Today's Topics:
(Fwd) Action Alert; Public Meetings on Right-to-Know
(Fwd) Fly ash recycling
GreenYes Digest V97 #318 (3 msgs)
RECYCLED PLASTIC BOTTLES
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:98/31 ----------------------------------------------------------------------Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 13:02:15 -0600 From: Susan Snow <sksnow@1stnet.com> Subject: (Fwd) Action Alert; Public Meetings on Right-to-Know
Shouldn't we have the right to know what poisons are recycled into fertilizer (for example) that have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system of wildlife, including humans? Regardless, we need to stop proposed changes to our right to know!!! FYI. ...Bunny Snow ------------------------------------------------- Action Alert! ------------------------------- =20 =20 Paul Orum =20 Working Group on Community Right-to-Know 218 D Street, SE; Washington, DC 20003 Ph: (202) 544-9586; E-mail: orum@rtk.net ------------------------------------ Feb. 5, 1998
Public Meetings on Right-to-Know
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has scheduled=20 two more public meetings (in Dallas and New York) on potential=20 changes to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The meetings will=20 address both how to improve TRI and several anti-right-to-know=20 issues pressed by industry.
Public interest groups should speak at these meetings to defend and=20 promote our right-to-know about toxic chemicals and pollution. To=20 speak, you must sign up in advance (see below). Limited phone=20 lines are available for those who cannot travel to the meetings--first=20 come, first served !
This Action Alert provides:
(*) Meeting dates, times, and places (for these two meetings); (*) A summary of specific TRI issues raised for comment by EPA; (*) Broad TRI issue summaries to help you prepare brief comments; (*) EPA's Federal Register notice (63 FR 5517).
Please circulate this memo and encourage others to sign up to=20 speak.
I. Meetings: Where and When
EPA held the first three of up to nine meetings last Fall. The next=20 two meetings will be:
(*) Dallas, Texas, February 24 (sign up to speak by Feb. 19); 9:00 a.m., Adam's Mark Dallas, Seminar Theater, 400 North Olive.
(*) New York, N.Y., April 2 (sign up to speak by March 27); 9:00 a.m., US EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, Room D, 27th Floor.
To sign up to speak, call EPA contractor Debra Jones at (301) 907- 3844. Leave your name, organization, address, phone, fax, and e- mail. EPA will send you a detailed issues paper. EPA's contact is=20 Michelle Price at (202) 260-3372.
II. Summary of Issues Raised by EPA
EPA is requesting public comments on several specific issues. =20 However, we suggest that you focus on areas closest to your own=20 experience and expertise.
Some industries want EPA to revise the TRI definition of "release"=20 such that toxic waste dumped in certain landfills (with RCRA=20 Subtitle C permits), piled in slag heaps, or injected deep=20 underground is not considered a "release" to the environment. =20 Naturally, public interest groups oppose such regulatory sleight of=20 hand, support full reporting, and believe that the law is clear that=20 these are indeed releases (See 1.a., below).
EPA has already denied a petition from the Chemical=20 Manufacturers Association to change the definition of "release." =20 EPA did, however, change the TRI reporting form to indicate the=20 class of underground injection wells used (on-site only) and to=20 indicate whether wastes are sent to RCRA Subtitle C landfills. =20 Public interest groups have proposed other changes to help show=20 where toxic chemicals go (See 1.b., below).
EPA is also requesting comment on how to distinguish waste that is=20 generated at the reporting facility from waste that is generated=20 elsewhere but managed at the reporting facility (Form R, section 8). =20 Public interest groups have proposed that EPA simply add boxes to=20 the reporting form to record the amount of total waste that is not=20 generated at the reporting facility (See 2.b, below).
EPA is also requesting comments on chemicals sent to public=20 sewage plants. Currently, when a company reports that it dumped=20 toxic chemicals down the sewer, one cannot determine if the sewage=20 treatment plant destroys some or all of most chemicals. However,=20 this is also true of other off-site shipments under TRI, whether to=20 treatment, recycling, or energy recovery. Therefore, we favor=20 requiring sewage plants to report toxic releases under TRI, along=20 with all other facilities that receive off-site shipments of TRI=20 chemicals (See 1.f, below).
More detail is found in EPA's issues paper, which the agency will=20 automatically provide when you sign up to speak at one of the=20 public meetings.
However, don't feel restricted. Raise the issues you want EPA to=20 respond to regarding TRI. The issues in EPA's paper were largely=20 included at the behest of the Office of Management and Budget=20 (OMB) under pressure from industry. Public interest groups should=20 not limit our issues just because we don't have similar access to=20 OMB.
Issue Summaries
Discussions among public interest groups have identified five broad=20 areas for improving TRI (offered as suggestions, not a complete=20 list). These areas are:
[1] release reporting; [2] source reduction reporting; [3] thresholds for reporting; [4] integrated reporting; and, [5] chemical use reporting.
Below are issue summaries for these five areas. These summaries=20 include responses to specific TRI issues raised by EPA for its=20 public meetings.
Public interest groups recommend:
[1] Release Reporting:
[1.a] Report all releases as releases. The law is clear that toxic=20 chemicals injected underground, left in slag piles, or dumped in=20 landfills (regardless of regulatory status) are released to the=20 environment; there is no magic place for industry to dump its waste=20 that is simply "away" but not the environment. ("Environment" and=20 "release" are defined in the Emergency Planning and Community=20 Right-to-Know Act at sections 329(2) and 329(8)).
[1.b] Add additional boxes and codes to the TRI reporting form=20 (Form R, at sections 5.5 and 6.2) to better indicate the disposal=20 methods used for toxic chemicals, such as type of landfill and class=20 of underground injection well (on- and off-site), and different forms=20 of disposal such as slag, tailings, or combustion ash (on- and off- site).
[1.c] Consider better ways to interpret to the public what actually=20 happens to TRI chemical releases. For example, some have=20 suggested distinguishing between "direct releases" (to air, water,=20 etc.) and "indirect releases" (to lined landfills, deep injection wells,=20 etc.). While these terms are imperfect, they are the best we have=20 heard. Note that TRI already distinguishes between environmental=20 media (air, land, water, etc.).
[1.d] Recognize documented toxic pollution from slag piles, coal=20 combustion waste, deep underground injection, lined landfills, and=20 other disposal methods. The Working Group on Community Right- to-Know has submitted examples of contamination from all of these=20 disposal methods; please raise further specific examples at your=20 public meeting.
[1.e] Include in the definition of "release" reporting on chemicals=20 transferred off-site as products.
[1.f] Improve understanding of toxic releases from public sewage=20 plants (called "publicly owned treatment works," or POTWs) by=20 requiring these POTWs to report under TRI. EPA guidance can=20 help POTWs report releases by identifying typical pass-through and=20 destruction rates for TRI chemicals.
[2] Source Reduction Reporting:
[2.a] Require facilities to report total production waste (sections 8.1=20 through 8.7 added together). This reporting is "the quantity of the=20 chemical entering any waste stream (or otherwise released to the=20 environment) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal" as required=20 by Section 6607(b)(1) of the Pollution Prevention Act. This change=20 is needed to shift the attention of facility managers, the news media,=20 regulators, and the public from reducing releases to reducing waste=20 at the source.
[2.b] Distinguish wastes generated at the reporting facility from=20 those generated elsewhere. Do this by adding boxes to the Form R=20 to record the amount of total production waste (as above) that is=20 generated at the reporting facility and that is received from off-site. =20 This will improve data presentation, help reveal source reduction,=20 and address any so-called "double counting" issues.
[2.c] Require facilities to report actual quantities of waste prevented=20 through source reduction.
[3] Thresholds for Reporting:
[3.a] Lower reporting thresholds to obtain meaningful reporting on=20 persistent toxic chemicals (such as dioxin, lead, mercury, and=20 recognized bioaccumulators), including from power plants,=20 refineries, and other facilities that use raw materials with very low=20 concentrations of toxic chemicals (below the de minimis=20 exemption).
[3.b] Do not raise reporting thresholds for Form A (the alternate=20 low release threshold reporting form, under which facilities that=20 produce less than 500 pounds of total production waste file a short=20 Form A that does not identify where that waste goes). Raising the=20 Form A threshold would deprive communities of basic right-to- know information.
[4] Integrated Reporting (for Public Access):
[4.a] Establish a single facility identification number for each=20 facility regulated under Federal environmental laws. Incorporate=20 part 1 of the Form R (facility identification) into a unified one-stop=20 reporting system for all Federal environmental laws. This will=20 integrate information reported under environmental laws for better=20 public access (as well as reduce burden on reporting facilities).
[4.b] Require universal registration of facilities that use toxic=20 chemicals or are regulated under Federal environmental laws. Link=20 this information to other EPA data such that any person can readily=20 obtain environmental information on a local factory, its parent=20 company, an entire industry, a zipcode or city, or a regulatory=20 requirement.
[5] Chemical Use Reporting:
[5.a] Require facilities to report a simple materials accounting of=20 the chemicals they use (including the amounts brought on site,=20 produced or used up, and shipped off-site as waste or product). =20 This information enables people to measure, and thus promote,=20 pollution prevention. Chemical use data helps people to: tell where=20 chemicals go (as waste or product); identify low cost prevention=20 opportunities; understand the life cycle of a chemical; establish=20 baselines for planning; validate emissions data; improve public=20 understanding; improve chemical management capacity; assess=20 worker exposure; establish formal employee prevention programs,=20 and other uses.
[5.b] Require facilities to report how many workers are exposed to=20 each TRI chemical above background levels.
Prepared by the Working Group on Community Right-to-Know;=20 218 D Street, SE; Washington, DC 20003; phone: (202) 544- 9586; fax (202) 546-2461; e-mail: orum@rtk.net
* * * * * * * * * * * * * =20
[Federal Register: February 3, 1998 (63 FR 5517-5518)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPPTS-400124; FRL-5769-4]
Public Meetings on the Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Form AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA will hold approximately nine public meetings to=20 solicit comments relating to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)=20 reporting form, the Form R. The purpose of the meetings is to=20 obtain comments from stakeholders on ways to improve the type of=20 right-to-know information available to communities and to help=20 streamline right-to-know reporting to ease the paperwork burden for=20 businesses affected by the requirements. Since the Agency is=20 looking for ways to help reduce the reporting burden, these meetings=20 will also provide an opportunity for affected entities to participate in=20 the development of a rule clarifying the Pollution Prevention Act=20 reporting requirements currently contained in Section 8 of the Form=20 R. In particular, the Agency is interested in comments and=20 suggestions regarding the burden of Section 8 reporting on small=20 entities. The first three of these public meetings were held in=20 November 1997. This notice announces two upcoming meetings.=20 Additional meeting dates will be announced through future Federal=20 Register notices.
DATES: The meetings will take place:
Tuesday, February 24, 1998, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Adam's Mark=20 Dallas, Seminar Theater, 400 North Olive, Dallas, TX. Participants=20 must register to speak by 5 p.m., Thursday, February 19, 1998.
Thursday, April 2, 1998, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. USEPA Region II, 290=20 Broadway, NY, NY, Conference Room D, 27th Floor. Participants=20 must register to speak by 5 p.m., Friday, March 27, 1998.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be sent in triplicate to: OPPT=20 Document Control Officer (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention=20 and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,=20 Room G-099, East Tower, Washington, DC 20460. Each comment=20 must bear the docket control number ``OPPTS-400123.''
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically to:=20 oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov. Follow the instructions under Unit II.=20 of this document. No Confidential Business Information (CBI)=20 should be submitted through e-mail.
All comments which contain information claimed as CBI must be=20 clearly marked as such. Three sanitized copies of any comments=20 containing information claimed as CBI must also be submitted and=20 will be placed in the public record. Persons submitting information=20 on any portion of which they believe is entitled to treatment as CBI=20 by EPA must assert a business confidentiality claim in accordance=20 with 40 CFR 2.203(b) for each such portion. This claim must be=20 made at the time that the information is submitted to EPA. If a=20 submitter does not assert a confidentiality claim at the time of=20 submission, EPA will consider this as a waiver of any=20 confidentiality claim and the information may be made available to=20 the public by EPA without further notice to the submitter.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Price,=20 (Mail Stop 7408), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St.,=20 SW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202) 260-3372, fax=20 number: (202) 401-8142, e-mail: price.michelle@epamail.epa.gov.=20 To register to speak via conference call or in person, contact Debra=20 Jones (TASCON) at (301) 907-3844.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
EPA plans to hold approximately nine public meetings to solicit=20 comments relating to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting=20 form, the Form R. The first three meetings took place in November=20 1997. The docket number for the November meetings is ``OPPTS- 400117'' and the comments presented at these meetings are available=20 for review as described in Unit II. of this document.
The purpose of the meetings is to obtain comments from=20 stakeholders on ways to improve the type of right-to-know=20 information available to communities and to help streamline right- to-know reporting to ease the paperwork burden for businesses=20 affected by the requirements. Topics for comment include the=20 following: format of the Form R; nomenclature used in the Form R;=20 opportunities for burden reduction in both the Form R and Form A;=20 additional clarification of the elements in the Form R; and EPA's=20 presentation of the data in public information documents.
These public meetings are also intended to help serve the=20 Agency's effort to assure that the concerns of small entities are=20 addressed in the development of regulations. The Agency is=20 preparing a proposed rule to clarify the Pollution Prevention Act=20 reporting requirements currently contained in Section 8 of the Form=20 R, and would like to receive comments from affected entities=20 regarding those reporting requirements. In particular, the Agency is=20 interested in comments and suggestions regarding the reporting=20 burden on small entities.
The sections of the Form R that EPA would like specific=20 comment on are Sections 5, 6, and 8. In Section 5, there have been a=20 number of issues raised with regard to the definition of ``release,''=20 particularly with respect to Class I underground injection wells and=20 RCRA Subtitle C landfills. Several commenters believe that EPA's=20 interpretation of the EPCRA definition of ``release'' will lead to the=20 misperception that a reported EPCRA section 313 ``release''=20 necessarily results in an actual exposure of people or the=20 environment to a toxic chemical. The Agency would like to hear=20 suggestions on ways to collect and disseminate the data that are=20 consistent with the Agency's interpretation of the EPCRA definition=20 of ``release'' and would address the concerns raised regarding public=20 misperception.
There have also been a number of issues raised with regard to the=20 reporting of toxic chemicals in wastes in Section 8 of the Form R. =20 Section 8 collects information on waste managed at the facility=20 whether or not the waste was generated at the reporting facility.=20 Some individuals are concerned about public misperception of the=20 data in Section 8 because of the focus on the amount of waste=20 managed at the facility, not waste generated. EPA would like=20 comments on ways to change Section 8 of the Form R which would=20 continue to allow the user to assess wastes managed by the facility=20 but would minimize the perception that the wastes reported in=20 section 8 were generated by the reporting facility.
On any of the above issues, EPA would like to receive specific=20 comments from interested parties for changes, modifications,=20 deletions, and/or additions of data elements to the Form R and the=20 Form A. These issues are outlined in greater detail in an issue paper=20 available on the TRI Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri=20 under the heading ``TRI Stakeholder Dialogue'' and the subheading=20 ``TRI Public Meetings.''
Individuals wishing to attend these meetings or participate via=20 conference call must sign-up in advance in order to assure that all=20 participants have an opportunity to speak. Depending on the=20 number of individuals registered, oral presentations or statements=20 will be limited to approximately 5 to 15 minutes. To register,=20 contact Debra Jones (TASCON) at (301) 907-3844. For those who=20 cannot travel to the public meeting location, there will be 10=20 conference call lines available on a first come, first serve basis for=20 individuals to provide comment. When registering, give your name,=20 organization, postal (and electronic, if any) mailing address,=20 telephone and fax numbers. If there is insufficient interest in any of=20 the meetings, that meeting may be canceled. Individuals registered=20 will be notified in the event a meeting is canceled. The Agency bears=20 no responsibility for attendees' decision to purchase nonrefundable=20 transportation tickets or accommodation reservations.
II. Public Record and Electronic Submissions
The official record for this action, as well as the public version,=20 has been established for this action under docket control number=20 ``OPPTS-400123'' (including comments and data submitted=20 electronically as described below). A public version of this record,=20 including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which=20 does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for=20 inspection from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding=20 legal holidays. The official record is located in the TSCA=20 Nonconfidential Information Center, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M St.,=20 SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at: oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file=20 avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption.=20 Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect=20 5.1/6.1 or ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic=20 form must be identified by the docket control number ``OPPTS- 400123.'' Electronic comments on this action may be filed online at=20 many Federal Depository Libraries.
--------- Charlie Cray Greenpeace US Toxics Campaign 847 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th floor Chicago, IL 60607 Ph: (312) 563-6063 Fax: (312) 563-6099 Note new e-mail address: Charlie.Cray@dialb.greenpeace.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:31:23 -0600 From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us> Subject: (Fwd) Fly ash recycling
Dear List members -
I received this email today and thought that some of you may be=20 interested in corresponding directly with Elie.
John Reindl
=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 Mr. Reindl;
I have access to wood (bark) Fly ash, and Bottom Ash. Approximately 17,000 tons per year. I am trying to find a home for this Ash. Would you know anybody that would be interested in purchasing it from me=20 annually at a low cost? I presently have analysis on the Fly Ash, and the Bottom Ash. If=20 you are interested in a copy of the analysis, please do not=20 hesitate in contacting me.
= =20 Thank You.
= =20 Elie Helal.
Reply-to: <ejhelal@sprint.ca>
reindl@co.dane.wi.us (608)267-1533 - fax (608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:04:24 -0600 From: <WheatG@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us> Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #318
On 12/31/97, Ann Morse asked if people have had success recovering=20 food waste from households, short of collecting it at curbside. For=20 example, are there examples anywhere of decentralized drop-offs that=20 have been effective? Surely it's happening somewhere! Or does anyone=20 have any great ideas?
The city of Madison, WI, where I live, has been promoting backyard=20 composting of food (& yard waste) for the past 2 or 3 years. I=20 haven't seen the estimated volumes of food waste being composted at=20 home in Madison, so I can't provide you with a success rate, but I do=20 know that a lot of folks have back yard composters. A big part of the=20 promotion has been providing residents with compost bins. One year,=20 Madison gave away 200 bins (to the 1st 200 callers, of which I was 1).=20 Later that year &/or the next year, Madison subsidized part of the=20 cost of bins & provided them to residents at about $10 each. The=20 subsidized bins were made available at a local indoor/outdoor=20 botanical garden (Olbrich Gardens). This year, Madison & the county=20 (Dane) got together with a big order & will have bins available for=20 $35 each at a number of events around the county. I might also add=20 that the City (or County?) here has health code requirements for=20 composting kitchen wastes: the composter has to have a latchable=20 cover & can't have air holes greater than a certain size (=BD", I=20 think).
I have suggested to Madison's Solid Waste Advisory Board (on which I=20 serve) that decentralized drop offs for source separated organics be=20 considered for future planning in conjunction with community gardens.=20 There is much interest here in creating community garden space, and I=20 think much of the work would get done by volunteers using the gardens.=20 The city would have to provide operational support, as needed, but=20 leaf pick up might be eliminated or at least reduced. Of course, food=20 wastes would be the more potentially problematic element.
As far as drop offs, Columbia County, WI placed drop offs for source=20 separated organics for a couple of rural towns that didn't have=20 curbside garbage pick up. The County then brought the source=20 separated organics to the County's MSW composting facility. I recall=20 Bill Casey, the facility manager, telling me that the participation=20 was good, & that he had received calls from other nearby towns asking=20 if they could have a source separated organics bin, too! However, for=20 reasons unclear to me, I don't think the drop offs survived, much less=20 spread.
Last I had heard, Northland College, Ashland, WI was planning to have=20 an indoor composting area (& greenhouse) incorporated into the design=20 of a new student dormitory (with kitchen facilities), but these would=20 not be considered households.
I'm also aware that much has been done to encourage home composting in=20 Canada. I recently read an article about it, might have been=20 "Resource Recycling" Magazine, probably either Dec.'97, Jan. '98 or=20 Feb. '98 issue.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:03:17 -0600 From: <WheatG@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us> Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #318
On 12/31/97, Ann Morse asked if people have had success recovering=20 food waste from households, short of collecting it at curbside. For=20 example, are there examples anywhere of decentralized drop-offs that=20 have been effective? Surely it's happening somewhere! Or does anyone=20 have any great ideas?
The city of Madison, WI, where I live, has been promoting backyard=20 composting of food (& yard waste) for the past 2 or 3 years. I=20 haven't seen the estimated volumes of food waste being composted at=20 home in Madison, so I can't provide you with a success rate, but I do=20 know that a lot of folks have back yard composters. A big part of the=20 promotion has been providing residents with compost bins. One year,=20 Madison gave away 200 bins (to the 1st 200 callers, of which I was 1).=20 Later that year &/or the next year, Madison subsidized part of the=20 cost of bins & provided them to residents at about $10 each. The=20 subsidized bins were made available at a local indoor/outdoor=20 botanical garden (Olbrich Gardens). This year, Madison & the county=20 (Dane) got together with a big order & will have bins available for=20 $35 each at a number of events around the county. I might also add=20 that the City (or County?) here has health code requirements for=20 composting kitchen wastes: the composter has to have a latchable=20 cover & can't have air holes greater than a certain size (=BD", I=20 think).
I have suggested to Madison's Solid Waste Advisory Board (on which I=20 serve) that decentralized drop offs for source separated organics be=20 considered for future planning in conjunction with community gardens.=20 There is much interest here in creating community garden space, and I=20 think much of the work would get done by volunteers using the gardens.=20 The city would have to provide operational support, as needed, but=20 leaf pick up might be eliminated or at least reduced. Of course, food=20 wastes would be the more potentially problematic element.
As far as drop offs, Columbia County, WI placed drop offs for source=20 separated organics for a couple of rural towns that didn't have=20 curbside garbage pick up. The County then brought the source=20 separated organics to the County's MSW composting facility. I recall=20 Bill Casey, the facility manager, telling me that the participation=20 was good, & that he had received calls from other nearby towns asking=20 if they could have a source separated organics bin, too! However, for=20 reasons unclear to me, I don't think the drop offs survived, much less=20 spread.
Last I had heard, Northland College, Ashland, WI was planning to have=20 an indoor composting area (& greenhouse) incorporated into the design=20 of a new student dormitory (with kitchen facilities), but these would=20 not be considered households.
I'm also aware that much has been done to encourage home composting in=20 Canada. I recently read an article about it, might have been=20 "Resource Recycling" Magazine, probably either Dec.'97, Jan. '98 or=20 Feb. '98 issue.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:02:11 -0600 From: <WheatG@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us> Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #318
On 12/31/97, Ann Morse asked if people have had success recovering=20 food waste from households, short of collecting it at curbside. For=20 example, are there examples anywhere of decentralized drop-offs that=20 have been effective? Surely it's happening somewhere! Or does anyone=20 have any great ideas?
The city of Madison, WI, where I live, has been promoting backyard=20 composting of food (& yard waste) for the past 2 or 3 years. I=20 haven't seen the estimated volumes of food waste being composted at=20 home in Madison, so I can't provide you with a success rate, but I do=20 know that a lot of folks have back yard composters. A big part of the=20 promotion has been providing residents with compost bins. One year,=20 Madison gave away 200 bins (to the 1st 200 callers, of which I was 1).=20 Later that year &/or the next year, Madison subsidized part of the=20 cost of bins & provided them to residents at about $10 each. The=20 subsidized bins were made available at a local indoor/outdoor=20 botanical garden (Olbrich Gardens). This year, Madison & the county=20 (Dane) got together with a big order & will have bins available for=20 $35 each at a number of events around the county. I might also add=20 that the City (or County?) here has health code requirements for=20 composting kitchen wastes: the composter has to have a latchable=20 cover & can't have air holes greater than a certain size (=BD", I=20 think).
I have suggested to Madison's Solid Waste Advisory Board (on which I=20 serve) that decentralized drop offs for source separated organics be=20 considered for future planning in conjunction with community gardens.=20 There is much interest here in creating community garden space, and I=20 think much of the work would get done by volunteers using the gardens.=20 The city would have to provide operational support, as needed, but=20 leaf pick up might be eliminated or at least reduced. Of course, food=20 wastes would be the more potentially problematic element.
As far as drop offs, Columbia County, WI placed drop offs for source=20 separated organics for a couple of rural towns that didn't have=20 curbside garbage pick up. The County then brought the source=20 separated organics to the County's MSW composting facility. I recall=20 Bill Casey, the facility manager, telling me that the participation=20 was good, & that he had received calls from other nearby towns asking=20 if they could have a source separated organics bin, too! However, for=20 reasons unclear to me, I don't think the drop offs survived, much less=20 spread.
Last I had heard, Northland College, Ashland, WI was planning to have=20 an indoor composting area (& greenhouse) incorporated into the design=20 of a new student dormitory (with kitchen facilities), but these would=20 not be considered households.
I'm also aware that much has been done to encourage home composting in=20 Canada. I recently read an article about it, might have been=20 "Resource Recycling" Magazine, probably either Dec.'97, Jan. '98 or=20 Feb. '98 issue.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 13:57:03 -0700 From: brad bryce <bossbars@dakotacom.net> Subject: RECYCLED PLASTIC BOTTLES
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:WE ARE LOOKING FOR A MANUFACTURER OF PLASTIC BOTTLES(8OZ & 16OZ) THAT ARE COMPOSED OF 100% RECYCLED PLASTIC TO MARKET ONE OF OUR PRODUCTS. PLEASE SEND US ANY INFORMATION OR LEADS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORTS. YOU CAN REACH US BY E-MAIL @ bossbars@dakotacom.net OR BY PHONE @ 888.207.9114.
BRAD BRYCE CLAUDIA CHASE-BRYCE
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #31 ******************************