> -----Original Message-----
> From: greenyes-d-request@earthsystems.org
> [SMTP:greenyes-d-request@earthsystems.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 1:36 PM
> To: greenyes-d@earthsystems.org
> Subject: greenyes-d Digest V99 #98
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> greenyes-d Digest Volume 99 : Issue 98
>
> Today's Topics:
> [GRRN] Battery REcovery [ Michele
> Raymond <michele@raymond.com> ]
> [GRRN] [ Michele Raymond
> <michele@raymond.com> ]
> Re: [GRRN] Values-Driven Recycling -Reply [
> Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us> ]
> [GRRN] Fw: BIG APPLE GARBAGE SENTINEL [
> "Bill Sheehan" <zerowaste@grrn.org> ]
> Re: [GRRN] Battery REcovery [ "John
> Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us> ]
> [GRRN] WASTE MERGERS MIGHT SLOW RECYCLING [
> "Bill Sheehan" <zerowaste@grrn.org> ]
> [GRRN] HDPE Prices [
> "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com> ]
> [GRRN] Post-consumer polystyrene recycling [
> "Long-EQE, Stephen" <Stephen.Long@state.ma.us> (Stephen Long) ]
> Re: [GRRN] Values-Driven Recycling -Reply [
> "William P. McGowan" <6500kai@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> ]
> Re: [GRRN] Post-consumer polystyrene recycling [ Pat
> Franklin <cri@igc.org> ]
> Re: [GRRN] WASTE MERGERS MIGHT SLOW RECYCLING [
> "William P. McGowan" <6500kai@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> ]
> Re: greenyes-d Digest V99 #92 [
> Myra Nissen <myracycl@inreach.com> ]
> [GRRN] Response on composting in prisons [
> "Long-EQE, Stephen" <Stephen.Long@state.ma.us> (Stephen Long) ]
>
> Administrivia:
> **************************************************************
> This is the digest version of the greenyes mailing list.
> If should ever need to unsubscribe from this digest, write
> a letter to greenyes-d-request@earthsystems.org with the
> subject unsubscribe. Address letters to the list to
> greenyes@earthsystems.org
>
> To accomodate all digest subscribers, the digest will now
> be sent out in plain text.
> **************************************************************
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:59:35 -0400
> From: Michele Raymond <michele@raymond.com>
> To: greenyes@earthsystems.org
> Subject: [GRRN] Battery REcovery
> Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990412095934.00809ec0@pop.cais.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> RBRC reports 25% recovery in 1998
>
> About 25% of that is retail; 40% is through the licensees own networks;
> includes commercial/inst and industrial ni-cd's
> Michele
> Michele Raymond
> Publisher
> Recycling Laws International/ State Recycling Laws Update
> 5111 Berwyn Rd. Ste 115 College Park, MD 20740)
> 301/345-4237 Fax 345-4768
> http://www.raymond.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:22:12 -0400
> From: Michele Raymond <michele@raymond.com>
> To: greenyes@earthsystems.org
> Subject: [GRRN]
> Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990412102151.00819330@pop.cais.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> OLYETHYLENE: Recyclable Crosslinked Polyolefin Pioneered
> JCW April 9, 1999
>
> Mitsubishi Chemical has begun shipping samples
> of what the company claims to be the world's first
> recyclable, heat-reversible, silane-crosslinked
> resin. The product, created mainly from high-density
> polyethylene, demonstrates the physical properties of
> crosslinked resin at temperatures up to 150 C while
> realizing melt-molding characteristics when heated to
> 230 C.
> Linear polyolefins are known to significantly
> increase their thermal, mechanical, and chemical
> characteristics when crosslinked into net mesh
> structure. However, the inability to recycle such
> crosslinked polyolefins through melt molding or other
> means has impeded their market diffusion.
> Mitsubishi Chemical previously has
> commercialized a crosslinked resin at low cost and
> with excellent molding characteristics in which water
> has reacted with an active silane group within the
> polymer to form crosslinking. For some time the
> chemical powerhouse has grappled with the challenge
> of improving the basic properties of crosslinked
> resins to allow recycling through melt molding.
> By controlling polymerization conditions,
> Mitsubishi Chemical has successfully formulated an
> original technology for manufacturing crosslinked
> polyolefin resin high in physical properties and
> capable of melting at 230 C. The company has priced
> samples at $5-6/kg and aims to turn this into a full-
> blown business within two years.
> Crosslinked polyolefin is used in a broad range
> of industrial fields, from automotive applications to
> sheathing for electrical wires and cables. The
> annual market in volume terms is estimated at over
> 80,000 t/y.
>
> Michele Raymond
> Publisher
> Recycling Laws International/ State Recycling Laws Update
> 5111 Berwyn Rd. Ste 115 College Park, MD 20740)
> 301/345-4237 Fax 345-4768
> http://www.raymond.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:36:29 -0500
> From: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
> To: GaryLiss@aol.com, 6500kai@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
> Cc: greenyes@earthsystems.org, anderson@msn.fullfeed.com
> Subject: Re: [GRRN] Values-Driven Recycling -Reply
> Message-Id: <s711bd23.022@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> Bill McGowan wrote:
>
> >>> "William P. McGowan" <6500kai@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> 04/11/99
> 01:21pm >>>
> Both Peter and Gary Liss mention newsprint minimim content legislation
> as key to the increase in de-inking capacity in the late 1980s and early
> 1990s., yet they both seem to have the cart before the horse, since
> market demand preceded legislation. the zoom up in newsprint prices in
> 1984-85 and 1986 all preceded any attempts to legislate minimum
> content.
> I know, I was just getting into the recycling business then. ...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Bill, you were getting into the recycling business just after one of the
> periodic bottoming-out periods in ONP prices of 1982, which was when I
> got into recycling. The "zoom up" in newsprint prices you saw was a
> recovery from a cyclical downturn. This recovery was not much of a
> factor in the unprecedented surge of new deinking capacity almost a
> decade later.
>
> This unprecedented surge in deinking, as Peter noted, followed the boom
> in local newsprint collection programs in the very late 1980's, the
> subsequent bust in ONP prices due to the "glut," and the following surge
> of recycled content legislation in statehouses across America as a
> means to save the movement to expand recycling.
>
> In Texas, 1991 recycled content legislation led to talks between state
> agencies, legislators, and Texas newsprint manufacturers. The major
> new deinking facility at Champion International in Houston was planned
> and designed with the new legislative goals as a very prominent and
> publicly acknowledged impetus. The new and modernized deinking
> plants of that generation brought us to a new plateau of "baseline
> demand" for ONP which continues the much higher levels of recovery in
> the 1990's compared to previous decades.
>
> As Peter also notes, the trade press announced a startling and
> sweeping abandonment of announced plans for new ONP deinking
> capacity in the mid-1990's, about the same time as the unprecedented
> spike in ONP prices. Why did that huge price surge not stimulate the
> industry to increase capacity, or at least to stay the course with the
> new recycling capacity it had previously announced? Was it supply &
> demand, or did the public policy environment have an influence?
>
> Bill Carter
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:03:35 -0400
> From: "Bill Sheehan" <zerowaste@grrn.org>
> To: "GreenYesL" <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
> Subject: [GRRN] Fw: BIG APPLE GARBAGE SENTINEL
> Message-ID: <00aa01be84f4$01276c00$d081cdcf@desktop>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John McCrory <johnmccrory@mindspring.com>
> Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 5:46 AM
> Subject: BIG APPLE GARBAGE SENTINEL - 4/12/99 - Vol. 1, No. 6
>
>
> Volume 1, Number 6 April 12,
> 1999
> ------------------------ BIG APPLE GARBAGE SENTINEL
> ------------------------
> <http://pratt.edu/~jmccrory/bags/>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> STUDY DOCUMENTS SUBSIDIES FOR WASTE
> "Welfare for Waste," Recyclers Say, Discourages Recycling
>
> The GrassRoots Recycling Network has published "Welfare for Waste: How
> Federal
> Taxpayer Subsidies Waste Resources and Discourage Recycling" in order to
> demonstrate the entrenched obstacles recycling businesses face in trying
> to
> be
> economically viable.
>
> For years, recyclers have complained they are forced to compete on an
> unlevel
> playing field in which subsidies distort markets so recycled materials --
> which should save money in production -- actually cost more than virgin
> materials. This report is the first in-depth study of how direct
> subsidies,
> tax codes, and federally-funded infrastructure might give their
> competitors
> an advantage.
>
> The 114-member coalition undertook a yearlong study of federal subsidies
> from
> the 1872 Mining Law to capital gains that are allowed on timber sales.
> They
> found 15 tax and spending subsidies worth $13 billion over five years.
>
> The United States, their report concludes, "continues to bury or burn most
> of
> what it calls 'waste,' when the real waste is the resources that should
> have
> been recycled . . . resources that could have prevented more raw materials
> from being mined, cut, extracted or squandered."
>
> Copies of the entire report are available for download on the web
> <http://www.grrn.org/>, or can be ordered in printed form for $10.00
> (including shipping and handling) from the GrassRoots Recycling Network,
> P.O
> Box 49283, Athens, GA 30604-9283.
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> __
> e d i t o r i a
> l
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
> In recent years, a number of contrarians have claimed that recycling
> doesn't
> make economic sense. In a New York Times Magazine cover story recyclers
> found
> especially irksome, conservative columnist John Tierney suggested that New
> York City could save a lot of money by not recycling. According to
> Tierney,
> recycling is a merely a 'religious belief' that forces taxpayers to spend
> more
> on waste disposal than they should.
>
> For all their supposed economic sophistication, folks like Tierney seem to
> be
> working with a model of markets so simplistic that if they used it to make
> investment decisions for their retirement, they'd end up in the poorhouse.
>
> The new report by the GrassRoots Recycling Network brings some
> sophistication
> to how we understand the large influence the federal government has on
> materials markets. The direct and indirect subsidies they document give
> oil,
> timber, and mining companies an unfair advantage that devastates our
> environment and mortgages our future.
>
> Rather than take the traditional approach of suggesting new subsidies for
> recyclers to level the playing field, they call for eliminating a diverse
> array of existing subsidies and subtle, but substantive changes in the tax
> code.
>
> Environmentalists are often expected to be politically liberal, but by
> saying
> the federal government should not be in the business of spotting the ball
> anywhere but the fifty-yard line, the GrassRoots Recycling Network is
> taking
> the truly conservative position. In this case, it is the wiser one.
> Weaning
> politically powerful industries off the government teat will be a
> challenging
> and long battle, but it is the right battle to pick.
>
> --John McCrory
>
>
> ----------------------------- THE FINE PRINT
> -------------------------------
> B.A.G.S. is published fortnightly by John McCrory and distributed by email
> and fax. If you have news or information on New York City waste management
> and recycling issues that you'd like to share, contact John McCrory,
> (718) 499-7460 or send an email to <mailto:johnmccrory@mindspring.com>. If
> you want to send a fax, please call first; the fax number is the same as
> the
> phone number, so I'll need to turn my fax machine on. Short articles,
> commentaries, letters, and corrections are welcome.
>
> Subscriptions to BIG APPLE GARBAGE SENTINEL are free. To SUBSCRIBE, send
> email to <mailto:johnmccrory@mindspring.com>. Be sure to include the email
> address at which you wish to receive B.A.G.S. If you do not wish to
> receive
> future issues, send us an email and we will delete your address from our
> mailing list. B.A.G.S. is available at <http://pratt.edu/~jmccrory/bags/>
> on the world wide web. Readers are encouraged to distribute and
> re-circulate
> this newsletter, however, any such copies or excerpts must include
> everything below "The Fine Print." Reprints for commercial purposes
> require
> written permission from the publisher.
>
> BIG APPLE GARBAGE SENTINEL
> 333 Fourth Street, Suite 6I, Brooklyn, New York 11215-7428
> ------ All contents copyright 1999, John McCrory. All Rights Reserved.
> -----
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:53:50 -0600
> From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
> To: Michele Raymond <michele@raymond.com>
> CC: GreenYes@earthsystems.org
> Subject: Re: [GRRN] Battery REcovery
> Message-ID: <3E60D4474AC@co.dane.wi.us>
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>
> Thanks, Michele. That's a disappointly low rate. Especially the
> recovery from retail. And for such toxic materials too. It suggests
> that a different approach is needed to boost the recycling numbers.
>
> John Reindl
>
> > RBRC reports 25% recovery in 1998
> >
> > About 25% of that is retail; 40% is through the licensees own networks;
> > includes commercial/inst and industrial ni-cd's
> > Michele
> > Michele Raymond
> > Publisher
> > Recycling Laws International/ State Recycling Laws Update
> > 5111 Berwyn Rd. Ste 115 College Park, MD 20740)
> > 301/345-4237 Fax 345-4768
> > http://www.raymond.com
> >
> > *****************************************************
> > To post to the greenyes list, send a letter to:
> > greenyes@earthsystems.org
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to:
> > greenyes-request@earthsystems.org with the subject
> > unsubscribe. If you have any problems, please
> > write to www@earthsystems.org.
> > GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling
> > Network web site: http://www.grrn.org
> > ******************************************************
> >
> >
>
> reindl@co.dane.wi.us
> (608)267-1533 - fax
> (608)267-8815 - phone
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:41:59 -0400
> From: "Bill Sheehan" <zerowaste@grrn.org>
> To: "GreenYesL" <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
> Subject: [GRRN] WASTE MERGERS MIGHT SLOW RECYCLING
> Message-ID: <014101be850b$dd3dc560$d081cdcf@desktop>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> MERGERS RAISE GARBAGE FEES, MIGHT SLOW
> RECYCLING
>
> By Jeff Nesmith, Cox Washington Bureau
> Atlanta Journal Constitution, April 11, 1999, A4
>
> While the government presses its charges that Microsoft
> Corp. tried to unfairly dominate America's access to
> computer software, a rapid consolidation of corporate power
> is quietly taking place around a humbler but equally
> pervasive part of life: garbage.
>
> As a result, some critics think, your garbage bill inevitably
> will go up and the national trend toward recycling will
> reverse.
>
> If a series of announced mega-mergers is approved, the
> country will enter the next millennium with two companies
> in control of picking up, hauling off, dumping and recycling
> more than half its municipal and industrial solid waste.
>
> The two corporations will be Waste Management Inc. of
> Houston and the entity created by the merger of Browning-
> Ferris Industries, also of Houston, and Allied Waste
> Industries of Phoenix.
>
> They will share more than $18 billion in annual revenue for
> handling what's left when we get through with newspapers,
> coffee grounds, milk jugs and just about everything else.
>
> That's over half the estimated $35 billion Americans pay
> every year for garbage collection and disposal. What's left
> will be divided among local governments, one other national
> garbage collector and several thousand small local and
> regional haulers.
>
> The consolidations are being driven primarily by the
> companies' efforts to deal with depressed revenues caused by
> a national glut of landfills and have been followed by price
> increases.
>
> Some experts also say the national trend toward recycling
> will reverse.
>
> Big solid waste companies lose money every time something
> is recycled instead of going into one of their landfills, said
> Peter Anderson, a Madison, Wis., solid waste consultant and
> recycling promoter.
>
> "The concern I have is that recycling is going to be hitting
> some rough times," he said. "An oligopoly in waste will
> naturally extend itself over recycling and put the brakes on."
>
> Not everyone thinks consolidation in the business is
> necessarily bad for consumers. Large companies may be
> more efficient and cost-effective than small, mom-and-pop
> garbage haulers.
>
> "Running a landfill has gotten to be a pretty complex
> business in a lot of respects," said Winston Porter, president
> of the Waste Policy Center and a former assistant
> administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
> "When I was at EPA eight or 10 years ago, there were 6,000
> to 8,000 landfills in this country. Today there are 2,900."
>
> Regardless of their size or the size of the company that owns
> them, all landfills must meet federal environmental
> standards, Porter said.
>
> Consolidation accelerates
>
> Consolidation in the business of hauling and disposing of
> municipal and industrial solid waste has been going on for
> years. It has accelerated in the past decade, first because of
> new federal regulations for waste disposal, and second
> because of an unexpected national glut in waste disposal
> sites, industry analysts say.
>
> The new regulations went into effect in 1989 and 1990 by
> the EPA. They required that landfills be lined with thick
> plastic and a layer of compacted clay several feet thick. The
> landfills also must have systems of collecting and removing
> the water that leaches through buried waste, wells for
> monitoring underground water supplies, and systems for
> managing gases, principally methane, given off by virtually
> every landfill.
>
> With the regulations, the local city dump was replaced by a
> "solid waste landfill," a highly engineered system for
> managing millions of tons of garbage. As economies of scale
> took over, the landfills became very large.
>
> But while city and county governments operate dozens of
> megalandfills built or modified to meet the new EPA
> standards, most facilities are privately owned. Until this
> year, four companies--Waste Management Inc., Browning-
> Ferris Industries, USA Waste Inc., and Allied Waste
> Industries--owned most of them.
>
> This year, USA Waste, the third-largest company, took over
> Waste Management, the largest. And last month, Allied
> Waste Industries, until last year the fourth-largest,
> announced that it was taking over Browning-Ferris
> Industries, the second-largest.
>
> "This is the culmination of many years of activity," said Neil
> Seldman, president of the Washington-based Institute for
> Local Self-Reliance, a recycling advocacy group. "The large
> companies have spent years driving small haulers out of
> business or buying them up."
>
> Seldman said that because they now control so many
> landfills, the big companies can control the industry by
> setting the price for dumping.
>
> EPA officials said that when they issued the 1990 rules, they
> expected large regional landfills to replace smaller local
> facilities.
>
> "It would not make good economic sense to build a small
> landfill, if you could get together with your neighbor and
> build a larger landfill," said Robert Dellinger, director of the
> EPA division of municipal and industrial solid waste. "We
> projected there would be a reduction of the number of
> landfills."
>
> What was not anticipated by the EPA was that a country
> worried in 1990 about "running out of places to put garbage"
> would overbuild and suddenly find itself with too many
> landfills. As they grew and bought competitors, the handful
> of national solid waste haulers were largely responsible for
> this development.
>
> Fees start to rise
>
> Anderson said a landfill glut in the past few yearshas
> resulted in prices that are depressed by competition. Small
> haulers, who typically empty their trucks in downtown
> "transfer stations" operated by regional haulers and landfill
> operators, could shop for the lowest fees.
>
> But as weaker landfill oper- ators were bought by the
> national firms, these fees started rising. After USA Waste
> took over Waste Management Inc., it kept the former
> company's name. It did not keep its landfill prices. Within
> weeks of Justice Department approval of the deal, USA
> Waste announced a 40-percent increase at many landfills.
>
> Anderson said that while the Justice Department requires
> merging companies to divest themselves of landfills in areas
> where mergers would otherwise depress competition, he
> believes "price signaling" and other informal means of
> avoiding competition will inevitably lead to continuing price
> increases. Pressures on the industry will almost demand it,
> he said.
>
> Anderson said the industries of hauling and disposing of
> garbage should be divided so haulers compete for local and
> regional hauling contracts, and landfill operators then
> compete for the haulers' business.
>
> "The solid waste industry is about to reach its endgame after
> nearly three decades of consolidation," he said. "That is the
> point where two or three major integrated firms control the
> landfills in many of the major markets."
>
> Meanwhile, the depressed landfill market is only one thorn
> in the industry's side. Recycling is another.
>
> Seldman said studies have shown that hauling a piece of
> garbage to a landfill is six times as profitable to a waste
> disposal company as recycling it, even when the company
> collects an extra fee for handling recyclable materials.
>
> "The only way they do recycling is under duress," he said.
>
> According to some estimates, about 27 percent of America's
> waste stream is now recycled.
>
> Steve Railel, a spokesman for Waste Management, said the
> company will continue to "grow" its recycling operations.
>
> A spokesman for Allied Waste Industries did not respond to
> telephone messages.
>
> ###
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:37:03 -0500
> From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
> To: "EnviroLink" <recycle@envirolink.org>,
> "GreenYes" <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
> Subject: [GRRN] HDPE Prices
> Message-ID: <01be8513$759192e0$0eb7b8c7@compaq>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> According to 4/12/99 Plastics News, 3 cent/lb. + virgin HDPE price
> increases posted in March have stuck. This should be trickling down to
> recycling programs soon.
>
>
> Peter
> ____________________________________
> 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: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:35:09 EDT
> From: "Long-EQE, Stephen" <Stephen.Long@state.ma.us> (Stephen Long)
> To: <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
> Subject: [GRRN] Post-consumer polystyrene recycling
> Message-Id: <vines.ddh8+rnX2rB@itd-w4.state.ma.us>
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> In response to Brian Fuller's question on post-consumer polystyrene
> recycling:
> NOVA Chemicals Environmental Products Group collects and processes
> post-consumer food service products. Since 1996, NOVA has diverted 200,000
>
> pounds of polystyrene from disposal. NOVA's Boston-based contact person is
>
> Suzanne Millette (617) 524-8554.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "William P. McGowan" <6500kai@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>
> To: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
> cc: GaryLiss@aol.com, greenyes@earthsystems.org, anderson@msn.fullfeed.com
> Subject: Re: [GRRN] Values-Driven Recycling -Reply
> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.990412122439.25105A-100000@ucsbuxa>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Bill Carter--
> The abandonement of new ONP de-inking capacity was partially tied to high
> ONP proices--though they were not very high relative to the rtun up in
> pricing during the late 1980s--but because there was too much capacity
> worldwide--it takes less time to get a mill up and running in Asia than in
> Texas, and like the rule of capture, first mill on line is likley to be
> able to get more customers than ones opening several months down the line.
>
> No one seems to be mentioning the confuision created by "post consumer"
> certification for news, which seems to have confused the market place as
> mills looked for paper certified to be "post-consumer" but could not find
> anyone to verify it.
>
> Bill McGowan
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Pat Franklin <cri@igc.org>
> To: "Long-EQE, Stephen" <Stephen.Long@state.ma.us>,
> <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
> Subject: Re: [GRRN] Post-consumer polystyrene recycling
> Message-Id: <2.2.16.19990208034123.3b77bbc4@pop2.igc.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> TO: Stephen Long
> FR: Pat Franklin, ExecDir, CRI
> RE: Diversion of 200,000 ppounds of polystyrene
>
> QUESTIONS:
> 1) Was that 'post-consumer' polystyrene?
> 2) How many pounds were NOT diverted?
>
>
>
> At 02:35 PM 4/12/99 EDT, Long-EQE, Stephen" (Stephen Long wrote:
> >In response to Brian Fuller's question on post-consumer polystyrene
> >recycling:
> >NOVA Chemicals Environmental Products Group collects and processes
> >post-consumer food service products. Since 1996, NOVA has diverted
> 200,000
> >pounds of polystyrene from disposal. NOVA's Boston-based contact person
> is
> >Suzanne Millette (617) 524-8554.
> >
> >*****************************************************
> > To post to the greenyes list, send a letter to:
> >greenyes@earthsystems.org
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to:
> >greenyes-request@earthsystems.org with the subject
> >unsubscribe. If you have any problems, please
> >write to www@earthsystems.org.
> > GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling
> >Network web site: http://www.grrn.org
> >******************************************************
> >
> >
> Pat Franklin, Executive Director
> Container Recycling Institute
> 1911 Ft. Myer Drive Suite 900
> Arlington, VA 22209
> 703/276-9800 fax 276-9587
> email: cri@igc.org
> web: www.container-recycling.org
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "William P. McGowan" <6500kai@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>
> To: Bill Sheehan <zerowaste@grrn.org>
> cc: GreenYesL <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
> Subject: Re: [GRRN] WASTE MERGERS MIGHT SLOW RECYCLING
> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.990412122852.25105B-100000@ucsbuxa>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> A brief lesson in Schumpeterian economics:
>
> If a large company reaps windfall profits, ,like many think will happen
> in the garbage industry, then these windfall profits will attract
> competition, which in turn creates downward prssure on prices until
> ultimately profits return to historical averages. This has been the case
> for one hundred years, and I see no reason why it will not continue to be
> so.
>
> Bill McGowan
> History, UCSB
> Rincon Recycling
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:28:27 -0700
> From: Myra Nissen <myracycl@inreach.com>
> To: FULLER Brian <FULLER.Brian@deq.state.or.us>
> CC: greenyes <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
> Subject: Re: greenyes-d Digest V99 #92
> Message-ID: <3712495B.60EA@inreach.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Brain,
>
> Sorry to hear this. Unfortunately this speaks to the experiences I have
> had with post-consumer poly-styrene in general, not food service, in the
> SF Bay Area. Neither is the market demand consistant, nor are the
> companies collecting.
>
> It just is a statement of the problems/challenges we face with low value
> materials.
>
> Myra Nissen
> myracycl@inreach.com
>
> FULLER Brian wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Myra.
> >
> > FYI. This company, unfortunately is no longer.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Myra Nissen [mailto:myracycl@inreach.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 4:31 PM
> > To: FULLER Brian
> > Cc: 'greenyes@earthsystems.org'
> > Subject: Re: greenyes-d Digest V99 #92
> >
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > I don't know how sucessful this comany is...I was at a trade show in
> > Spokane, WA last Nov. and ran into a booth for Northwest Specialty
> > Recycling, LLC., a polystyrene recycling center in Moses Lake, WA. I
> > recall that they were doing post-consumer. The phone no. on their
> > literature is 509-762-2409.
> >
> > Myra Nissen
> > myracycl@inreach.com
> >
> > FULLER Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > FYI an interesting article on food service polystyrene. If any one
> knows
> > of
> > > a successful post consumer food service polystyrene recycling program,
> I
> > > would enjoy hearing about it. The only market on the west coast that
> I am
> > > aware of is the NPRC in Corona, CA and they are currently charging
> > $300/ton
> > > to accept this material. I have also heard a rumor that this facility
> is
> > > for sale?
> > >
> > > * Paper Waste: Why Portland's Ban on Polystyrene Foam
> > > Products Has Been a Costly Failure
> > > by Angela Eckhardt, Cascade program assistant
> > > http://www.CascadePolicy.org/growth/poly.pdf
> > >
> > > *****************************************************
> > > To post to the greenyes list, send a letter to:
> > > greenyes@earthsystems.org
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to:
> > > greenyes-request@earthsystems.org with the subject
> > > unsubscribe. If you have any problems, please
> > > write to www@earthsystems.org.
> > > GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling
> > > Network web site: http://www.grrn.org
> > > ******************************************************
> > I
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:17:51 EDT
> From: "Long-EQE, Stephen" <Stephen.Long@state.ma.us> (Stephen Long)
> To: <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
> Subject: [GRRN] Response on composting in prisons
> Message-Id: <vines.ddh8+tPY2rB@itd-w4.state.ma.us>
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> This is a response to an older posting (week or two) on recycling in
> prisons. I hope it is not redundant. My colleague, and MA DEP composting
> staffer, Sumner Martinson, tried posting it, but could not. So here goes.
> Sumner says that Jim Marion has organized recycling and composting
> projects
> at over 50 New York State Department of Corrections facilities. Jim's # is
>
> (914) 647-1653. Hope this helps and is not too late.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> End of greenyes-d Digest V99 Issue #98
> **************************************