as spam but we do the best we can.
Someone I know from the Ashton court Quary Campain sent me this. They would
like anyone wo can to help them with there came.
Directions to Ashton Court Anti Quarry protest camp:-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 01:00:25 -0000
From: "Ben Edwards" <lostit@gifford.co.uk>
Subject: Radical web sites bared from search engins?
I have been talking to a net journalist about weather search engines are not
listing radical web sites. Have any of you had this problem? if so please
let me know and I will pass them on to him. Please bear in mind it can take
a month for web sites to appear. I am sure if this story is a goer it will
be picked up by other non net publications.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ben Edwards, lostit@gifford.co.uk
Use envelopes, not postcards (See public key below).
Pager/Voicemail:+44 (0)941 17 09 45 (5/10p a minute in UK)
http://www.gifford.co.uk/~bedwards/video/ - Video for Positive Change
http://members.aol.com/mapulink - Mapuche First Nation
++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ see: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:36:15 EST
From: CRRA <CRRA@aol.com>
Subject: recycling rates for major cities
Pat,
City of San Jose, CA (Pop. 800,000+, 3rd largest city in CA) is at 44%
diversion.
City of Sacramento, CA is at 42% diversion.
City of Los Angeles, CA is over 30%.
Contact CA Integrated Waste Management Board, Public Affairs Office,
916-255-2296 or JFrith@pa.ciwmb.ca.gov for more examples from throughout
California or visit their website at www.ciwmb.ca.gov.
Gary Liss
CA Resource Recovery Association
916-652-4450
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 17:13:00 -0800
From: "Lacaze, Skip" <IMCEAMS-ESD777_ESD777PO_Skip@ci.sj.ca.us>
Subject: recycling rates for major cities
My response is below, IN CAPS.
----------
From: Greg Smith
To: Skip; Lacaze, Skip
Cc: GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup
Subject: RE: recycling rates for major cities, V9
Date: Monday, March 02, 1998 1:38PM
Thanks, Skip. A few questions since San jose is about the size of my
home
county -- Montgomery County, MD:
1) Do your recycling figures include some sort of calculated waste
reduction figure?
DIVERSION IN CALIFORNIA IS DETERMINED BY TAKING BASE YEAR
DATA (FROM 1990) FOR GENERATION, BASED ON THE TOTAL
AMOUNTS DISPOSED AND RECYCLED THAT YEAR, ADJUSTING
FOR POPULATION GROWTH AND CHANGES IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY,
AND DIVIDING THE RESULT INTO CURRENT YEAR DISPOSAL. WE
DON'T HAVE TO TRACK CURRENT RECYCLING OR SOURCE
REDUCTION. OUR ORIGINAL BASE YEAR DIVERSION NUMBERS
INCLUDED MINIMAL SOURCE REDUCTION -- MOSTLY FOR
REUSED BEVERAGE CONTAINERS.
NEW SOURCE REDUCTION IS COUNTED AUTOMATICALLY
BECAUSE OF THE WAY OUR "DISPOSAL-BASED" REPORTING
SYSTEM WORKS.
2) What percentage of your "disposed" waste and recivered materials is
generated by commercial v. residential?
RESIDENTIAL = 35% OF THE TOTAL GENERATED WASTE
COMMERCIAL = 65% (ACTUALLY COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL/
INSTITUTIONAL)
3) Do you count all waste and recyclables generated, or just what's
captured by the county or city system? If you count total generated and
if some does not flow through the county or city system, how do you
measure what the county or city does not handle?
EVERYTHING THAT FLOWS THROUGH OR TO A PERMITTED
FACILITY IN CALIFORNIA, OR WHICH IS REPORTED TO LEAVE THE
STATE, IS INCLUDED. CERTAIN WASTES ARE EXCLUDED FROM
THE CALCULATION _UNLESS_ THEY ARE DISPOSED, SUCH AS
SCRAP AUTOMOBILES, HHW, INDUSTRIAL SCRAP METAL, AND
MUCH OF THE "INERT WASTE" STREAM, IF IT WAS NOT BEING
LANDFILLED IN 1990.
4) What financial incentives do you use? Quantity-based fees? What
kind?
DISPOSAL SURCHARGES INCLUDE:
DISPOSAL FACILITY TAX = $13.00/TON TO CITY'S GENERAL FUND;
AB 939 FEE = $1.30/TON TO GENERATING JURISDICTION FOR
DIVERSION ACTIVITIES;
COUNTY IWM PLANNING FEE = $0.42/TON, FOR PLANNING & P.R.;
STATE AB 939 FEE = $1.34/TON, SUPPORTS STATE IWM BOARD.
ALL LANDFILL DIVERSION IS EXEMPT (RECYCLING, COMPOSTING,
COVER MATERIAL, ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION USING INERTS).
COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE HAULERS PAY TWO FEES:
CSW FRANCHISE FEE = $2.41/CUBIC YARD TO THE GENERAL FUND;
CSW AB 939 FEE = $1.44/CY, TO THE IWM FUND FOR RECYCLING.
THE FIRST 29,200 CY PER YEAR IS EXEMPT FROM FRANCHISE
FEES. ALL RECYCLING ACTIVITY (SINGLE MATERIAL OR MIXED)
CAN BE EXEMPTED IF IT IS REPORTED PROPERLY.
5) Has San Jose tried to promote industries that use recovered
materials?
If so, how?
WE HAVE AN RMDZ (RECYCLED MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE --
CHECK http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/mrt/mrktrsch/mktspage/default.htm FOR
BACKGROUND INFO). WE BUDGET ABOUT $50,000/YEAR FOR
MARKET DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, INCLUDING R&D, OUTREACH
TO POTENTIAL SECONDARY MATERIAL MANUFACTURERS AND
USERS, AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. WE HAD A "GREEN
INDUSTRY" REVOLVING LOAN FUND OF $800,000, BUT HAVE NOT
BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING PROJECTS GOING WITH IT.
WE HAVE A STRONG BUY RECYCLED POLICY. ALMOST ALL OF OUR
PAPER AND MANY OF OUR OFFICE SUPPLIES AND BUILDING
MATERIALS ARE SPECIFIED FOR RECYCLED CONTENT -- NOT A
PRICE PREFERENCE, BUT A REQUIREMENT.
Looking forward to your reply,
Greg Smith
|| Internet:
gsmith@essential.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 12:53 -0800 (PST)
From: "Lacaze, Skip" <Skip.Lacaze@ci.sj.ca.us>
Subject: recycling rates for major cities, V9
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, Pat Imperato <imperato@voicenet.com> wrote
re: recycling rates for major cities
>Can anyone help me easily
>find residential and commercial recycling diversion rates for cities>1
>million? My non-profit can't afford calling each city individually.
The City of San Jose reported the following diversion rates to the
California Integrated Waste management Board for 1996:
Residential 46%
Commercial 43%
total 44%
The residential rate is for single-family homes and multi-family units
combined. The single-family rate is over 50%. Final 1997 rates will
probably decrease slightly, since the economic turn-around has
increased generation and disposal more than recycling increased
in the last year.
Our program includes separate collection of a long list of recyclables
at the curb (on-site at multi-family complexes), curbside yard trimmings
collection, separate collection and recovery of bulky items, and
significant financial disincentives to the collection and disposal of
commercial solid waste that has not been separated for recycling.
NOTE:
In 1994, there were only 8 cities with populations over 1 million. San
Antonio would have gone over by now, so there at least 9, maybe
10. I think that you may want to look at all of the cities over 700,000
(about half your size), which would extend your list only to 14
(down to Baltimore). There are only 25 cities over a half million.
pop.
(000s) city (diversion rate)
7,333 New York, NY
3,449 Los Angeles, CA
2,732 Chicago, IL
1,702 Houston, TX
1,524 Philadelphia, PA
1,152 San Diego, CA
1,049 Phoenix, AZ
1,023 Dallas, TX
999 San Antonio, TX
992 Detroit, MI
817 San Jose, CA (44%)
752 Indianapolis, IN *
735 San Francisco, CA
703 Baltimore, MD
665 Jacksonville, FL *
636 Columbus, OH
617 Milwaukee, WI
614 Memphis, TN
579 El Paso, TX
567 Washington, DC
548 Boston, MA
521 Seattle, WA
514 Austin, TX
505 Nashville-Davidson, TN
503 Cleveland, OH
---------------------
* May include some unincorporated area.
[from FedStats, at http://www.census.gov/statab/freq/96s0046.txt]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 16:35:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Greg Smith <gsmith@essential.org>
Subject: recycling rates for major cities, V9
Thanks, Skip. A few questions since San jose is about the size of my home
county -- Montgomery County, MD:
1) Do your recycling figures include some sort of calculated waste
reduction figure?
2) What percentage of your "disposed" waste and recivered materials is
generated by commercial v. residential?
3) Do you count all waste and recyclables generated, or just what's
captured by the county or city system? If you count total generated and
if some does not flow through the county or city system, how do you
measure what the county or city does not handle?
4) What financial incentives do you use? Quantity-based fees? What
kind?
5) Has San Jose tried to promote industries that use recovered materials?
If so, how?
Looking forward to your reply,
Greg Smith
|| Internet: gsmith@essential.org
------------------------------
Date: (null)
From: (null)
There is metal bar gate which is usually padlocked, but there is an entrance
for pedestrians and bikes onto a stone road which leads from Longwood Lane
into Ashton Court. This goes past playing fields on the left and the quarry
workings behind an embankment on the right. Top Park Field, the wild flower
meadow which is to be "moved" for new quarrying, is situated on the right of
this road, just beyond the quarry. Walk down the gentle slope next to the
quarry fence to the bottom right hand corner of the meadow and enter the
woods. From there you will see a (muddy!) path which leads you to the camp.
Alternatively, continue down Longwood Lane until you reach the quarry
entrance on the right. On your immediate left is a metal bar gate and
pedestrian and bike access into the woods. Bear right and walk along a
partly tarmac path which through the woods which will take you very near the
camp site.
If coming from the Long Ashton bypass A370 dual carriageway, come off the
slip road into the B3128 Clevedon Road. At the first turning, turn right
into Longwood Lane and the metal gate into the woods will be almost
immediately on your right. Further down Longwood Lane past the quarry plant
and embankment, is the field site where the wild flower meadow is going to
be re-located to. You may park in Longwood Lane.
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #55
******************************