Today's Topics:
Any Outlets for Old Comp
Any Outlets for Old Computer Monitors? (3 msgs)
Battery recycling programs?
FW: Last Push to Save Roadless Areas
Michigan's Waste Import Problem
unsubscribe
Virgin material subsidies
Zero waste goals
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:98/25
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:39:21 -0800
From: Paul Tapley <Paul.Tapley@sonoma.edu>
Subject: Any Outlets for Old Comp
Reply to: RE>Any Outlets for Old Computer Monitors?
John,
I have heard that USEPA "ruled" last fall, that computers (not only the
monitors) be must be "recycled" and not landfilled. Do you have (or do you
know where to find) this "ruling"? This would be a good tool to promote reuse,
resale, (and least desirable) recycling of computers. I would suggest trying
to keep the monitor, cpu, and keyboard together as a usable item rather than
just a monitor that is difficult to dispose of. I think we should do what we
can to keep these things in use as long as possible, even if only as a word
processor/typewriter...
We know disposal is a environmental problem, but here's an FYI about the
production of the silicon chip (ONLY the chip!):
"Producing a single, eight inch silicon wafer - enough for about 250 Pentium
CPU's - uses 4,267 cu. ft. of bulk gasses, 3,787 gal. of waste water, 27 lbs.
of chemicals, 29 cu. ft. of hazardus gases, and 3,023 gallons of deionized
water and generates nine puonds of hazardus waste. A single plant can produce
5,000 wafers a week." (do the math!) Quoted from Bay Area Computer Currents
Sept.30-Oct.13 '97 relating figures from an Texas Instruments study - "the
only publicly available study"
If local resale or reuse/donation is not an option for you, the Institute for
Local Self Reliance recently (last fall) produced a booklet on electronics
recycling with many contacts nation wide. I don't have a copy to give you an
address, but it should not be too hard to find.
Paul Tapley - Recycling Coordinator
Sonoma State University - Calif.
707.664.2929
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 08:39:29 -0600
From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: Any Outlets for Old Computer Monitors?
Does anyone have any legitimate markets to handle old computer
monitors, especially to recycle them?
Our state DNR, in working with EPA, is about to announce that due
to the lead inside the glass of the computer monitor's CRT, monitors
are hazardous waste and, excepting the exemption for household
materials, are not to be landfilled. However, we have no outlets
for handling them properly, including no markets for recycling
them.
While the DNR agrees that the best solution would be for the
manufacturer to take the monitors back (after all,they put the lead
in them in the first place), neither DNR nor the EPA seems to be
actively pursuing this option.
So we at the local level are forced to scramble on this issue, and
any known outlets would be greatly appreciated.
John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI
reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:31:36 -0500
From: pchristou@fpcusa.com
Subject: Any Outlets for Old Computer Monitors?
I am also interested in his type of information. The systems are
probably good for use by those who need basic computer performance. We
may have around the office old PCs, monitors etc. that are still usable
but probably obsolete based on the new PC performance standards,
requiring Pentiums.
Does anyone know of an organization or person in New Jersey that
assembles systems from outdated PCs for distribution to schools or
non-profit organizations
Prokopis
USA
pchristou@fpcusa.com
Tel. (973) 716-7341
Fax (973) 716-7283
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:45:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: Any Outlets for Old Computer Monitors?
>Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:25:11
>To: reindl@co.dane.wi.us
>From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@mail.concentric.net>
>Subject: Re: Any Outlets for Old Computer Monitors?
>
>At 08:39 AM 1/29/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>Does anyone have any legitimate markets to handle old computer
>>monitors, especially to recycle them?
>>
>
>>John Reindl, Recycling Manager
>>Dane County, WI
>>
>>reindl@co.dane.wi.us
>>(608)267-1533 - fax
>>(608)267-8815 - phone
>>
>=============================================================
>
>Dear John:
>
>A good starting point may be the Electronics Reuse and Recycling Directory
that can be found at the Region 10 EPA web site. Its address is:
>
>
http://earth1.epa.gov/OSWRCRA/non-hw/recycle/reuse/electdir/recycle1.htm
>
>It is organized by state; however it does not provide any information on
what products each company handles.
>
>There are two companies that I have found on the Web that claim to do CRT
recycling - they are Advanced Recovery and Envirocycle. Their addresses are:
>
> http://www.advancedrecovery.com
>
> http://www.enviroinc.com/
>
>Fred Friedman responded to a question on CRT recycling on GRN's
RecycleTalk. The address of his response is:
>
> http://grn.com/mail/archive/0170.html
>
>Hopes this helps.
>
>Roger M. Guttentag
>
E-MAIL: rgutten@concentric.net
TEL: 215-513-0452
FAX: 215-513-0453
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 12:09:50 -0700
From: Carolyn Chase <cdchase@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Battery recycling programs?
Is anyone aware of a battery recycling
program in an US city that could be used as a model?
There is a group in Boston interested in pursuing such a project.....
Please send any info directly to:
edgb@igc.apc.org (linda heald)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:21:57 -0800
From: Robin Salsburg <robin@mrwmd.org>
Subject: FW: Last Push to Save Roadless Areas
LAST PUSH FOR STRONG ROADLESS AREA POLICY
DECISION MAY BE MADE THE FRIDAY
Calls and faxes are still needed to the Clinton administration to persuade
them to adopt a strong roadless area protection policy. The latest word we
have is that they will make an announcement Friday, which will be followed
by a 30-day comment period. So please keep those calls coming!
1. Protect all roadless areas greater than 1,000 acres- not 5,000 acres
2. No logging, road building, overgrazing or fire suppression
3. No exemptions for Tongass National Forest and Pacific Northwest
4. No "temporary" roads- no roads, no logging, no overgrazing- period.
Vice President Gore at 202/456-2326 or fax 456-7044 and
Katie McGinty, Director of the Council on Environmental
Quality, at 202/456-6224 or fax 456-2710
Thanks,
Bob Brister
Arizona Outreach Coordinator
swfa@igc.apc.org
_____________________________________________________________________________
Kieran Suckling ksuckling@sw-center.org
Executive Director 520.623.5252 phone
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity 520.623.9797 fax
http://www.sw-center.org pob 710, tucson, az 85702-710
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:58:04 -0500
From: "Jeff Surfus" <jeffsurfus@email.msn.com>
Subject: Michigan's Waste Import Problem
My name is Jeff Surfus and I am relatively new to the list. I didn't know
if I was in the right place until I read Bill Sheehan's interesting post
about their activist struggles to get a bottle bill in Georgia. Sorry for
the length of this posting.
We already have a bottle bill in Michigan, but we have a different problem,
and it's getting bigger all the time.
Over the past few years, Michigan has become a garbage disposal target for
many states as well as Ontario, Canada. Due to the relaxing of landfill
siting standards, Michigan has an overabundance of landfill space at this
time. Because of this, waste management companies that operate these
landfills (BFI, WMX, and some smaller outfits) charge much less per unit for
disposal than similar landfills in surrounding states and provinces. The
waste management companies, if they have their way, will continue to press
for more landfills here through the weakening of our regulations.
Currently, the Michigan legislature is considering legislation that would
make it even easier to site more landfills. The legislation would cast
aside the program of each county putting together a solid waste management
plan, which must be approved by the state, which considers current and
future local landfill requirements, surrounding area needs, and other
important considerations when siting a landfill. In the place of this
well-thought-out solid waste management planning process will be
host-community agreements. Essentially, these are nothing more than an
agreement between a landfill operator and a host community (be it a town,
township, county, or whatever). Adjacent communities who could be impacted
would have no say over these agreements. If this legislation passes, I
envision the wealthy waste management companies will descend on cash-starved
townships in Michigan with offers that these communities will be unable to
say no to. Thus creating even more of a glut of landfill space in Michigan
and allowing more and more out of state waste to enter.
...One other little detail, the key legislator behind the bill has received
huge amounts of campaign contributions from the waste management PACs in
this state.
A very small group of concerned folks in Ann Arbor decided to try and do
something about this. What got our attention was the fact that the local
landfill, operated by BFI, last year signed a five year contract to receive
all of the City of Toronto, Ontario's municipal garbage. That's up to
500,000 cubic yards per year (or 40 semi-truckloads per day--365 days per
year) of Canadian garbage disposed in a landfill just outside of Ann Arbor,
Michigan! BFI stands to make anywhere from $65 to $100 million on this deal
alone. One of the reasons why BFI was able to market out so much landfill
space here in Ann Arbor is because Ann Arbor is a model recycling city. Our
recycling rate last year was an amazing 52%! So instead of saving landfill
space for the future and theoretically lessening the need for future
landfills, we are rewarded for our fastidious recycling by receiving all of
Toronto's garbage!
As many of you may be aware, no state can enact regulations to stop waste
importation. In a landmark Supreme Court case a few years back, the
justices, in their infinite wisdom, ruled that solid waste was a commodity
and therefore could not be stopped from crossing state lines, per the
Interstate Commerce Commission. Federal legislation must be passed allowing
states some type of flow control before we can stop the importing of solid
waste. It does not appear that there is the political will to do this
anytime soon in the House or Senate. Previous attempts to enact this
legislation have died in committees.
We've done what we can, given how the cards are stacked against us. Over
last spring and summer we gathered over 4,000 letters to Canadian officials
from irate Michigan residents, urging them to reconsider sending their waste
to Michigan. Last October, in the heat of the Toronto mayoral race, we
personally delivered these letters to the mayoral candidates, using some
clever (if I may say so) street theater. We brought along an Elvis
impersonator who sang a reworked version of "Return to Sender." (Return to
sender, address unknown, don't want your trash here, so keep it at home).
We drew a lot of media attention, but the candidates weathered the storm and
alas, nothing came of our efforts. This month the trucks started rolling.
We are attempting to get our legislature to enact a bill that would allow
Michigan to stop imports from states that do not have disposal standards as
strict as Michigan. For example, we currently receive garbage from
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, states that do not prohibit waste oil in their
municipal solid waste. We do prohibit it here. There is a chance that this
legislation will pass, but there is uncertainty as to whether it will
withstand a constitutional challenge, which it will surely receive. The
waste management lobbyists are very busy in Lansing trying to stonewall this
legislation.
We continually try to get media attention to this issue, with some success.
People on the street seem to think its crazy that we are such a target.
The bottom line is, from a recycling standpoint, this is a terrible
situation. Here in Ann Arbor, people are going to start thinking "Why
should I recycle if the landfill space I am saving is being sold by BFI at
tremendous profit?" In Toronto, people will start thinking "Why should we
recycle when there is such a cheap disposal option down the road in
Michigan?"
My question is, is this happening elsewhere as well? Are there any success
stories anyone has to share? Any suggestions on what we can do to stop
this? Any words of encouragement?
Again, sorry for the long post!
Jeff Surfus
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:03:36 -0800
From: Northwest Physical Therapy <ncol0043@telis.org>
Subject: unsubscribe
please take us off your list. we are a new user and do not want to hear
from you
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:09:22 -0500
From: "Marjorie J. Clarke" <mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu>
Subject: Virgin material subsidies
Bill asked:
>Does anyone out there have SPECIFIC, DETAILED information on subsides for
>virgin materials, how they affect recycling, how much, together with sources
>and references? Are there subsidies whose elimination can be justified on
the
>
If people are forwarding information to Bill, I ask that it also be posted
to the list. It will be useful to many battles that we all, doubtless,
fight in our own quarters on a day-to-day basis to have this information in
one place.
__ __
//\\ //\\ _ _ _ o _
// \\ // \\ ({_}} {{_}} {{_}} || //_\\
// \\// \\ ^ // // || \\__
\_// \_//
Marjorie J. Clarke
Environmental Scientist and Consultant
http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/index.htm
http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/moodyblu.htm
New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:25:56 -0800
From: S Gates <iuf@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Zero waste goals
Dear GreenYes Folks:
David Biddle wrote:
>
>
> I think the issue of time here can only confuse matters. Most paper
> products are disposed of in a matter of weeks from the time they were
> purchased...many just days. Toilet paper, newspapers, copy paper,
> magazines, etc. They are not designed to be stored...if they were we
> would need much bigger houses and the filing cabinet industry would be
> doing better than Waste Mgmt. and BFI. Paper is great stuff. But it is
> also terribly...recyclable. Computers on the other hand should last
> forever but they have lives of less than five years (this goes back to
> the idea that waste is a social construct). Cars are similar at 10 years,
> though we've got a tremendous infrastructure for dealing with cars.
>
There is an important point in this almost-offhand remark about dealing
with cars. There is a "tremendous infrastructure for dealing with
cars." It is very easy to reuse and recycle cars and car parts, and
very few people would think of throwing their old car into the dumpster.
Why is this? Because people have recognized the economic value of
reusing and recycling cars. This is not to beg the question of what to
do with the parts when they are no longer reusable or recyclable
(producer responsibility, etc.), but perhaps there is a valuable model
for us to look at in terms of monetizing value and creating
infrastructure.
Sharon Gates
Integrated Urban Forestry
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #25
******************************