Today's Topics:
Big Three Auto Makers
chasing arrow symbol history (2 msgs)
Fwd: help for non-profits
Fwd: JOB POSTING
Indexing a waste reduction goal
Land for lease in Bay Area
need source for recycled content coated paper
Re: sham recycling
RE>Big Three Auto Makers
sham recycling (2 msgs)
WASTE: Re: (Fwd) Business Week: Tyvek Insert- 12/22/97 Issue.
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:98/12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:05:54 -0600 From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com> Subject: Big Three Auto Makers
According to an article in the January 16th Washington Times posted on the EPA Library:
"he Big 3 automakers now seem to be interested in the idea of developing environmentally friendly vehicles. The manufacturers hope to have a new generation of high- mileage, low-emissions vehicles being produced by the turn of the century, if they can overcome basic technical and cost problems. "We have studied the global warming issue both internally and with experts and have come to realize there is cause for concern," said General Motors Chairman Jack Smith."
THERE ARE TWO WAYS OF INTERPRETING THIS. THE FIRST WAY IS THAT MR. SMITH HAS A LATENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN. THE OTHER WAY IS THAT THEY HAVE DONE POLLING AND FOUND THAT THEIR TARGET MARKET IS GETTING NERVOUS ABOUT THE GLUTTONY OF SPORTS UTILITY VEHICLES AND IS FEEDING THE PERCEPTION THAT SUV'S ARE NO LONGER "COOL".
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT POLLING IN THIS AREA THAT MIGHT INDICATE MOTIVATION.
IF IT IS THE LATTER SITUATION, THAT WOULD ALSO SUGGEST THAT THERE WOULD TEND TO BE INCREASED CONCERN WITH A HOST OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, INCLUDING RECYCLING. ____________________________________ 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
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:47:00 +0000 From: Pat Imperato <imperato@voicenet.com> Subject: chasing arrow symbol history
Looking for information on the history of the chasing arrows recycling symbol. When was it created and first used. Who created it. This is to help out a middle school student. Thanks. Pat Imperato
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:19:51 EST From: Jango <Jango@aol.com> Subject: chasing arrow symbol history
>From: imperato@voicenet.com (Pat Imperato) >To: GreenYes@ucsd.edu (GreenYes) >Looking for information on the history of the chasing arrows recycling >symbol. When was it created and first used. Who created it. This is >to help out a middle school student. Thanks. Pat Imperato
Hi Pat:
The following is a piece from envirolink last fall that will help a good=20 deal (Mssrs. Powell and Dumas, as always, were founts of knowledge). If=20 you get any further with source documentation, please let me know.
David Biddle
No decline in memory there Jerry, you nailed it. There were enough=20 responses interested in the history that I have included part of the handbook version below. I=20 cut it short since the second half was about API's guidance for use of the symbol, as of 1991. =20 Consider Jerry Powell's message the "executive summary."
>Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 12:30:05 -0400 (EDT) >From: RESRECYCLE@aol.com >To: recycle@envirolink.org >Subject: Re: History of the Recycling Symbol >Message-ID: <970903122607_906991712@emout18.mail.aol.com>
>From my declining memory, this is how I recall the Mobius-loop recycling >symbol being created. Container Corp. of America (now a part of Smurfit) >held a contest prior to Earth Day 1970 to select a recycling symbol. The >Mobius-loop symbol was chosen the winner and was submitted by a UC-Berkeley >student (Gary Anderson?). Subsequently, CCA used the logo but did not >trademark it, and it thus ended up in the public domain.
>Jerry Powell >Resource Recycling Magazine
Please keep the section below intact, including the credits. JD -------------------------------------------- From: CERMA's Recycled Paper Handbook, First Edition, April 1991; Edited and=20 Compiled by the Editorial Staff of Recycled Paper News, Published by CERMA (The Center=20 for Earth Resources Management Applications, Inc.), pgs. 10 & 11
"The History of the Recycling Symbol
The familiar chasing arrows recycling symbol is everywhere these days. =20 It's design conveys the three integral phases of recycling: the collection, processing, and=20 manufacture of recovered materials into new products. A stylized outline of a tree can be seen in=20 the center of the symbol.
The recycling symbol was created by Container Corporation of America=20 which, since the 1920s, has been a major producer of recycled paperboard and heavily=20 involved in waste paper collection.
In the late 1960s, the company identified a marketing opportunity to=20 promote the benefits of its products in response to the emerging environmental consciousness=20 taking hold in America.
Contest
As a special event for the original Earth Day in 1970, Container=20 Corporation conducted a contest for graphic art students to design a symbol representing paper=20 recycling. The event was conceived by the company's manager of public relations, Anthony=20 Marcin, who is currently manager of investor relations for Mobil Corporation.
Over a thousand entries were submitted in the contest, which was judged=20 at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies in Aspen, Colorado. The winning entry=20 submitted by Gary Anderson, an art student at the University of California at Berkeley, was=20 modified into the now familiar chasing arrows design by William Lloyd, Container=20 Corporation's manager of design, who currently heads up Lloyd Associates, a Chicago design firm.
Two Versions
Originally, two versions of the symbol were created to convey two=20 different messages. Solid arrows within a black circle designated that the box or container was=20 made from recycled paperboard. Another version, where the arrows appear in outline, meant=20 that the box or container was recyclable.
Container Corporation applied for registration of the symbol as a service=20 mark, and for a nominal fee, licensed its use to other recycled paperboard manufacturers=20 and to related industry associations such as the American Paper Institute (API) and the=20 Corrugated Box Manufacturers Association.
The symbol quickly became the centerpiece of an ongoing campaign to=20 promote the use of recycled paperboard. A now-defunct New York environmental group=20 challenged the service mark registration application on the basis that the symbol would create=20 consumer confusion.=20 Container Corporation subsequently dropped the registration application=20 and allowed the symbol to enter the public domain.
.....................It is ironic, in hindsight, that the very problem=20 feared from registering the symbol - consumer confusion - is now widespread because of the diversity of the=20 symbol's use, appearance, and meaning............."
------------------------------------------------- ####
David Biddle Philadelphia, PA 215-247-2974 (voice and fax)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:50:21 EST From: CRRA <CRRA@aol.com> Subject: Fwd: help for non-profits
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_884994621_boundary Content-ID: <0_884994621@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII
--part0_884994621_boundary Content-ID: <0_884994621@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline
Return-Path: <owner-recycle@envirolink.org> Received: from relay22.mail.aol.com (relay22.mail.aol.com [172.31.106.68])= by air19.mail.aol.com (v37.8) with SMTP; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:05:22 -0500 Received: from envirolink.org (manatee.envirolink.org [208.195.208.7]) by relay22.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id PAA09943; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:05:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by envirolink.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA19621; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 14:55:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.virginia.edu (mail.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.9]) by envirolink.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA19229 for <recycle@envirolink.org>; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 14:52:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialin1243.cstone.net by mail.virginia.edu id aa17767; 16 Jan 98 15:00 EST Message-Id: <199801161952.OAA19229@envirolink.org> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 14:52:41 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: recycle@envirolink.org Sender: owner-recycle@envirolink.org Precedence: bulk From: "Fritz R. Franke" <frf5k@virginia.edu> To: recycle@envirolink.org Subject: help for non-profits X-Sender: frf5k@ecosys.drdr.virginia.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Greetings List members,
I've got something I'd like to pass along. It's an announcement from Earth Systems about a mail list they host to help non-profit environmental organizations.
___________________________________________________________________ Need help with funding? Need to increase membership in your organizations? Need to come in contact with others in the same boat and others still who have solved these problems? Well...
A new environmental mailing list, EcoTalk, is available to meet these needs.
EcoTalk is a forum, operated by Earth Systems, to discuss issues related to the operation of environmental non-profit organizations. Topics include the problems most all non-profits face, how non-profits receive funding for their cause and how best to get the message of a particular non-profit to the public, how to increase membership, how to carry out the organization's mission and publicize it. This list is not just confined to non-profit environmental organizations. Many problems faced by these organizations are the same ones faced by colleges and universities, small businesses, and in some cases, government agencies. Everyone is welcome to join.
To subscribe, send a letter to: ecotalk-request@earthsystems.org with the subject: subscribe=20
The list is also archived on the web: http://earthsystems.org/list/ecotalk
Eco Talk is brought to you by Earth Systems, a non-profit environmental education organization. For more information about Earth Systems, please visit us at http://earthsystems.org
Thank you and have a nice day. ____________________________________________________________________
I'm not sure who on the Recycle list might benefit from Eco Talk. I know that funding is always a major issue to non-profits and schools. When I started all of the environmental programs at the University of Virginia back in 1989, I had no funding. I generated revenue by getting corporate sponsership of my first recycling containers. You know the routine, buy them for us, put your name on the side, and we'll put them out. The paper collected earned needed revenue to expand the program. So solutions like that are out there, and information like that is available on Eco Talk so people don't have to re-invent the wheel. Thanks and enjoy your weekend. Fritz
________________________________________________________________ Fritz R. Franke frf5k@virginia.edu
"Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else." ________________________________________________________________
--part0_884994621_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:50:15 EST From: CRRA <CRRA@aol.com> Subject: Fwd: JOB POSTING
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_884994615_boundary Content-ID: <0_884994615@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII
--part0_884994615_boundary Content-ID: <0_884994615@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline
Return-Path: <jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov> Received: from relay06.mail.aol.com (relay06.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.6])= by air09.mail.aol.com (v37.8) with SMTP; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:49:32 -0500 Received: from valley.rtpnc.epa.gov (valley.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.16]) by relay06.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id NAA17575; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:49:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from valley (valley [134.67.208.16]) by valley.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.8.7/8.8.0) with SMTP id NAA18032; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:49:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:49:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <12bd0fbf.34bf9e59@aol.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: CET NOHO <CETNOHO@aol.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov> Subject: JOB POSTING X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: EPA's "Jobs Through Recycling" Grants Network Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
The Center for Ecological Technology (CET) has jost posted this job opening= - please feel free to forward it to someone who might be interested in moving= to the Berkshires in western MA. Thanks, John Majercak.
1/15/98 - Waste Management Professional - CET, a non-profit organization, seeks experienced person to provide technical assistance in recycling and waste management to communities and businesses and to manage and expand a business recycling cooperative. Pittsfield, MA based. Fulltime salary with benefits, part-time position optional. EOE. Send resume and cover letter ASAP to CET, 112 Elm Street, Pittsfield, MA 01201. Or email= cetnoho@aol.com.
--part0_884994615_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 14:47:31 -0600 From: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us> Subject: Indexing a waste reduction goal
Thanks to several of you for helpful messages on my "sham recycling" question yesterday. I'll share a synopsis of my findings with the listserve soon.
Now for another question: Does anyone know of a state or organization that has an index of population, economic, and/or other statistics to predict changes in waste generation for a community or state? =20
Texas has a legislative goal of reducing the tons of materials landfilled 40% below 1991 levels . . . "adjusting for changes in population, tons of solid waste imported and exported, and other relevant changes between the baseline year and the comparison year." The task before my agency (TNRCC) now is to create an index to adjust for these "relevant changes." (We already track waste import/export.)
Please let me know if any state or other organization has developed such an index, or is working on one. Or perhaps information about someone who has created an index to predict changes in waste generation/disposal for planning purposes, or has done statistical research into the relationship between population, economic variables, etc. and waste generation/dosposal.
By the way, TNRCC's data show that the landfilling of brush/tree limbs dropped by more than half in the early 1990's -- which is being attributed to new policies that encouraged and facilitated diversion, mulching, and composting of brush at landfills and other locations. =20
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:09:24 -0800 From: Myra Nissen <myracycl@inreach.com> Subject: Land for lease in Bay Area
I am posting this for a friend --- Myra
Land for lease 1.5 acres near downtown San Jose Targeted for reuse or recycling No wood or paper recycling please also Just under 1 acre in Fremont, near Numi Plant Targeted for C&D Reuse
Both sites with good freeway access For addititonal information contact Raisch Products John Armando at 408 227-9222 x 233 or e-mail johnarmando@raischco.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:26:55 -0500 (EST) From: Jessewhite@aol.com Subject: need source for recycled content coated paper
Hello.
I am producing a poster with the theme "Buy Recycled" and I am having a heck of a time finding a source for COATED PAPER with a high post-consumer= content (i.e., greater than 20%). =20
If you can help me with : Company Name, Product Line Name, Text Weight, Post Consumer content, and (if possible) Distributors in Florida, please email or fax the info by 1/30. Thank You!!
Jesse ------------------------------------ Jesse White, Project Manager/Owner RMG - Resource Management Group P.O. Box 1726 Tallevast, FL 34270-1726 941-727-2527 941-756-7164 (fax)=20 email: jessewhite@aol.com "Consulting to Government & Industry in=20 Recycling and Solid Waste Management." ------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:19:40 EST From: Jango <Jango@aol.com> Subject: Re: sham recycling
I agree with much of what Roger Guttentag wrote. Here in the Middle=20 Atlantic we have had the dubious honor of having to deal with sham=20 recyclers of the first degree for many years. As a consultant to=20 Philadelphia I encountered numerous operations dealing with everything=20 from bales of paper (with hospital waste in teh middle) to auto fluff to=20 "mixed paper" (which the company reputedly set on fire three times for=20 insurance purposes), etc. etc. I was called last week out of the blue by=20 a NJ detective about the fluff. It appears that since Philly licensed=20 haulers to haul recyclables (and trash) the fluff company had claimed=20 that meant that the city had sanctioned their operation and that it was=20 alright for them to pile it up on the abandoned properties they were=20 "renting." I think it would be interesting to start documenting all the=20 sham operations we all encounter to begin to build an awareness of the=20 seriousness of all this. There is no question that we need standards for=20 siting, but there is also no question that all the small guys out there=20 (esp. the scrap yards) are going to have a hard time with this.=20
>> >>Dear Bill: >> >>The problem of "sham" recycling will always exist as long as recycling >operations are treated more leniently from a regulatory perspective than >true waste disposal operations. There are two principal criteria that I >think should be applied for determining if an operation qualifies as a >recycling business: >> >>1. What is the proposed marketing plan? A real recycling business will
see Roger's full message for the rest.
David Biddle Philadelphia, PA 215-247-2974 (voice and fax)
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 98 16:09:14 +0100 From: Ansje Miller <miller@rprogress.org> Subject: RE>Big Three Auto Makers
I haven't seen any recent polling on the issue, but I wouldn't neccessarily equate a concern about climate change/Sport Utility Vehicles with a concern about environmental issues in general. The former has received a lot of media attention lately due to Kyoto and the recent bizarre weather we've been having (affectionately termed, El Nino). Also, SUVs have been getting a bad rap for safety reaso ns.
-- Ansje Miller Program Associate, Fiscal Policy Research Redefining Progress miller@rprogress.org One Kearny St., 4th Floor http://www.rprogress.org San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 781-1191, x315------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:21:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net> Subject: sham recycling
>Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 19:05:03 >To: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us> >From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@mail.concentric.net> >Subject: Re: sham recycling >Cc: GreenYes@ucsd.edu > >At 10:20 AM 1/15/98 -0600, you wrote: >>The field operations staff at the Texas Natural Resource Conservation >>Commission are developing a guidance document regarding sham >>recycling.....> >>I am looking for references to "sham recycling" rules or guidance >>documents from other states. I know New Jersey either passed >>legislation or adopted rules some years ago to combat sham operations, >>but I do not have any recent rules/guidance/legislation. >> >>Bill Carter, Program Specialist >>Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission >>Recycling Section, Office of Pollution Prevention & Recycling >>MC114 P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087 USA >>(512) 239-6771 >> >>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >Dear Bill: > >The problem of "sham" recycling will always exist as long as recycling operations are treated more leniently from a regulatory perspective than true waste disposal operations. There are two principal criteria that I think should be applied for determining if an operation qualifies as a recycling business: > >1. What is the proposed marketing plan? A real recycling business will know who its markets are and will probably need some kind of advance purchase agreement or commitment in order to get financing. A company's marketing plan should be treated as confidential information, not subject to public disclosure; otherwise it can argued that competitors will get a free ride from companies that submits its marketing plan for regulatory review - this is an especially critical issue in those cases where a company is attempting to develop any kind of innovative recycling operation. Finally, there will be a need for periodic confirmation that this plan is being followed. Deviations from the plan will require a convincing explanation. > >2. What is the mass flow for the proposed operation? Again, in a true recycling operation the majority of the mass flow should exit as either intermediate or final industrial products. What residual rate should be acceptable? This, I believe, depends on the type of recycling operation being proposed. It will probably be necessary to identify different categories of recycling operations and determine through peer review what an acceptable or "qualifying" residual rate would be. If a truly novel recycling operation is proposed, you may need to have a network of knowledgable experts available to help assess the proposed mass flow and render an informed opinion to the review agency. Again, there may be need for periodic "audits" to confirm that the proposed mass flow process has been implemented. Again, significant deviations will require explanation. = =20 > >The whole review process should not and must not be bureaucratically cumbersome. In fact, one of the incentives for recycling businesses should be the ability to go through a thorough but expedited regulatory review in order to properly establish the proper regulatory status. I can't see why the whole application shouldn't be more than 2 - 3 pages including instructions and the review process can't be done in 60 days (assuming that complete information is supplied as requested and the reviewing agency is operately efficiently with qualified staff). > >The nightmare scenario everybody worries about is an operation that passes the initial review hurdles, furiously engages in a phony recycling effort and quickly goes bust leaving a waste disposal mess that requires public funds to clean up. One option is to require a company to post some form of financial guarantee that will be waived after one year of satisfactory recycling operations. Another option is to require no financial guarantees and determine after 1 to 2 years what the true cost of this approach is. Finally, a recycling company can be asked to post a financial guarantee but, after a certain period of time, can not only have the guarantee waived but can be reimbursed for the cost of providing the guarantee (including some recognition of the time value of the money that was tied up to provide the guarantee). I view this third option as being in the same league as providing low interest loans or grants to businesses. In addition, this may reduce some of the objections to the concept of requiring an initial financial guarantee. Perhaps the first and third options can be adopted and applied on a means tested basis. > >Roger M. Guttentag > E-MAIL: rgutten@concentric.net TEL: 215-513-0452 FAX: 215-513-0453
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 19:09:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net> Subject: sham recycling
At 10:20 AM 1/15/98 -0600, you wrote: >The field operations staff at the Texas Natural Resource Conservation >Commission are developing a guidance document regarding sham >recycling.....> >I am looking for references to "sham recycling" rules or guidance >documents from other states. I know New Jersey either passed >legislation or adopted rules some years ago to combat sham operations, >but I do not have any recent rules/guidance/legislation. > >Bill Carter, Program Specialist >Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission >Recycling Section, Office of Pollution Prevention & Recycling >MC114 P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087 USA >(512) 239-6771 > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dear Bill:
The problem of "sham" recycling will always exist as long as recycling operations are treated more leniently from a regulatory perspective than true waste disposal operations. There are two principal criteria that I think should be applied for determining if an operation qualifies as a recycling business:
1. What is the proposed marketing plan? A real recycling business will know who its markets are and will probably need some kind of advance purchase agreement or commitment in order to get financing. A company's marketing plan should be treated as confidential information, not subject to public disclosure; otherwise it can argued that competitors will get a free ride from companies that submits its marketing plan for regulatory review - this is an especially critical issue in those cases where a company is attempting to develop any kind of innovative recycling operation. Finally, there will be a need for periodic confirmation that this plan is being followed. Deviations from the plan will require a convincing explanation.
2. What is the mass flow for the proposed operation? Again, in a true recycling operation the majority of the mass flow should exit as either intermediate or final industrial products. What residual rate should be acceptable? This, I believe, depends on the type of recycling operation being proposed. It will probably be necessary to identify different categories of recycling operations and determine through peer review what an acceptable or "qualifying" residual rate would be. If a truly novel recycling operation is proposed, you may need to have a network of knowledgable experts available to help assess the proposed mass flow and render an informed opinion to the review agency. Again, there may be need for periodic "audits" to confirm that the proposed mass flow process has been implemented. Again, significant deviations will require explanation. = =20
The whole review process should not and must not be bureaucratically cumbersome. In fact, one of the incentives for recycling businesses should be the ability to go through a thorough but expedited regulatory review in order to properly establish the proper regulatory status. I can't see why the whole application shouldn't be more than 2 - 3 pages including instructions and the review process can't be done in 60 days (assuming that complete information is supplied as requested and the reviewing agency is operately efficiently with qualified staff).
The nightmare scenario everybody worries about is an operation that passes the initial review hurdles, furiously engages in a phony recycling effort and quickly goes bust leaving a waste disposal mess that requires public funds to clean up. One option is to require a company to post some form of financial guarantee that will be waived after one year of satisfactory recycling operations. Another option is to require no financial guarantees and determine after 1 to 2 years what the true cost of this approach is. Finally, a recycling company can be asked to post a financial guarantee but, after a certain period of time, can not only have the guarantee waived but can be reimbursed for the cost of providing the guarantee (including some recognition of the time value of the money that was tied up to provide the guarantee). I view this third option as being in the same league as providing low interest loans or grants to businesses. In addition, this may reduce some of the objections to the concept of requiring an initial financial guarantee. Perhaps the first and third options can be adopted and applied on a means tested basis.
Roger M. Guttentag E-MAIL: rgutten@concentric.net TEL: 215-513-0452 FAX: 215-513-0453
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:55:03 -0300 From: Departamento Provincial de Aguas <dpabche@bariloche.com.ar> Subject: WASTE: Re: (Fwd) Business Week: Tyvek Insert- 12/22/97 Issue.
Dear members:
I=B4m interested about waste from portable toilets (motorhome, buses, boats)= and its treatment and regulation.
Specially in relantionship with protected areas and tourism
Cordially
Gabriel Sor=E1
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #12 ******************************
$*$*$*$*$ 1 LINE REFORMATTED BY POPPER AT igc.apc.org $*$*$*$*$