Today's Topics:
Comment on Sludge Volume Conversion (2 msgs)
Fw: Vinyl Containing Products -Reply
Fw: Vinyl Containing Products -Reply -Reply
Glass Beads - Manufacturing -- Reply
INFO REQUEST: Subsidies that Hurt Recycling
Logging, Oil Fed. Leg. Updates
Minimum Recycled Content for Newsprint
Subsidies for wasting: bonds?
Subsidies for wasting: bonds? -Reply (2 msgs)
Tulane Recycling Conference (3 msgs)
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:98/38 ----------------------------------------------------------------------Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:31:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net> Subject: Comment on Sludge Volume Conversion
Dear All:
David's comments regarding the impact of moisture content on sludge density are correct. I consulted a listing of conversion factors published in 1991 by the CA Integrated Waste Management Board and found the following data for dewatered sludge:
14.7% solids =3D 1552.5 pounds / cy 28.4% solids =3D 1199.00 " " 24% solids =3D 1801.00 " " 17% solids =3D 1769.00 " " 38% solids =3D 1890.00 " "
This results in a density range of roughly .6 to .95 cy / ton.
In addition, the State of Missour's Extension Service published in 1995 an interesting fact sheet on biosolids including a list of conversion formulas that may be useful for your purposes. This document can be consulted online= at:
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/waterq/wq0420.htm
I hope this helps.
Roger M. Guttentag
=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
At 08:45 PM 2/12/98 EST, you wrote: >In response to your sludge volume-weight conversion index, the number=20 >8.34 pounds per gallon is the conversion factor for water. As one of the=20 >heavier substances out there, it is likely that sludge weight is a bit=20 >lower, but not much-depending of course on how efficient a de-watering=20 >system is. To get a real number for your mix, probably the best thing to=20 >do would be to fill a bucket with sludge and put it on a scale. Any=20 >engineer worth his/her PE will know that you are using a water conversion= =20 >factor when they see your math. You may want to be accurate just for the=20 >sake of credibility.=20 > >It may not matter much, but at least you'd know fer shuah! > >David Biddle, jango@aol.com >Philadelphia, PA=20 > > >>From: rebecca.brown@ci.woodland.ca.us (Rebecca Brown) >>To: GreenYes@ucsd.edu (GreenYes), clkenne@nswc.navy.mil (Cheri Kennedy) >>Cheri, the head of our water pollution control facility gave me=20 >>this formula: sludge pounds =3D volume (in million gallons) X=20 >>concentration (in milligrams/liter) X 8.34. (8.34 is=20 >>pounds/gallon). Hope this is correct for what you're after. =20 >>Rebecca Brown >>City of Woodland, CA >>530-661-5969 >> > > >David Biddle >7366 Rural Lane >Philadelphia, PA 19119 >215-247-2974 (voice and fax) >jango@aol.com > > > E-MAIL: rgutten@concentric.net TEL: 215-513-0452 FAX: 215-513-0453
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 10:31:25 -0800 From: rgutten@concentric.net Subject: Comment on Sludge Volume Conversion=20
Dear All:
David's comments regarding the impact of moisture content on sludge density are correct. I consulted a listing of conversion factors published in 1991 by the CA Integrated Waste Management Board and found the following data for dewatered sludge:
14.7% solids =3D 1552.5 pounds / cy 28.4% solids =3D 1199.00 " " 24% solids =3D 1801.00 " " 17% solids =3D 1769.00 " " 38% solids =3D 1890.00 " "
This results in a density range of roughly .6 to .95 cy / ton.
In addition, the State of Missour's Extension Service published in 1995 an interesting fact sheet on biosolids including a list of conversion formulas that may be useful for your purposes. This document can be consulted online= at:
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/waterq/wq0420.htm
I hope this helps.
Roger M. Guttentag
=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
At 08:45 PM 2/12/98 EST, you wrote: >In response to your sludge volume-weight conversion index, the number=20 >8.34 pounds per gallon is the conversion factor for water. As one of the=20 >heavier substances out there, it is likely that sludge weight is a bit=20 >lower, but not much-depending of course on how efficient a de-watering=20 >system is. To get a real number for your mix, probably the best thing to=20 >do would be to fill a bucket with sludge and put it on a scale. Any=20 >engineer worth his/her PE will know that you are using a water conversion= =20 >factor when they see your math. You may want to be accurate just for the=20 >sake of credibility.=20 > >It may not matter much, but at least you'd know fer shuah! > >David Biddle, jango@aol.com >Philadelphia, PA=20 > > >>From: rebecca.brown@ci.woodland.ca.us (Rebecca Brown) >>To: GreenYes@ucsd.edu (GreenYes), clkenne@nswc.navy.mil (Cheri= Kennedy) >>Cheri, the head of our water pollution control facility gave me=20 >>this formula: sludge pounds =3D volume (in million gallons) X=20 >>concentration (in milligrams/liter) X 8.34. (8.34 is=20 >>pounds/gallon). Hope this is correct for what you're after. =20 >>Rebecca Brown >>City of Woodland, CA >>530-661-5969 >> > > >David Biddle >7366 Rural Lane >Philadelphia, PA 19119 >215-247-2974 (voice and fax) >jango@aol.com > > > E-MAIL: rgutten@concentric.net TEL: 215-513-0452 FAX: 215-513-0453
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:36:58 +0000 From: "Charlie Cray" <ccray@dialb.greenpeace.org> Subject: Fw: Vinyl Containing Products -Reply
A response to some of the points about PVC raised by Mr. James Wood a=20 few days ago--
>I feel I should chime in on the attributes of vinyl. First I must point= out >most (all but one) of these advantages are applicable to durable goods >and not disposables items. > >1. The chloride component is made from sea water, a renewable and >plentiful resource. this means that almost a third of the material is low >cost and plentiful.
The chlorine in salt is only made available by splitting salt -- an=20 energy-intensive process (ie the accessing of those chlorides through=20 such high uses of energy is not renewable), nor are the=20 organochlorines (carbon-chlorine compounds) which are=20 created down the line as natural as salt. =20 > >2. It is one of the few materials that is self-extinguishing when=20 lit by >flame. This has lead to its wide use in home construction=20 and although it >may gas off, painted wood and other products may be=20 just as >hazardous. One point that is often missed is the burning=20 building is full of >items that are gassing off.
Halogenated materials are considered a major fire hazard, not because=20 they are flammable, but because of the intense corrosivity and=20 toxicity of the gases they do give off. Deborah Wallace's book, "In=20 the Mouth of the Dragon: Toxic Fires in the Age of Plastics" gives=20 more detail. Painted wood can also be a problem, but "just as=20 hazardous" -- what do you mean by that?=20
> >3. PCV plumbing fixtures make plumbing more affordable, both from=20 the >affordable housing standpoint and the do it your-selfer at home.=20 A >similar benefit is gained from CPVC pipe, which in the last 5=20 years, was >approved for sprinkler system use. CPVC has the=20 potential to reduce >sprinkler costs by nearly half. According to a=20 fire marshal I know, there >has never in a fully sprinklered=20 building. Installing more sprinkler will >save lives. > Short term purchasing prices may not reflect long-term costs. This=20 was discovered by the people who had polybutylene pipe, which later=20 failed. With PVC there are other issues -- because of creep and the=20 need to keep it away from heating ducts installation costs can rise. =20 There are studies which demonstrate leaching of toxic chemicals=20 (e.g. organotins and VCM) from PVC pipe. If a fire spreads quickly=20 in a building the PVC in the sprinklers will only add to the spread=20 of toxic gases and residual dioxins left to cleanup after the fire. =20 Building codes do not account for these factors.
>4. The non-corrosive attributes of vinyl make the material a good=20 choice >for containers of some types liquids. The environmental=20 costs of a few >ounces of vinyl are often much lower than the amount=20 of an equivalent >material, such as stainless steel. This is=20 especially true in laboratories >and chemical containers, even for=20 some household products. >
Depends on the type of liquid stored. I've not heard that PVC is a=20 common lab container. As for household products (not a durable=20 item), PVC is being phased out more and more. Because of lack of=20 recycleability, etc. =20
Then also because any of these items, once disposed, becomes a=20 problem for incienrator operators. This is one reason=20 the Dutch Waste Industries association told the Dutch Ministry of=20 Environment that It is better if PVC is banned from municipal waste.=20 If so, there are less problems with incinerating. (Letter June 23,=20 1997)
>Remember to recycle, > >James > PVC is the least recycled of all common plastics.=20
** According to U.S. EPA's most recent figures, overall recovery of plastics for recycling in 1995 was just 5.3 percent. =20 The EPA estimates that less than 0.05 percent of the estimated=20 1,500,000 tons of PVC in municipal solid waste was recycled. (1)
(For a complete fact sheet on the failed promises of PVC recycling=20 see: http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/campaigns/toxics/pvc_fail.html) 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, 13 Feb 1998 12:07:58 -0700 From: James Wood <James@hiri.com> Subject: Fw: Vinyl Containing Products -Reply -Reply
I have taken to heart many comments on the problems with PVC, but what I hoped to stimulate and have not seen, is a different approach.=20 Rather than dictate what can not be used, why not identify a superior approach. Take windshield wipers and waste plumbing lines, for example, what would be a better alternative than vinyl? Instead of saying what we can't do, what can we do and why is it better.
I still regret the result of the public opposition to the polystyrene (PS)= clam shell. Long after CFC's were eliminated as blowing agents, the opponents of PS campaign claimed they were used. It is true PS was not recycled, but when you got your burger home, there was a chance it was still hot, which is exactly why it was designed. Now it is not and we throw the paper away.
I think the oppositional paradigm in which we work does not lead to creating the best policies for the future. If we put our heads together, the solutions appear. If you look at the fuel consumption of the last two centuries, you see each resource, wood, coal, oil, gas.... had associated problems, but were not displaced until the alternative was commercialized. In other words, once you heat your house, you will continue to heat your house, no matter how much pollution you put in the air and ash you put on the curb (a trash can is called a dust bin in Britain). It is not until someone offers to put in a gas or oil heater= that pumps the fuel right into your unit, that the problems end or are shifted to another area.
In other words, solutions displace problems, what are the solutions to the problems?
If you can't return a favor, pass it on,
James
check out our website at www.HIRI.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:38:22 -0600 From: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us> Subject: Glass Beads - Manufacturing -- Reply
Potters Industries of Brownwood TX (915-752-6711) recycles plate glass into tiny glass beads used in "reflectorizing" highway paint and other applications. They may be willing to give info on the source of their bead-making equipment.
Bill Carter, Program Specialist Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Recycling Section, Office of Pollution Prevention & Recycling MC114 P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087 USA (512) 239-6771
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:53:54 -0500 From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com> Subject: INFO REQUEST: Subsidies that Hurt Recycling
Recyclers,
The request for information below is a broader request than the specific message sent earlier regarding subsidies for incineration. This is all part of a project to produce a "Green Scissors for Recycling" report to document subsidies that compete with recycling. This message is from Stephen Sepp of Taxpayers for Common Sense, the lead organization on the report. John Young of the Materials Efficiency Project, Friends of the Earth and the GrassRoots Recycling Network are also involved.
Thanks in advance for your help. --Bill Sheehan GrassRoots Recycling Network
***************** My name is Stephen Sepp and I am the research fellow at Taxpayers for Common Sense who is responsible for the subsidies and recycling report. We are excited about your interest in the project and look foreward to your suggestions.
I would like your help in making the connection between subsidies and the recycling industry so that the report can demonstrate exactly how the recycling industry is placed at an unfair competitive position by federal subsidies. I am interested in your thoughts on the general issue and hope= you can direct me to contacts in the recycling community who can provide such a connection. Ideally these contacts would be able to say something like: Because of a subsidy, Company X pays only $1 for the electricity required to manufacture aluminum thus providing it with a competitive economic advantage versus Company Y, a direct competitor, who must pay $5 for energy to recycle aluminum for sale. The idea is to demonstrate how the subsidy or tax break gives unfair benefits to an industry at the expense of the recycling= industry.
Specifically, I am interested in contacts on the following issues:
MINING -Hard Rock Mining Bonding -% Percentage Depletion Allowance -Expensing for Exploration and Development capital costs
OIL/GAS -% Depletion Allowance -Passive Loss tax shelters for investors in oil and gas -Non Conventional Fuel Production Credit -Tax Breaks for Enhanced Fuel Recovery -Intangible Drilling Costs
TIMBER -Below Cost Timber Sales -Expensing and Capital Gains status for timber sales -Timber Road Construction "Purchaser Credit"
Thank You Stephen Sepp
stephen@taxpayers.net (202) 546-8500x104 Taxpayers for Common Sense 651 Penn Ave, SE Wash. D.C 20003
************************ Bill Sheehan GrassRoots Recycling Network Zero Waste Associates 268 Janice Drive Athens GA 30606 Tel & Fax 706-208-1416 bill_sheehan@mindspring.com ************************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 06:04:46 -0800 (PST) From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <david@kirkworks.com> Subject: Logging, Oil Fed. Leg. Updates
BILL TO END COMMERCIAL LOGGING ON PUBLIC LANDS A 10/31 Sierra Club press release announced the introduction of the=20 National Forest Protection and Restoration Act, HR 2789 by=20 Representatives Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and Jim Leach (R-IA) that would=20 end the timber sales program on National Forests and other public lands=20 and redirect the subsidies that have gone to commercial logging on=20 public lands into restoration and worker retraining. The Sierra Club=20 released an economic analysis of the Forest Service's own accounting=20 showing the timber sales program on National Forests operated at a net=20 loss to taxpayers of $791 million in 1996. Contact John Leary, Sierra=20 Club for more information (202) 547-1141.
FOREST HEALTH: On 11/5 the House Agriculture subcommittee passed by=20 voice vote Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Smith's (R-OR) bill, HR=20 2515, which would require the Secretary of Agriculture to implement=20 pilot projects on National Forests to improve forest health. =20 Conservation groups say so-called forest health prescriptions are=20 another excuse to log and that dead trees and woody debris are=20 important components to forest habitat. Representative George Brown=20 (D-CA), the only member of the subcommittee to oppose the bill, said,=20 "I have been troubled by the claims that the way to cure these=20 ecosystem ills is through continued over-logging, such as what we saw=20 under the `rider.'"=20
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP BILL: S. 1028, the Senate version of HR 858, the=20 Quincy Library Group bill that would institute a five-year pilot=20 project for forest management activities on three northern California=20 National Forests, may come to a vote in the Senate. Although Senator=20 Barbara Boxer (D-CA) pulled her support for the bill, conservation=20 groups are hard-pressed to stop it from passing. Information provided=20 by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project shows as much as 217,000 acres=20 of old-growth could be threatened by the logging mandated in the bill.=20 The Senate bill passed out of committee October 22. The bill passed=20 the House 429-1. Conservation groups oppose the bill. For more=20 information, contact Klamath Forest Alliance (916)467-5405=20 klamath@sisqtel.net http://www.sisqtel.net/users/klamath
ADMINISTRATION ROADLESS AREA POLICY The Clinton Administration announced its two-part proposal for road=20 building and roadless areas in National Forests last week. The first=20 proposal includes recommended long-term changes in the forest road=20 system, and the second proposal is an 18-month moratorium on building=20 new roads in roadless areas in National Forests. The proposals are=20 published in the Federal Register and are open to a 60-day and 30-day=20 public comment period, respectively. The proposed moratorium elicited=20 criticism from conservation groups because the Administration did not=20 include Alaska's Tongass National Forest, forests in the Pacific=20 Northwest and California and a few eastern forests, including the=20 George Washington NF.=20
Activists are encouraged to submit comments on the proposals. For more=20 information, contact Western Ancient Forest Campaign (202) 879-3188.
NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE -- ALASKA The Bureau of Land Management is accepting public comments on the Draft=20 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for oil drilling in portions of=20 the 23.5 million acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska's western=20 Arctic. =20
The public comment deadline was extended to March 12, 1998. For more=20 information, comment guidelines, and talking points, contact Northern=20 Alaska Environmental Center (907) 452-5021 naec@mosquitonet.com =20 http://www.mosquitonet.com/~naec
GREEN SCISSORS A coalition of taxpayer and conservation groups released the 4th annual=20 Green Scissors report calling for cuts in wasteful and environmentally=20 harmful programs that could save taxpayers $50 billion. New targets for=20 cuts include rejecting the Tongass Land Management Plan and ending=20 taxpayer-subsidized logging and road construction in Alaska's Tongass=20 National Forest for savings of $170 million. Contact Lynn Erskine=20 (202) 783-7400 or http://www.foe.org/eco/scissors98 for a copy of the=20 report. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Roger Featherstone, GREEN Director PO Box 40046, Albuquerque, NM 87196-0046 (505) 277-8302 fax, (505) 277-5483 rfeather@defenders.org http://www.defenders.org/grnhome.html GREEN DC Office 1101 14th St., NW, Ste. 1400, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 682-9400 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:17:07 -0600 From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com> Subject: Minimum Recycled Content for Newsprint
The 2/9/98 issue of Waste News had an editorial attacking Wisconsin's minimum recycled content law for newsprint (40% in 1998, eight years after the law's enactment) as "unrealistic".
Here is a letter to the editor that I sent in reply:
To the Editor Waste News 1725 Merriman Road Akron, Ohio 44313-5251
To the Editor:
Waste News chastises the states with increasing requirements for recycled content in newsprint as unrealistic (2/9/98 "Wis. dilemma"). Here are the reasons why this characterization is off the mark.
Too often there is an tendency to look upon one side or the other of a debate pejoratively, as if one is "good" and the other "bad". In reality =97 while sometimes commonalities can be found between two viewpoints =97 more often there are simply competing interests. But to say that two groups have different concerns does not need to lessen the legitimacy of the others' point of view, or somehow make them unrealistic.
In the case of newspaper, unfortunately, the interests diverge between the old line integrated newsprint mills and those concerned with decreasing waste, such as communities with curbside recycling programs. This is because the mills were built before recycling really took off, and their source of pulp was the great virgin stands in the wilderness. Consequently, mills tended to be located far from their markets in order to be nearer their supply (in which they have a substantial sunk investment), and, of course, to be designed for pulping virgin timber not repulping recovered paper.
Today, of course, in response to the public demand for waste minimization and diversion, an enormous infrastructure has been erected to collect old newspapers. In this light, it would make more sense to have the mills located closer to their modern day supply =97 namely in the urban areas (the so called "urban forests") in order to save significant hauling costs =97 and to bulk up their deinking capacity.
The problem in getting from here to there is that newsprint is a stagnant industry. Without areas of growth in which new investments can be redirected to reflect modern times, the path from buggy whips to automobiles, as it were, will be far slower because it will have to track the more gradual normal replacement schedules for wear and tear.
This is precisely what most state content goals did. Beginning at the onset of this decade, minimum newspaper content goals were gradually increased from 10% to sometimes as much as 45% over as long as twelve years so that industry would know precisely what was expected and have time to adapt.
Contrary to Waste News' comment that these requirements were "unrealistic", for the first half of the decade the mills responded constructively, installing upwards of $2 billion in new deinking capacity in order to produce newsprint that could be sold in those states.
The problem arose not because the state policies were unrealistic, but rather because the change in power in Congress in 1995 led some CEOs to believe that government regulations no longer carried the same weight. As a result, no significant investments in deinking capacity have been planned after 1995 -- even though (1) those policies clearly state that content levels continue to rise through the end of the decade and (2) the installed deinking capacity was inadequate for that task. That is to say, the mills made a conscious decision to gamble that they would not longer have to comply with the law if they deliberately foregoed necessary investments.
In this light, it can be seen that the issue is not one of realism. There is no technical or economic reason why the content goals cannot be met. Most mills can make money producing recycled newsprint if they have to pay as much as $85 per ton, and the average price for ONP =97 except for 1995 =97 has been less than one-fourth of that. Rather the issue is whether it was wise public policy to encourage diversion in the first place six, seven and eight years ago.
Responsible people may disagree over that policy. But, once that policy is determined, as the majority of Americans have, the technique of phased-in increments in minimum recycled content levels is eminently realistic. Moreover, it is a fair balancing of interests between public policy today based upon a reasoned response to new problems, on the one hand, and respect for the sunk investments of the integrated mills of the past which were honestly made at the time they were decided, on the other.
Certainly, there is no need to be polyanna about that: adjustments can be wrenching, even when time is provided to make changes with as least pain as possible. But, there is no way to hold everyone harmless. Were we to continue to backpedal on content mandates, the cities across the country would pay in lower prices for their ONP (in Wisconsin, experts estimate $2 million annually), and investors who built deinking capacity in good faith in response to these laws would see the value of the good works erode.
It is not the unseen hand of the free market that is creating the problem: rather it is the understandable =97 but not supportable =97 desire of holders of obsolete investments to attempt to forestall for as long as they can the inevitable.
Sincerely,
RecycleWorlds c o n s u l t i n g
/s/ Peter Anderson By Peter Anderson President
____________________________________ Peter Anderson RecycleWorlds Consulting 4513 Vernon Blvd. Ste. 15 Madison, WI 53705-4964 Phone:(608) 231-1100/Fax: (608) 233-0011 E-mail:recycle@msn.fullfeed.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:02:36 -0500 From: Edward Boisson <nerc@mail.sover.net> Subject: Subsidies for wasting: bonds?
Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth wrote:
"I would like to send some questions about the Private Activities Bonds (PABs) over the network...=20 1. Are recycling facilities being funded by PABs? 2. How many incineratos are being funded through PABs? 3. Are recycling facilities at a disadvantage for receiving PAB funding because they are relatively less capital intensive than incinerators? 4. Can we advocate ending incinerator funding through PABs while keeping the status quo for PAB funding to recycling facilities? What are our arguments to justify this? 5. What other potential waste subsidies put recycling at a competitive disadvantage?"
Not long ago there was a fairly detailed discussion about the use of such bonds to fund recycling facilities on the jtrnet listserve. The discussion ultimately turned into a debate about whether and when "waste" is a "commodity" (since in order to access the bonds, recycling facilities had to argue that the material they handle is valueless -- an unfortunate philosophical dillemma). Nevertheless, as I recall there was a lot of good information about the use of bonds for recycling facilities, and certainly many good leads.
I think past discussions on the jtrnet have been compiled on the jtr website at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/jtr/index.htm. If not, I'd be happy to forward some of these messages. =20
--=20 Edward Boisson, Executive Director Northeast Recycling Council
nerc@sover.net Phone (802) 254-3636 Fax (802) 254-5870 139 Main Street, Suite 401 Brattleboro, VT 05301
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:32:00 -0500 From: TRUETT DEGEARE <DEGEARE.TRUETT@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV> Subject: Subsidies for wasting: bonds? -Reply
The issue of these bonds was the subject of an article, "Sue the Whitehouse," in the Sept. 8 , 1997, "Forbes" magazine. I regret that I no longer have the article, and I think it's no longer available on the Forbes homepage; perhaps a library would have back issue??
>>> Edward Boisson <nerc@mail.sover.net> 02/13/98 09:02am >>> Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth wrote:
"I would like to send some questions about the Private Activities Bonds (PABs) over the network...=20 1. Are recycling facilities being funded by PABs? 2. How many incineratos are being funded through PABs? 3. Are recycling facilities at a disadvantage for receiving PAB funding because they are relatively less capital intensive than incinerators? 4. Can we advocate ending incinerator funding through PABs while keeping the status quo for PAB funding to recycling facilities? What are our arguments to justify this? 5. What other potential waste subsidies put recycling at a competitive disadvantage?"
Not long ago there was a fairly detailed discussion about the use of such bonds to fund recycling facilities on the jtrnet listserve. The discussion ultimately turned into a debate about whether and when "waste" is a "commodity" (since in order to access the bonds, recycling facilities had to argue that the material they handle is valueless -- an unfortunate philosophical dillemma). Nevertheless, as I recall there was a lot of good information about the use of bonds for recycling facilities, and certainly many good leads.
I think past discussions on the jtrnet have been compiled on the jtr website at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/jtr/index.htm. If not, I'd be happy to forward some of these messages. =20
--=20 Edward Boisson, Executive Director Northeast Recycling Council
nerc@sover.net Phone (802) 254-3636 Fax (802) 254-5870 139 Main Street, Suite 401 Brattleboro, VT 05301
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:03:39 EST From: Jango@aol.com Subject: Subsidies for wasting: bonds? -Reply
In exchange for the referenced web page address (Forbes article),=20
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/97/0908/6005152a.htm
could someone please tell me where to access source documentation on=20 PABs, i.e., rules, regs., procedures, etc.? This is an interesting issue=20 in need of further investigation.
Thanks in advance...
David Biddle (jango@aol.com)=20
DEGEARE.TRUETT@epamail.epa.gov
>From: DEGEARE.TRUETT@epamail.epa.gov (TRUETT DEGEARE) >To: nerc@mail.sover.net, NERC@SOVER.NET, GreenYes@ucsd.edu >The issue of these bonds was the subject of an article, "Sue the=20 >Whitehouse," in the Sept. 8 , >1997, "Forbes" magazine. I regret that I no longer have the article, and= =20 >I think it's no longer >available on the Forbes homepage; perhaps a library would have back issue??
David Biddle 7366 Rural Lane Philadelphia, PA 19119 215-247-2974 (voice and fax) jango@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 06:54:00 -0600 From: Alicia Lyttle <alyttle@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> Subject: Tulane Recycling Conference
Attention All Recyclers! One week from tomorrow, Tulane University will be hosting the second Campus Recycling Conference in the CURC Campus Recycling Series. If you haven't registered, fax your registrations into the National Recycling Coalition (703-683-9026). If you need a registration form call Cherry Davis at 703-683-9025 ext228. This is a conference you do not want to miss! We have secured some of the best speakers from across the nation to cover topics ranging from How To Start A Program to Organics Recycling to Green Buildings! As an added bonus, you will be in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. So don't delay, register today.=20 (While we do accept on site registrations, we prefer pre-registrations to assist in conference logistics). =20
Coming into town on Thursday, meet fellow Recyclers and others at 7:00 pm in the lobby of the Comfort Inn Suites-Downtown. We'll get an early jump on the Mardi Gras festivities!
Got questions, call Brian Holtz at 309-438-7283 or email him directly at bdholtz@ilstu.edu or you can contact Alicia Lyttle our host chair by email at alyttle@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu. Hotel reservations can be made by calling=20 the Best Western Hotel 504-241-5100 and asking for the Tulane/NRC block: $79 Thurs & Friday night, $125 Sat. night.
Don't miss out on the wealth of information and ideas that are going to be generated on February 20th at Tulane University!
See ya in New Orleans! Alicia
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 06:54:00 -0800 From: alyttle@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu Subject: Tulane Recycling Conference =20
Attention All Recyclers! One week from tomorrow, Tulane University will be hosting the second Campus Recycling Conference in the CURC Campus Recycling Series. If you haven't registered, fax your registrations into the National Recycling Coalition (703-683-9026). If you need a registration form call Cherry Davis at 703-683-9025 ext228. This is a conference you do not want to miss! We have secured some of the best speakers from across the nation to cover topics ranging from How To Start A Program to Organics Recycling to Green Buildings! As an added bonus, you will be in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. So don't delay, register today.=20 (While we do accept on site registrations, we prefer pre-registrations to assist in conference logistics). =20
Coming into town on Thursday, meet fellow Recyclers and others at 7:00 pm in the lobby of the Comfort Inn Suites-Downtown. We'll get an early jump on the Mardi Gras festivities!
Got questions, call Brian Holtz at 309-438-7283 or email him directly at bdholtz@ilstu.edu or you can contact Alicia Lyttle our host chair by email at alyttle@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu. Hotel reservations can be made by calling=20 the Best Western Hotel 504-241-5100 and asking for the Tulane/NRC block: $79 Thurs & Friday night, $125 Sat. night.
Don't miss out on the wealth of information and ideas that are going to be generated on February 20th at Tulane University!
See ya in New Orleans! Alicia
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 06:54:00 -0800 From: alyttle@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu Subject: Tulane Recycling Conference =20
Attention All Recyclers! One week from tomorrow, Tulane University will be hosting the second Campus Recycling Conference in the CURC Campus Recycling Series. If you haven't registered, fax your registrations into the National Recycling Coalition (703-683-9026). If you need a registration form call Cherry Davis at 703-683-9025 ext228. This is a conference you do not want to miss! We have secured some of the best speakers from across the nation to cover topics ranging from How To Start A Program to Organics Recycling to Green Buildings! As an added bonus, you will be in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. So don't delay, register today.=20 (While we do accept on site registrations, we prefer pre-registrations to assist in conference logistics). =20
Coming into town on Thursday, meet fellow Recyclers and others at 7:00 pm in the lobby of the Comfort Inn Suites-Downtown. We'll get an early jump on the Mardi Gras festivities!
Got questions, call Brian Holtz at 309-438-7283 or email him directly at bdholtz@ilstu.edu or you can contact Alicia Lyttle our host chair by email at alyttle@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu. Hotel reservations can be made by calling=20 the Best Western Hotel 504-241-5100 and asking for the Tulane/NRC block: $79 Thurs & Friday night, $125 Sat. night.
Don't miss out on the wealth of information and ideas that are going to be generated on February 20th at Tulane University!
See ya in New Orleans! Alicia
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #38 ******************************