GreenYes Digest V98 #37

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:33:45 -0500

GreenYes Digest Fri, 13 Feb 98 Volume 98 : Issue 37

Today's Topics:
Comment on Sludge Volume Conversion
job: Environmental Specialist, San Jose -Reply
PABs for Recycling
Recycling organic food back into toxic conventional agriculture
returnable bottles
Sludge Question (2 msgs)
Subsidies for Wasting: Bonds?

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
Loop-Detect: GreenYes:98/37

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:45:13 EST
Subject: Comment on Sludge Volume Conversion

In response to your sludge volume-weight conversion index, the number
8.34 pounds per gallon is the conversion factor for water. As one of the
heavier substances out there, it is likely that sludge weight is a bit
lower, but not much-depending of course on how efficient a de-watering
system is. To get a real number for your mix, probably the best thing to
do would be to fill a bucket with sludge and put it on a scale. Any
engineer worth his/her PE will know that you are using a water conversion
factor when they see your math. You may want to be accurate just for the
sake of credibility.

It may not matter much, but at least you'd know fer shuah!

David Biddle,
Philadelphia, PA

>From: (Rebecca Brown)
>To: (GreenYes), (Cheri Kennedy)
>Cheri, the head of our water pollution control facility gave me
>this formula: sludge pounds = volume (in million gallons) X
>concentration (in milligrams/liter) X 8.34. (8.34 is
>pounds/gallon). Hope this is correct for what you're after.
>Rebecca Brown
>City of Woodland, CA

David Biddle
7366 Rural Lane
Philadelphia, PA 19119
215-247-2974 (voice and fax)


Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:17:12 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <>

[Forwarded from Greenpeace]



Contact: Lisa Finaldi,in New York, 917-842-2523 (cell)
Deborah Rephan, in New York, 917-842-3826 (cell)
Rick Hind, in Washington, DC, 202-319-2505

New York, February 12, 1998 --- As toy executives and product safety
officials meet today to discuss the dangers of vinyl (PVC) toys to
children, Greenpeace condemned toy makers at the American
International Toy Fair for promoting a material that health experts
and governments agree pose an unnecessary threat to children's health.

Today's toy safety workshop, sponsored by the Toy Manufacturers of
America, will include for the first time a discussion of PVC use in
toys (the workshop will be held from 1:00-5:00 p.m., at Fashion
Institute of Technology, Building D Amphitheater, 27th Street at 7th

Last month, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) urged
manufacturers to "eliminate" the use of lead additives in products
accessible to children, after Greenpeace released data showing high
levels of lead and cadmium in vinyl toys.

A draft legal ban on baby toys requiring softeners has already been
sent to the EU by Austria. And Danish, Dutch, German and Belgian
health authorities have recommended voluntary withdrawals of soft PVC
toys intended to be put in the mouth of small children. The
well-known toy maker LEGO has responded to the PVC problem by
pledging to phase out the use of PVC in all of its toys.

"The writing is on the wall: the days for soft vinyl toys are
numbered due to the hazard they present. But toy makers such as
Mattel, Hasbro and Disney would rather gamble with children's health
until government restrictions force them to change," said Lisa
Finaldi, Greenpeace International Toxics Campaigner.

In 1997 Greenpeace conducted tests on soft PVC toys from around the
world. The results, backed up by independent laboratories, showed
that hazardous chemicals can leach out of PVC toys when chewed or
handled by children:

* September - Greenpeace identified soft vinyl toys that contained
by weight between 10 and 40% chemical softeners that, when ingested by
animals, could cause tumors, liver and kidney damage, and reproductive

* October - Tests commissioned by Greenpeace at the University of
North Carolina reveal dangerous levels of lead and cadmium in many
vinyl children's products. Dr. Howard Hu, associate professor of
occupational medicine at Harvard's School of Public Health responded,
"The products tested carry the potential for significant lead
exposure for children who use them."

* November - An independent test commissioned by Greenpeace
found that half of the PVC infant toys tested were leaching chemical
softeners in amounts exceeding acceptable levels in Germany.

The entire life-cycle of PVC plastic involves toxic additives and
generates chlorinated emissions. When burned accidentally or
incinerated, PVC is a significant source of dioxin and secondary
hazardous wastes.


Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 07:44:28 -0600
From: Brian Noble <>
Subject: job: Environmental Specialist, San Jose -Reply

". . . double spacing on a single-sided . . . " !!!

is conservation and reduction a concept adaptable in HR departments?
Uniformity to assure equality yes, but why encourage waste


Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:58:06 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <>
Subject: PABs for Recycling

[Forwarded from Gary Liss, CRRA]


The following are my personal comments, not officially from CRRA.

My understanding is that there are a number of recycling facilities in
California that have taken advantage of PABs for financing assistance.
Unfortunately, PABs have also been used to finance solid waste transfer
stations without recycling. And the recycling facilities most often financed
by this mechanism are larger scale Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) that
compete with the existing private infrastructure of recyclers. These large
MRFs could also easily finance their construction in other ways. PABs add
fuel to the fire of flow control for recyclables in California, as those with
exclusive franchises are more likely to pursue PABs than independent
recyclers. CRRA has not supported flow control for recyclables.

Ironically, PABs have not been able to be used much for recycled product
manufacturers, where there is the largest need. This is due to the
restriction for pollution control facilities that they can not be used where
something of value is the endproduct. Figuring out how to achieve access to
capital for recycled product manufacturers (particularly small businesses who
need it most) would be a great service.

Restricting PABs for recycling facilities only (not for solid waste or
incinerator activities) would also help. Arguments to justify this are the
EPA's hierarchy of integrated waste management in their Plan for Action (1991)
and the recent increase in their goal from 25-35% recycling. With an
increased national recycling goal, economic tools such as PABs should assist
in providing the price signals to the marketplace to favor recycling over
disposal or incineration. Also, incineration is not targeted for any
particular goal by the EPA.

Gary Liss
CA Resource Recovery Association


Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:36:05 -0600
From: Susan Snow <>
Subject: Recycling organic food back into toxic conventional agriculture

In my letter with the subject: Recycling organic food back into toxic
conventional agriculture, I misspoke, when I said:

<<<<under the organic label. No wonder people are becoming immune to

Currently, organically-produced milk certification regulations do NOT
allow the use of genetic engineered hormones that make the cows produce
more milk. (Nor do they allow crops to tolerate more pesticides, as
pesticides have NEVER been part of traditional organic farming.)

However, under the USDA's proposed regulations --God forbid,
they go through --this will be allowed under the certified organic

The practice is allowed in conventional agriculture and may be in dairy
products that you buy in supermarkets and other non-health food stores.

The labeling provision under the proposed regulations, will not give us
the right to know if foods containing GMO are present, or pesticides, or
sewage sludge, or irradiation with nuclear waste --all environmental
labeling to allow consumers in the land of free (?) enterprise, will be
eliminated; products will have to be pulled off the shelves and
discarded. Morever, the proposed regulations, will elminate all state
regulations, even those in California where protective rules are in

The proposed regulations will also drive farmers who want to produce
traditionally organic foods out of the country along with certification
companies that refuse to certify food grown under the weak USDA

BTW, I heard that Monsanto, the producer of both genetically modified
organisms including Round-Up [TM] ready soybeans and other food
products, has bought out GMC ''health'' food stores.

<<Traditionally, organic food has never used toxic chemicals that are in
sewage sludge or conventional fertilizers; never allowed genetic
engineering that would increase a crop's tolerance to pesticides or make
a cow produce more milk --milk which may contain pus from mastitis, or
other infections and need antibiotics, which have been reported to be
in the milk-- under the organic label.>>

Susan Snow


Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:55:16 -0500
From: "Blair Pollock" <>
Subject: returnable bottles

Regarding yesterday's comment on returnables. It's hard to know where to
break the "convenience" cycle to get returnable bottles back into the
American lifestyle. I offer two anecdotes.

For many years the Town of Chapel Hill's downtown fire station had a coke
machine with returnables and a wooden crate to deposit them in. In the late
80's, the returnables were replaced by one-way containers. The route man
said "People aren't staying around to drink their cokes. They're walking
away with the bottles. I'm losing money" Probably true. Whose fault is it?

Last year a new, integrated dairy/bottler opened in our county. (In NC 100
dairy farms folded last year). The new bottler decided to market its own
milk in returnable glass bottles locally under its own name "Maple View
Farms". They found some ancient bottle washing equipment they refurbished.
They are successful and in all the local grocery stores including our
regional chains Food Lion and Harris Teeter. The deposit for a quart bottle
ranges from $1.00 to $1.30. They report losing 1,000 bottles a week! I
verified this because when I heard the number I was incredulous and on my
next visit to a recycling dropoff site later that day I spied two bottles on
the top of the clear glass pile! So are we too affluent, too oblivious. I
hope that at least the recycling folks are making the money by returning the
bottles when they find them.


Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:19:53 -0500
From: "Cheri Kennedy"<>
Subject: Sludge Question

Does anyone know of an industry standard conversion factor for converting
sludge gallons (sewage treatment plant sludge) to pounds?

Cheri Kennedy
Solid Waste Program Manager
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Dahlgren, VA
(540) 653-2342


Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:12:00 -0800
From: "Rebecca Brown" <>
Subject: Sludge Question

Cheri, the head of our water pollution control facility gave me
this formula: sludge pounds = volume (in million gallons) X
concentration (in milligrams/liter) X 8.34. (8.34 is
pounds/gallon). Hope this is correct for what you're after.
Rebecca Brown
City of Woodland, CA

______________________________ Reply Separator
Subject: Sludge Question
Author: "Cheri Kennedy" <> at -FABRIK/Internet
Date: 2/12/98 5:19 AM

From: Cheri Kennedy
Date: Thu, Feb 12, 1998 5:19 AM
Subject: Sludge Question
To: GreenYes; Rebecca Brown

Does anyone know of an industry standard conversion factor for converting
sludge gallons (sewage treatment plant sludge) to pounds?

Cheri Kennedy
Solid Waste Program Manager
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Dahlgren, VA
(540) 653-2342

Received: from mlist.UCSD.EDU by
with SMTP (Fabrik F07.2-000)
id ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 05:35:34 -0800
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA25162 for
<>; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 05:24:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA17795 for <>;
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 05:23:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cd28-notes ( by
id AA06097; Thu, 12 Feb 98 08:23:43 EST
Received: by cd28-notes(Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) id
852565A9.0049418B ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:20:09 -0500
X-Lotus-Fromdomain: NSWCDD_CDEPT
From: "Cheri Kennedy"<>
Message-Id: <852565A9.00490C29.00@cd28-notes>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:19:53 -0500
Subject: Sludge Question
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII



Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:08:09 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <>
Subject: Subsidies for Wasting: Bonds?

[The following is forwarded from Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth, who
is working, together with Taxpayers for Common Sense (lead), the
Materials Efficiency Project and the GrassRoots Recycling Network,
on preparing a "Green Scissors for Recycling" report.]

I would like to send some questions about the Private Activities Bonds
(PABs) over the network. Here is some background and questions I am

In the subsidy report, we are looking at the effects that PABs
have on the recycling industry. Originally, we assumed that PABs were
used specifically to fund incinerator plants. Unfortunately, we found
information that states PABs can be used to fund solid waste, hazardous
waste and recycling facilities. If we advocate against PABs, we would be
attacking a potential funding source for the recycling industry.

These are questions we have about PABs.

1. Are recycling facilities being funded by PABs?

2. How many incineratos are being funded through PABs?

3. Are recycling facilities at a disadvantage for receiving PAB funding
because they are relatively less capital intensive than incinerators?

4. Can we advocate ending incinerator funding through PABs while keeping
the status quo for PAB funding to recycling facilities? What are our
arguments to justify this?

5. What other potential waste subsidies put recycling at a competitive

Thank you for your help,

Erich Pica
Policy Associate
Friends of the Earth
(202) 783-7400


End of GreenYes Digest V98 #37