GreenYes Digest V97 #125

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:11:57 -0500


GreenYes Digest Sat, 31 May 97 Volume 97 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:
Corrupt Politicians Protection Act of 1997
Dangers of burning insulation off copper wiring
Executive Order to increase post-consumer recycled fiber in
Fwd: New CRRA Home Page
GreenYes Digest V97 #124
Need VCR/TV for CRRA Conference June 1
new recycling program - need advise.
new recycling program - need advise. (fwd)
Oil bottle recycling
Product Stewardship for Used Oil in Manitoba
recycled fiber content inquiry
Response to critics and supporters (2 msgs)
San Diego Curbside Pickup? A Reminder
there is a split, no ranks, no hierarchy just a ZW goal
Vote: Is there a split in the ranks?

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 13:51:38 -0500
From: "Susan K. Snow" <sksnow@1stnet.com>
Subject: Corrupt Politicians Protection Act of 1997

I received this message today from Gary Ruskin <gary@essential.org> and
thought you might be interested, since how so-called <conservatives>
are damaging our health, the environment and efforts to recycle. Please
execuse me for being off topic. But, I do hope you will forward to
other lists and spread widely.
Susan Snow
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressional Reform Briefings May 30, 1997

to subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings send the message:
subscribe CONG-REFORM your name
to listproc@essential.org

-- A bi-partisan group of House lawmakers is trying to
stifle the internal policing of corruption,
influence-peddling, and abuse of power in the U. S.
House of Representatives.

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release: For More Information Contact:
Thursday, May 29, 1997 Gary Ruskin (202) 296-2787

House Plans "Corrupt Politicians Protection Act"
To Shield Members From Ethics Investigations

The Congressional Accountability Project criticized as "The
Corrupt Politicians Protection Act of 1997" a secret House plan
to curtail the internal policing of corruption, abuse of power,
and influence-peddling in the U. S. House of Representatives.
The plan is being prepared by the House Ethics Reform Task Force,
a bi-partisan group of lawmakers chaired by Reps. Bob Livingston
(R-LA) and Ben Cardin (D-MD).

The plan, according to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call,
would erect new barriers to prevent Americans from filing ethics
complaints against House members. These complaints from non-House
members are crucial to the enforcement of House Rules that
protect the public against corruption and wrongdoing in the House
of Representatives.

Current rules already make it difficult for citizens to file
ethics complaints in the House of Representatives. Without
complaints from outsiders, it is unlikely that many ethics
proceedings -- particularly those against powerful House members
-- would ever be undertaken by the House Ethics Committee.

"Republican and Democratic career politicians want to shield
themselves from Ethics Committee investigations," said Gary
Ruskin, Director of the Congressional Accountability Project.
"That's why they want to pass the Corrupt Politicians Protection
Act -- to take the House's internal corruption cops off the
beat."

Under House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct Rule
14, persons who are not members of the House of Representatives
may file an ethics complaint only with a letter of transmittal
from a House member or three letters of refusal from such
members.

According to Roll Call, the Task Force is planning to
prohibit the filing of complaints by three letters of refusal.
This would likely prevent the initiation of some ethics
investigations, particularly against powerful House members,
because House members are usually unwilling to directly challenge
the propriety of a powerful member by providing a letter of
transmittal. Complaints against House Transportation Committee
Chairman Bud Shuster (R-PA) and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay
(R-TX) were filed last year by the Congressional Accountability
Project with three letters of refusal.

According to Roll Call, the Task Force is planning to
"eliminat[e] news accounts as the grounds for outside complaints"
-- even though many recent ethics cases were initially based on
news accounts. Those cases include: former Speaker Jim Wright
(D-TX), former Senator Bob Packwood (R-OR), House Speaker Newt
Gingrich (R-GA), former Rep. Barbara-Rose Collins (D-MI), House
Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster, and House Majority
Whip Tom DeLay.

The members of the House Ethics Reform Task Force include
Reps. Mike Castle (R-DE), Martin Frost (D-TX), Porter Goss (R-FL),
Joe Moakley (D-MA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Gerald Solomon (R-NY),
Louis Stokes (D-OH), and Bill Thomas (R-CA). House Ethics
Committee Chairman Jim Hansen (R-UT) and Ranking Member Howard
Berman (D-CA) are ex officio Task Force members.

On February 12, House Republican and Democratic leadership
announced a moratorium on ethics investigations and complaints in
the House. That moratorium -- a "police holiday" for House
members -- is currently shielding Reps. Shuster, DeLay, and Jerry
Costello (D-IL) from ethics investigations.

"It is outrageous that House members have voted themselves a
police holiday,'" Ruskin said. "House leaders should call off
the police holiday,' and stop protecting House members from
ethics investigations based on credible allegations of corruption
and wrongdoing."

-30-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following article was printed in the May 29, 1997 issue of
Roll Call, A Capitol Hill newspaper <http://www.rollcall.com/>.
Reprinted with permission.

Congressional Watchdog Groups Up In Arms Over
Ethics Reform Proposal

--------------------------------------------------

By Juliet Eilperin

Some outside groups are up in arms over a proposal
by House ethics reformers to forbid complaints
against Members based only on newspaper reports.

The ethics reform task force, appointed by House
leaders in the wake of January's contentious vote
to reprimand Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga), hasn't
yet completed its written report on changing
ethics procedures.

But several sources said the task force has agreed
on its proposal to bar outside groups from filing
complaints based on newspaper reports, while also
setting a clearer schedule for considering
allegations against Members.

Task force co-chair Benjamin Cardin (D-Md)
unveiled some of the proposals in a closed-door
meeting before the Democratic Caucus Thursday.

The provision aimed at outside groups would
eliminate the elaborate "three letters of refusal"
rule, which requires three Members to declare that
they will not provide a letter of transmittal
before the ethics committee will receive an
outside complaint.

But by eliminating news accounts as the grounds
for outside complaints, the reform could
dramatically curtail public watchdogs' ability to
lodge charges of wrongdoing against Members.
Virtually every high-profile case against Members
in recent years -- including the charges against
House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga), former House
Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas), and ex-Sen. Bob
Packwood (R-Ore) -- was initially based on
newspaper reports.

Congressional Accountability Project director Gary
Ruskin, who has filed several complaints against
Members, said the change would undermine his
group's ability to hold Members accountable.

"The net effect will be a de facto non-enforcement
of House ethics rules, which will lead to a
climate of increased corruption, influence
peddling, and abuse of power," Ruskin warned.

Common Cause legislative director Meredith McGehee
said the proposal is "just going in the absolute
wrong direction."

"This group is going to have to be careful because
they are quickly going from what was supposed to
be reform to de-form in what was already a tainted
process," she added.

However, Landmark Legal Foundation president Mark
Levin called the reform a "potentially positive
development."

"There ought to be an effort to pull evidence
together other than newspaper reports," said
Levin, whose group filed complaints against House
Minority Whip David Bonior (D-Mich) last Congress.

But, he cautioned, "as long as they're raising the
threshold and there's a serious effort to meet
that threshold, then the committee needs to
seriously examine the complaint."

Though Members were eager to file charges against
colleagues like Gingrich and Bonior last Congress,
they have been much less enthusiastic about taking
on GOP leaders like Majority Whip Tom DeLay
(Texas) and Transportation and Infrastructure
Chairman Bud Shuster (Pa). In both cases, Ruskin
was only able to submit complaints based on
accounts in Roll Call and other publications after
obtaining three letters of refusal.

"Members are loathe to file against powerful
Members," Ruskin said.

The complaints against DeLay and Shuster
technically expired at the end of last Congress,
and the current ethics committee has not yet
indicated whether it will probe the allegations.
Cardin indicated in an interview this month that
he expected the panel would follow the committee's
custom of pursuing complaints from previous years.

The current House rule on outside groups differs
from that of the Senate Ethics Committee, which
allows such organizations to file complaints
directly with the panel.

While one source suggested outside groups could
base future House ethics complaints on the
testimony of potential witnesses, like the women
who accused Packwood of sexual harassment, those
allegations arose directly from reports in the
Washington Post and the Oregonian.

It is unclear whether any Members plan to mount
opposition to the bipartisan group's reform
package. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif), who has
transmitted complaints on behalf of the
Congressional Accountability Project in the past,
questioned why the ethics committee couldn't
review the validity of press allegations once they
are filed.

"That's why you bring a complaint to the ethics
committee and they make a determination," Miller
said. "Courts throw out frivolous complaints all
the time."

Miller noted that the task force was imposing a
different standard of proof on outside groups as
compared with Members, who would still be able to
use news accounts. "That should not be a bar to
filing a complaint," he said.

Cardin, who declined to comment specifically on
the task force's proposal, said Tuesday he briefed
Democrats "to give them some heads up" on the
package, which the House is scheduled to consider
before June 12, the day the moratorium on ethics
complaints expires.

"I thought the response was very favorable,"
Cardin said of his talk.

Most Democrats expressed support for the reform
package during Thursday's meeting, according to
sources, including a provision creating a
mechanism to automatically move the ethics process
forward unless committee members objected.

This measure, sources said, would set a timeline
for stages in the ethics process. Unless a vote
was taken to halt the process, an ethics probe
would move forward to a preliminary inquiry and
the creation of an investigatory subcommittee.

This schedule would contrast sharply with the
ethics committee's actions during the 104th
Congress, when a deadlock between the two parties
prevented the panel from announcing a preliminary
inquiry into the Gingrich case for well over a
year.

"That is unquestionably a good thing because of
the interminable delays of the ethics process in
the 104th Congress," Ruskin said of the proposal.
"The devil is in the details. Everything depends
on how the rule is written."

Cardin said he hoped the report would be completed
next week so Members would have time to review the
scope of the reform.

Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La), who co-chairs the task
force, also declined to describe the plan in
detail but said this month that it would make the
process more predictable and provide "due process"
for Members.

But one final factor could complicate the
measure's package, according to Hill aides: the
attachment of an amendment altering the House gift
ban.

Several Members have raised the prospect of
revisiting the gift rule, which currently
prohibits House Members from accepting anything
with more than a "nominal value." Senators, by
contrast, can accept gifts worth less than $50.

Though no Member has crusaded publicly to overturn
the ban, many have complained in private that the
current limit is unworkable.

It is unclear whether either party's leaders would
be willing to attach a gift-rule amendment to the
ethics reform measure.

"This would be a logical vehicle because this is
an ethics issue," said a GOP aide, adding, "The
key is to avoid forcing Members to take a vote on
it."

Cardin said he was opposed to attaching any
gift-reform measure to the ethics package.

"I don't think that's going to happen," he said,
adding that Members need time to consider any move
by the House leadership to alter gift
requirements. "I think it should be handled as a
separate issue."

Livingston spokesman Mark Corallo said it was
still "unclear" whether a gift rule amendment
would be attached to the reform package.

According to Minority Leader Dick Gephardt's
(D-Mo) spokesman, Erik Smith, the leadership has
no position on the issue of the gift ban at this
time, but he said it is "on the agenda" for the
Caucus in the coming weeks.

[Image]

Copyright - 1996 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressional Accountability Project is a Ralph Nader
Congressional reform group. For more information on
Congressional reform issues, send e-mail to gary@essential.org or
call (202) 296-2787.

to subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings send the message:
subscribe CONG-REFORM your name
to listproc@essential.org

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY

Gary Ruskin
Congressional Accountability Project | Internet:
gary@essential.org
1611 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 3A
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 296-2787 Fax: (202) 833-2406

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:59:23 -0600
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: Dangers of burning insulation off copper wiring

Does anyone have any data on the chemical make-up of the insulation of
copper wire and the environmental impacts of burning it?

This is somewhat a personal issue. My neighbor has been burning the
insulation off copper wire in his fireplace and then putting the ash on
the the soil in the back of his property. Unfortunately, everything
(his lilac bushes, my grass) has died downhill from where he put the
ash.

When I talked to my state environmental agency about this, they went
nuts, saying that I needed to give them my neighbor's name and address,
that they had to take enforcement action against him, that burning the
insulation releases very toxic fumes (including PCBs), and that the ash
was extremely toxic and that the soil would have to be removed and
taken to a toxic waste site, etc, etc. However, when I asked for data
on what was in the insulation, the ash and the air emissions, they did
not have specific data on hand, but said that they would try to get it
and send it to me. (This, however, sounded rather indefinite.)

Therefore, I'm wondering if anyone else has some data that they could
either share with me or direct me to.

Thanks much,

John Reindl
Madison, WI

PS - it seems strange to me that first, the environmental regulatory
agencies would allow such dangerous stuff to be put into a product
(where's manufacturer responsibility when you need it), and second,
that the environmental regulatory agency doesn't widely educate people
that this is a problem. What are other states doing?

reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:45:18 -0400
From: WOODY GETZ <WGETZ@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Executive Order to increase post-consumer recycled fiber in

Susan K. Snow wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me if President Clinton signed a bill or Executive Order
> in the last few months to increase the amount of post-consumer recycled
> fiber to be used in products purchased by the U.S. government to 25
> percent? If this is so, where can I find this Executive Order or Act
> online?
>
> Thanking you in advance.
> Susan Snow
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dear Susan,
I'm not sure if there has been a bill or Executive Order signed, but
two potential sources on the web are "Thomas" and the White House
websites.
"Thomas"is self-described as "In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, a
service of the U.S. Congress through its Library". It shows webpages
for information on bills for both the 104th and 105th Congresses. Its
URL is: http://thomas.loc.gov/
The other source, the White House webpage, has the URL of:
http://www.whitehouse.gov
Good luck in your search. If you are successful, I hope you'll post
the findings/source to GreenYes.
Keep Well,
Woody Getz
Western Maryland Group/Sierra Club
Allegany County (MD) Solid Waste Management Board
Frostburg Area Recyclers (FAR)
CRoWD (Coalition for Responsible Waste Disposal)
Maryland Recyclers Coalition

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 19:50:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: CRRA@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: New CRRA Home Page

---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: dlhcbm@cyberg8t.com (david hardy)
To: CRRA@aol.com
Date: 97-05-30 11:58:27 EDT

the correct address is
http://207.105.184.197/

or

http://207.105.184.197/crrahome
>
>Surf's up!
>
>dave
>
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:37:47 -0500
From: RecycleWorlds <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #124

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC6CDD.2F4D5260
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On May 30, Hop wrote:

"Eric Lombardi wrote yesterday about "Coke" and "Boycotts", but believed
they were hard to do. Not necessarily ..... Following are two media =
releases issued at the beginning of a boycott campaign against Coke in =
Australia at the start of summer 1993. I hope they are helpful if you =
choose to go down this path in the US."

Hop-
Do you have any indications of what the public response was in 1993 to =
your boycott, and/or Coke's perception of that response?

Peter

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC6CDD.2F4D5260
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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=

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC6CDD.2F4D5260--

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 01:00:23 -0400
From: Myra Nissen <MyraCycle@compuserve.com>
Subject: Need VCR/TV for CRRA Conference June 1

I need to borrow a VCR/TV set up for the CRRA conference. I will be
teaching the Media Relations course on Sunday and I planned to show and
critique several videos.

If you know of one I can borrow, please give me a call at 510-974-7836. =
I
will not be reading e-mail before the conference.

Thank you very much.

Myra Nissen

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:14:38 -0500 (EST)
From: sarah e jones <sejones@indiana.edu>
Subject: new recycling program - need advise.

We are a small envrionmental group in Owen County,Indiana who have helped
our county write a grant to get a small recycling drop off center
started. We hope it is the beginning of a program that will grow in
thefuture. We have plans to join other counties near us to pool
resources (both $ and recyclables). I find greenyes a good source of
info. I have a few questions I would like to ask.
1) We live in a rural, poor county. Any ideas how to effectively
educate people about the benefits of recycling? We have a little money
to spend on education and want to get the most bang for our buck.
2) Any idea where we can get a good (cheap) price on recycled plastic
household recyling bins? We need about 500 to begin with.
3) We wouldlike to work with local industry to recycle their cardboard.
Is anyone out there doing it and what are the terms of your partnership?
4) Private trash haulers and landfill owners have a say in how state
grant money is spent so that they will not suffer any loss of business
(oh brother!) - We will lose our landfill (privately owned) in about 3
months. It is being shut down by the state. I have heard that a private
tranfer station is being built somewhere in OWen County. What is the
scoop on these things?
Thanks in advance for all your advise! Sally Jones for the Friends of
Owen County

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 15:55:03 -0500 (EST)
From: sarah e jones <sejones@indiana.edu>
Subject: new recycling program - need advise. (fwd)

Hope this message goes through

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:14:38 -0500 (EST)
From: sarah e jones <sejones@indiana.edu>
To: greenyes@ucsd.edu
Subject: new recycling program - need advise.

We are a small envrionmental group in Owen County,Indiana who have helped
our county write a grant to get a small recycling drop off center
started. We hope it is the beginning of a program that will grow in
thefuture. We have plans to join other counties near us to pool
resources (both $ and recyclables). I find greenyes a good source of
info. I have a few questions I would like to ask.
1) We live in a rural, poor county. Any ideas how to effectively
educate people about the benefits of recycling? We have a little money
to spend on education and want to get the most bang for our buck.
2) Any idea where we can get a good (cheap) price on recycled plastic
household recyling bins? We need about 500 to begin with.
3) We wouldlike to work with local industry to recycle their cardboard.
Is anyone out there doing it and what are the terms of your partnership?
4) Private trash haulers and landfill owners have a say in how state
grant money is spent so that they will not suffer any loss of business
(oh brother!) - We will lose our landfill (privately owned) in about 3
months. It is being shut down by the state. I have heard that a private
tranfer station is being built somewhere in OWen County. What is the
scoop on these things?
Thanks in advance for all your advise! Sally Jones for the Friends of
Owen County

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 May 97 23:37:44 PST
From: roger.diedrich@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: Oil bottle recycling

Not long ago, someone posted an item about how someone concerned with the
inability to recycle plastic oil bottles had come up with a device to allow
them to drip into a tray and perhaps save the oil. It didn't say if they were
clean enough to recycle. (I have lost the item).

Today, I think I found an even better solution - no plastic bottle to begin
with. I took a container (reused antifreeze jug) to my local service station
and asked them to fill it with oil. Of course I got a suprised look, and "I
never got a request like that before". After consulting a manager, I got my
oil ($1/quart) and put in my car - with nothing to discard. It does call for
a simple funnel, which can be made from a dicarded oil bottle - if you still
have one. If you do your own oil changes, start asking for bulk oil. We may
start a trend. My next move will be to ask my local County Recycling office
to include the message with their PR material. How long will it be before the
first station advertises "We sell bulk oil" ?

Roger Diedrich

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 08:59:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Rod McCormick <Rod_McCormick@Environment.gov.MB.CA>
Subject: Product Stewardship for Used Oil in Manitoba

On April 11, 1997, Manitoba's Used Oil, Oil Filters and Containers
Stewardship Regulation came into effect. This new regulation under the
Waste Reduction and Prevention Act requires the development and
implementation of a product stewardship plan by persons who supply
lubricating products in Manitoba (Canada). The goal is to increase the
recovery of used oil, used oil filters and containers in Manitoba and to
incorporate the cost of operating the product stewardship program into the
cost of the product.

More information is available at:
<http://www.gov.mb.ca/environ/pages/emd/pollprev/usedoil/uoidx.html> or by
e-mail from Used_Oil@environment.gov.mb.ca

Rod McCormick
Pollution Prevention
Manitoba Environment

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 02:43:10 -0500
From: "Susan K. Snow" <sksnow@1stnet.com>
Subject: recycled fiber content inquiry

For those wishing to hear the specific answers to my request regarding
the Executive Order for the purchase of post consumer fiber contents
signed by President Clinton.

STEVE LEVY <LEVY.STEVE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV> replied:
In 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12873, which, among
other things, established postconsumer content standards for office
papers typically purchased by Federal agencies. The standard currently
is 20% postconsumer and increases to 30% at the end of 1998. These
content levels apply to such products as copier paper, letterhead,
envelopes, writing tablets, offset printing papers, book papers, forms,
computer pirntout paper, file folders, and cover stock.

There is no universal, 25% content standard for products purchased by
Federal agencies. Instead, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act and Executive Order 12873, the U.S. EPA designates products for
agencies to buy with recycled content. EPA also recommends postconsumer
and/or recovered materials content levels and other purchasing practices
for the designated items. Depending on the product, EPA's
recommendations could be as high as 100% recovered materials content.
To date, EPA has designated 24 products, including paper and paper
products and various vehicular, construction, landscaping,
transportation, park and recreation, and non-paper office products.
Last November, EPA proposed to designate an additional 13 items. The
final designations of these items will be published next fall. For more
information about EPA's guidelines, go to EPA's web site at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/procure.htm.

Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines

As part of its continuing program to promote the use of recovered
materials, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the
"Comprehensive Guideline for Procurement of Products Containing
Recovered Materials" (CPG) and its companion piece, the "Recovered
Materials Advisory Notice" (RMAN). The CPG designates 24
recycled-content products in seven product categories for which federal
procuring agencies need to develop affirmative procurement programs. The
RMAN provides recommendations for purchasing the products designated in
the CPG. Through use of these guidelines, the federal government hopes
to expand its use of products with recovered materials and to help
develop markets for them in other sectors of the economy. The CPG
designates 24 recycled-content products in seven product categories for
which federal procuring agencies need to develop affirmative procurement
programs. These products are:

Paper and Paper Products*
Vehicular Products
Engine Coolants
Re-refined Lubricating Oils*
Retread Tires*
Construction Products
Structural Fiberboard
Laminated Paperboard
Carpet
Floor Tiles
Patio Blocks
Building Insulation Products*
Cement and Concrete Containing Coal Fly Ash* Cement and Concrete
Containing Ground
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
Transportation Products
Traffic Control Cones
Traffic Barricades
Park and Recreation Products
Playground Surfaces
Running Tracks
Landscaping Products
Hydraulic Mulch
Yard Trimmings Compost
Non-paper Office Products
Office Recycling Containers
Office Waste Receptacles
Plastic Desktop Accessories
Toner Cartridges
Binders
Plastic Trash Bags

*Consolidated from previously issued guidelines

This Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN) provides recommendations
for purchasing the products designated in the CPG.
[snip]
Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines 2

Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG2) - Analyses
This document provides supporting analyses used by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose the first annual
revisions to the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG). The first
CPG was issued on May 1, 1995 and designated 24 items that are or can be
made with recovered materials. CPG II clarifies the previous designation
for floor tiles, and proposes to designate 13 new items: shower and
restroom dividers, latex paint, parking stops, channelizers,
delineators, flexible delineators, snow fencing, garden and soaker
hoses, lawn and garden edging, printer ribbons, ink jet cartridges,
plastic envelopes, and pallets. The information presented here supplies
the supporting analyses used by EPA in developing CPG II and discusses
EPA's overall objectives and the process and methodology used for