Today's Topics:
Any Outlets for Old Comp
Any Outlets for Old Computer Monitors?
Battery recycling programs?
Comprehensive Analysis of Mandatory Recycling? (2 msgs)
Computer CRTs
fertilizer regulations
Further Note on Auto/Steel Recycling
Mexican Market for Recyclables (2 msgs)
Michigan's Waste Import Problem
Radioactive Recycling
The Smart Office
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:98/26 ----------------------------------------------------------------------Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:00:50 -0800 From: Myra Nissen <myracycl@inreach.com> Subject: Any Outlets for Old Comp
There are ample outlets for donnation and recalmation here in the SF Bay Area. Infact, a place called Weird Stuff in Sunnyvale sells used systems. A local college has an electronic exclusive flea market on a regular basis.
I several years ago I sent my old 286 and near letter quality dot matrix printer to a friend of mine who is a teacher and mother in rural Idaho.=20 She was very greatful and is still getting mileage out of it.
Myra
Paul Tapley wrote: >=20 > Reply to: RE>Any Outlets for Old Computer Monitors? >=20 > John, >=20 > I have heard that USEPA "ruled" last fall, that computers (not only the > monitors) be must be "recycled" and not landfilled. Do you have (or do you > know where to find) this "ruling"? This would be a good tool to promote= reuse, > resale, (and least desirable) recycling of computers. I would suggest= trying > to keep the monitor, cpu, and keyboard together as a usable item rather= than > just a monitor that is difficult to dispose of. I think we should do what= we > can to keep these things in use as long as possible, even if only as a= word > processor/typewriter... >=20 > We know disposal is a environmental problem, but here's an FYI about the > production of the silicon chip (ONLY the chip!): >=20 > "Producing a single, eight inch silicon wafer - enough for about 250= Pentium > CPU's - uses 4,267 cu. ft. of bulk gasses, 3,787 gal. of waste water, 27= lbs. > of chemicals, 29 cu. ft. of hazardus gases, and 3,023 gallons of deionized > water and generates nine puonds of hazardus waste. A single plant can= produce > 5,000 wafers a week." (do the math!) Quoted from Bay Area Computer= Currents > Sept.30-Oct.13 '97 relating figures from an Texas Instruments study - "the > only publicly available study" >=20 > If local resale or reuse/donation is not an option for you, the Institute= for > Local Self Reliance recently (last fall) produced a booklet on electronics > recycling with many contacts nation wide. I don't have a copy to give you= an > address, but it should not be too hard to find. >=20 > Paul Tapley - Recycling Coordinator > Sonoma State University - Calif. > 707.664.2929
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:42:23 EST From: Jango@aol.com Subject: Any Outlets for Old Computer Monitors?
I'm doing research into computer recovery right now (expect to have=20 results by late March). Monitors (CRTs) are a tough subject. Envirocycle=20 in PA seems to be the most advanced company, recycling everything from=20 the lead to the glass (which is turned back into monitors among other=20 things I believe). You can reach them at 717-879-2862. Computer recyclers=20 in your area should be aware of them too. Obviously monitors are=20 hazardous waste (lead and other heavy metals). The basic model right now=20 seems to be that computers get donated to non-profits and they refurbish=20 and test them and then send them out. The problem is that some monitors=20 and other components don't work. Some of this can be recycled (circuit=20 boards w/ precisou metals especially and the plastics). Monitors though=20 are always a prob. People usually just give up and stick them in closets.=20 Best thing to do though is to try to consolidate them into a truck load=20 and ship them where you can (there may be a California facility as well=20 as Envirocycle). I know of people who ship one and two units at a time to=20 Envirocycle (cost of shipping and about a $10-$20 charge for processing)=20 It's a tough situation.
A good place to start for more info on this topic is=20 http://www.recycle.net/recycle/Glass/crt/index.html which is the Cathode=20 Ray Tube section of Recycling On-line. Another good resource is the EPA's=20 Common Sense Initiative which when last I was there had a new task force=20 focussing on CRT's (http://www.epa.gov/commonsense/).
For basic information on computer recycling check out EPA's list at=20 www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle.htm#docs. The best link for broad=20 info is the Parents Educators and Publishers National Directory of=20 Computer Recycling pRograms=20 (www.microweb.com/pepsite/Recycle/recycle_index.html)...this is truly a=20 great resource for lots of electronic things.=20
That's the best stuff, but there will lots more in my report come=20 March/April.=20
David Biddle 7366 Rural Lane Philadelphia, PA 19119 215-247-2974 (voice and fax) jango@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:28:34 EST From: Jango@aol.com Subject: Battery recycling programs?
I presume you're asking about alkaline batteries...There are a number of=20 cities in Florida I believe...and many others around the country.=20 Generally though what I do is start in reverse when looking for good=20 programs. Go to industry sources and ask them about the best programs out=20 there (to get started only).=20
In this case, I don't know why they haven't made you all out there more=20 aware of themselves, but a company in PA called INMETCO is doing some good stuff it seems and are working with numerous municipalities around the country.=20
Also, check out:=20
http://www.rbrc.inter.net/comrecoo.htm, it seems a good place to start.
David Biddle 7366 Rural Lane Philadelphia, PA 19119 215-247-2974 (voice and fax) jango@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:43:05 -0500 From: "Blair Pollock" <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us> Subject: Comprehensive Analysis of Mandatory Recycling?
Is anyone aware of a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness/cost/diversion rate increases due to insituting mandatory recycling/collection bans on recyclables? I am aware that such work has been done as Pay As You Throw/Volume Based fees but I know of nothing similar for mandatory programs.
Key questions: Are impositions of penalties required to make them work or just warning notices/oops tags?
Do programs maintain high diversion rates over time if there is no apparent enforcement or do people slack off and go back to throwing things away?
What happens when there are changes in what is recyclable? Are the newly added materials also banned or simply added to the lists of what's recyclable but not banned?
Are comprehensive bans preferrable to bans on individual materials e.g. corrugated cardboard?
Are bans equally effective in residential and multifamily and commercial sectors or more effective in one particular sector?
How are bans enforced in multifamily sector with multiple dumpster user and most users throwing out opaque garbage bags?
Are Sanitation Collectors typically the enforcers or are the there separate garbage gestapo?
Are mandatory programs as effective as PAYT in reducing the waste stream?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:28:24 EST From: Jango@aol.com Subject: Comprehensive Analysis of Mandatory Recycling?
bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us
>Is anyone aware of a comprehensive analysis of the >effectiveness/cost/diversion rate increases due to insituting mandatory >recycling/collection bans on recyclables? I am aware that such work has >been done as Pay As You Throw/Volume Based fees but I know of nothing >similar for mandatory programs.
Hey Blair,
Try Lisa Skumatz's article in Resource Recycling January 1998 (p. 18)=20 summarizing a big study they've done reviewing 600 communities. The=20 detailed questions you ask may not get fully answered, but there is some=20 signficant stuff in their work.=20
David Biddle 7366 Rural Lane Philadelphia, PA 19119 215-247-2974 (voice and fax) jango@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:26:45 -0600 From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us> Subject: Computer CRTs
Thanks to everyone who has sent me information on outlets for=20 computer monitors. I will compile the information and send it back=20 out to the lists.
Taking another tack, has anyone seen some good articles that=20 describe the materials within the CRT (cathode ray tube) and=20 technology to reprocess/recycle them?
I have an article from the 1994 GLASTEC conference in Germany,=20 entitled "Recycling Special Glass" that gives good background=20 information, but would like to find other articles, especially those=20 that are more up-to-date.
Thanks much!!
John Reindl, Recycling Manager Dane County, WI
reindl@co.dane.wi.us (608)267-1533 - fax (608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:23:00 -0500 From: Megan Defendis <mdefendi@crain.com> Subject: fertilizer regulations
I'm looking for some information redarding the recycling of toxic waste into fertilizer.=20
Fertilizers that are made from steel and wood waste man contain dioxin, prompting the push for increased legislation to regulate the stuff. If anyone has some input, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for the information.
Megan Defendis phone (330) 865-6166 fax (330) 836-1692
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:42:30 EST From: Jango@aol.com Subject: Further Note on Auto/Steel Recycling
In general, I would say the steel recycling industry (and scrap dealers=20 in general) point the way toward successful recycling and resource=20 recovery. Glass too. These industries demonstrate that long-term,=20 industrial development with market based decision making can be very=20 successful. And the auto and steel industries continue to make strides=20 that are phenomenal. I remember a talk by Phil Bailey (where is Phil=20 these days anyway? he's no longer with ERG) of the Buy Recycled Business=20 Coalition once when he pointed out that the largest export from the US=20 (by weight) was junk steel (mostly from autos) that was being shipped=20 across the Pacific only to come back as new cars!
Amazing!
David Biddle 7366 Rural Lane Philadelphia, PA 19119 215-247-2974 (voice and fax) jango@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:57:26 -0600 From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com> Subject: Mexican Market for Recyclables
The January 29, 1998 Wall Street Journal had an article, "Destination Mexico: US Scrap Enlivens Border Trade" describing how the Mexican scrap market has picked up the slack for the southwest US from declines in Asian demand"
"Mexico is becoming one of the largest buyers of American recyclable waste, such as steel scrap, glass and wastepaper. Canada is the number one purchaser of American recyclable waste, and in the past Asia had always been the second largest purchaser. But, following the recent financial crisis in Asia, Mexico is now moving into the number two spot. "'Mexico is where everyone who has traditionally looked to Asia is focusing,' said Carlos Rovelo, market development director for Rock-Tenn Recycling in Dallas. "No one knows the exact amount of waste that is being traded across the border, but experts estimate that between $500 million and $1 billion worth of trash was imported by Mexico over the past year. They cite the passage of NAFTA in 1993 as the catalyst that spurred the increase in trade. Since NAFTA took effect, most tariffs on waste have been eliminated, allowing the import of trash by Mexico to increase from less than 700,000 tons in 1993 to 1.2 million tons last year. Other factors, such as the comparably low shipping costs, make Mexico a more attractive trading partner than Asia. "One example of how international changes can affect the market for recyclables occurred when Japan began to institute mandatory recycling for its people. Japan was formerly one of the largest buyers of aluminum cans from California companies, but this demand plummeted. Now, millions of these cans are being exported to Mexico for use in new-car components. "A similar demand for recyclable glass bottles has established trade of this item between California and Mexico. "The glass goes down as Miller beer bottles and comes back filled with Corona," says I.T. "Tex" Corley, chairman of Strategic Materials, which delivers the bottles to Mexico. "Corley says that business is booming, and his company makes a profit of $5 a ton, which is about twice the industry average."
If anyone would like a copy of the full text, send me your fax number and I'll ship it out. I don't want to retype the whole thing.
_____ 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, 30 Jan 1998 09:57:26 -0600 From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com> Subject: Mexican Market for Recyclables
The January 29, 1998 Wall Street Journal had an article, "Destination Mexico: US Scrap Enlivens Border Trade" describing how the Mexican scrap market has picked up the slack for the southwest US from declines in Asian demand"
"Mexico is becoming one of the largest buyers of American recyclable waste, such as steel scrap, glass and wastepaper. Canada is the number one purchaser of American recyclable waste, and in the past Asia had always been the second largest purchaser. But, following the recent financial crisis in Asia, Mexico is now moving into the number two spot. "'Mexico is where everyone who has traditionally looked to Asia is focusing,' said Carlos Rovelo, market development director for Rock-Tenn Recycling in Dallas. "No one knows the exact amount of waste that is being traded across the border, but experts estimate that between $500 million and $1 billion worth of trash was imported by Mexico over the past year. They cite the passage of NAFTA in 1993 as the catalyst that spurred the increase in trade. Since NAFTA took effect, most tariffs on waste have been eliminated, allowing the import of trash by Mexico to increase from less than 700,000 tons in 1993 to 1.2 million tons last year. Other factors, such as the comparably low shipping costs, make Mexico a more attractive trading partner than Asia. "One example of how international changes can affect the market for recyclables occurred when Japan began to institute mandatory recycling for its people. Japan was formerly one of the largest buyers of aluminum cans from California companies, but this demand plummeted. Now, millions of these cans are being exported to Mexico for use in new-car components. "A similar demand for recyclable glass bottles has established trade of this item between California and Mexico. "The glass goes down as Miller beer bottles and comes back filled with Corona," says I.T. "Tex" Corley, chairman of Strategic Materials, which delivers the bottles to Mexico. "Corley says that business is booming, and his company makes a profit of $5 a ton, which is about twice the industry average."
If anyone would like a copy of the full text, send me your fax number and I'll ship it out. I don't want to retype the whole thing.
_____ 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, 30 Jan 1998 15:16:53 -0500 From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com> Subject: Michigan's Waste Import Problem
JEFF SURFUS SAID (REGARDING THE WASTE IMPORT PROBLEM): >My question is, is this happening elsewhere as well? Are there any success >stories anyone has to share? Any suggestions on what we can do to stop >this? Any words of encouragement?
Amen Jeff! Well said. I believe that the interstate waste/right-to-say-no issue is highly relevant and critical to recyclers, for precisely the= reasons you eloquently state. To date recyclers have not weighed in in an organized way on the waste import problem, but I agree we need to do so. One problem= is that many recyclers still see recycling (3Rs) as a subsidiary of waste management, rather than as an alternative to it.
The GrassRoots Recycling Network is trying to change that -- under the= banner of Zero Waste. We are trying to be proactive and to think in terms of competing with wasting, and competing for the _entire_ discard supply.
Locally, it seems that product bans could be effective against waste= imports, presuming that your jurisdiction is willing to go further than the exporting jurisdiction. Ultimately, we need to organize politically to get Congress= to pass right-to-say-no legislation. In between, we can work to build up independent recyclers and to expose actions of large corporations for which recycling is a small part of their operations but a large part of their advertising budget.
Please work with us to develop this part of our program.
-- Bill Sheehan
************************ Bill Sheehan Zero Waste Associates 268 Janice Drive Athens GA 30606 Tel & Fax 706-208-1416 bill_sheehan@mindspring.com ************************
P.S. Below is an article describing similar problems in Wisconsin, from Recycling Times, 1/19/98.
Wis. Waste Laws Challenged, Again NSWMA takes Wisconsin DNR to court By Sarah Halsted
Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) once again is facing a challenge to its waste and recycling laws from the National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA).
Wisconsin passed the new law banning disposal of recyclable out-of-state waste in the state last October, late into the development of the state's two-year spending plan.
In opposition to this law, NSWMA, a component of the Environmental Industry Associations (EIA), based in Washington, D.C., joined a legion of private Wisconsin haulers to file suit against DNR in Wisconsin's District Court last month.
The private haulers involved in the suit are Superior Services Inc., based in West Allis, Wis.; Land Reclamation Co., based in Racine, Wis.; and Waste Management of Wisconsin Inc., based in Madison, Wis. Also named in the suit is a public agency, the Solid Waste Agency of Lake County, Ill., an authority that exports waste to Wisconsin.
The lawsuit charges that the state's new waste law restricts the flow of out-of-state waste into Wisconsin and improperly regulates out-of-state waste, violating the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Specifically, NSWMA addresses a law requiring out- of-state communities that use Wisconsin landfills and incinerators after Oct. 1, 1999, to modify their recycling programs to meet Wisconsin's specifications. Wisconsin law requires its own communities to collect, and not landfill, recyclable material.
DNR, for its part, did not anticipate this suit.
"Based on what we had heard and saw," said Paul Didier, director of DNR's Bureau of Waste Management, "it seemed [Waste Management of Wisconsin] would work with us the way the law was drafted and planned." Didier refers to a provision to delay the law for several years.
Waste Management of Wisconsin is "very comfortable the courts will take a second look at this law," said Lynn Morgan, a company spokeswoman.
It is "nearly identical to its previous law, the provisions of which were in effect for only eight months" before being ruled unconstitutional, she added.
Flashback NSWMA is confident its suit will be successful, primarily because the new law replaces a similar law ruled unconstitutional in 1995.
The 7th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the previous law unconstitutional, because it required all out-of-state communities that dumped any waste in Wisconsin to have a complete recycling program for all of its waste.
Now, Wisconsin officials once again require out-of- state communities dumping waste in the state to have what they term an "effective recycling" program.
The new law contains fewer provisions, but is mostly unchanged, NSWMA contends.
For example, according to NSWMA's lawsuit, the recycling program still will forbid disposal or incineration of recyclable materials in Wisconsin, unless a community with an "effective recycling program," as deemed by DNR, generated those materials.
"Wisconsin's new law is actually a revision of its prior law," said David Biderman, association counsel for EIA. "It continues to impose unlawful burdens on out- of-state waste and violates the commerce clause=97this law seems to be consistent with Wisconsin's aversion to out-of-state waste," he said.
Wisconsin does not have an aversion to out-of-state waste, but rather a desire to ensure that recyclable materials do not end up in landfills, DNR officials contend.
Anyone exporting waste to Wisconsin must "subject their waste to the same degree of recycling as we do in Wisconsin=97it's as simple as that," DNR's Didier said.
"Their waste must receive the same process of separation and processing that we do. It is our position as the DNR to defend and support [the new] law," he said.
'Dramatic impact' Those opposed to the law insist it will have a negative effect on the many private haulers who own or operate landfills in Wisconsin. Waste Management's Morgan also thinks public entities may be affected.
Waste Management of Wisconsin operates seven landfills in the state, three of which collect out-of-state waste. The company, which relies to an extent on imported waste, would face difficulties adapting to the law if its challenge is unsuccessful.
"There is no question that we bring in more out-of-state waste [than anyone else], but there are 10 other landfills and one incinerator that currently receive out-of-state waste, and some of these are publicly owned," Morgan said.
According to the lawsuit, when the similar 1990 legislation went into effect, "the impact was dramatic."
Specifically, the Wisconsin law said that none of the Illinois communities which transported waste to Waste Management's Pheasant Run landfill had an effective recycling program.
In 1994, Pheasant Run accepted almost 211,000 tons of MSW and industrial solid waste from Illinois. In 1995, as a result of that ban, the facility accepted only 96,500 tons of out-of-state waste, according to NSWMA.
"The effective recycling program requirements, as amended, will, once again, impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce by significantly decreasing the disposal in Wisconsin of out-of-state waste," NSWMA's lawsuit stated.
The law "will mean that haulers that collect waste out- of-state will not be able to bring waste into Wisconsin, unless their communities have intensive recycling facilities," Biderman said.
"While Wisconsin is limiting the import of Illinois waste, it will continue to export waste out-of-state, depriving landfill operators in-state of a chance to profit from the collection of waste," he added.
###
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:31:45 -0500 From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com> Subject: Radioactive Recycling
TO: People Who Are Interested In Stopping Radioactive Metal From Being=20 Recycled Into Consumer Products FROM: Jessica Vallette, Organizer for Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy= =20 Project DATE: January 20, 1998 RE: Sample Letter For Publication & Distribution
We Need Your Help Now! The nuclear industry and their government allies are= =20 at it again! They want to recycle radioactive metal scrap from nuclear power= =20 plants and DOE weapons facilities into household items. Citizens must act= =20 now to stop this sham recycling scheme.
What's Happening: The DOE has a huge stockpile of radioactive scrap metal.= =20 One proposed "disposal" method is to recycle it into consumer products.=20 Before DOE can proceed with this irresponsible plan, they need the=20 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set standards. EPA has begun this= =20 process by writing a Preliminary Technical Support Document and the=20 Preliminary Cost-Benefit Analysis. These documents look at the feasibility= =20 of recycling radioactive scrap metal into consumer products. This the=20 beginning of a rulemaking that could result in radioactive metal being made= =20 into strollers, appliances, bedframes, beltbuckles-- anything made from=20 metal. These documents are available on their website:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/scrap/scrappub.htm
Background: Throughout the 1980's, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission along= =20 with the Department of Energy (DOE), sought to deregulate radioactive waste= =20 and call it "below regulatory concern". Under this scheme, roughly 30% of= =20 the nation's "low-level" radioactive waste could be treated as normal=20 garbage and disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills or incinerators. Furthermore it would have allowed production of consumer goods from these=20 materials, most frequently by recycling the waste scrap.
What You Can Do: The public is being asked to review and send in their=20 comments on these documents by January 31, 1998. Please print the attached= =20 sample letter in your respective newsletters and request that the letters be= =20 carbon copied and sent both to your organization and to me. These letters= =20 will demonstrate to the EPA and the DOE that the "stake holders" are not=20 just industry organizations--this action would effect all Americans. EPA=20 must be told to set a standard that would not raise the "background" level= =20 of radiation that everyone is exposed to. Tell them to set a zero tolerance= =20 level. By doing so, we might be able to stop this process NOW. Your Name Your Address Your Daytime Phone (optional)
John Karhnak US EPA Cleanup and Reuse Center 401 M Street, SW (6602J) Washington, DC 20460
Re: Radioactive Metal Scrap Preliminary Technical Support Document and=20 Preliminary Cost-Benefit Analysis
Dear Mr. Karhnak:
I am writing to express my concern about the Environmental Protection=20 Agency's (EPA) proposal to allow radioactive metal scrap into the consumer= =20 market. It is my understanding that this material could be "recycled" into= =20 strollers, appliances, bedframes, beltbuckles--anything made from metal. I= =20 am opposed to any recycling of radioactive materials, including metal, into= =20 any consumer products. All radiation and radioactivity should be isolated=20 from the environment forever. EPA must set a zero tolerance standard for=20 radioactivity in consumer products.
Furthermore, this comment period was not publicized and the timing did not= =20 consider the general public's ability to comment during the busiest holiday= =20 season of year.
Regulations should not be used to legitimize recycling of these materials=20 into consumer goods. The amount of radiation that Americans are exposed to= =20 today is continually increasing as a result of nuclear power generation,=20 nuclear weapons production and testing, and other events. Now the US=20 government wants to increase our exposure further by allowing companies to= =20 profit from recycling these materials? The US government is supposed to=20 protect its citizens from harm, not secretly increase our exposure to these= =20 dangerous materials.
Americans have repeatedly expressed our outrage at these proposals. Not so= =20 long ago, Congress had to step in and force the Nuclear Regulatory=20 Commission and the Department of Energy to back off from their "below=20 regulatory concern" activities. I hope we don't have to go down that route= =20 again.
Please protect our children from radioactive products. Don't allow=20 radioactive materials to be "recycled" into consumer products.
Sincerely,
Your Name
You can also send it to:general.comments@epamail.epa.gov,(Carol Browner)BROWNER.CAROL@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
Jessica Vallette Organizer =20 Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project =20 215 PA Ave., SE =20 Washington, DC 20003 =20 phone: 202-546-4996 ext. 323 fax: 202-547-7392 =20 Visit our web page: http://www.citizen.org/cmep ***************************************************************
EAGLE=20 Environmental Assoc. for Great Lakes Education 394 Lake Ave. South, #308 Duluth, MN 55802 (218) 726-1828 email: lakes@cp.duluth.mn.us Debbie Ortman and Jan Conley Check out our new web sites: EAGLE: http://www.cp.duluth.mn.us/~lakes/eagle.html Great Lakes Women's Leadership Network Project: http://www.cp.duluth.mn.us/~lakes/ Green Thumb Project (pesticide-free lawns): http://www.cp.duluth.mn.us/~lakes/grthumb.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:37:27 -0800 (PST) From: "Amy K. Townsend" <aktownsend@igc.apc.org> Subject: The Smart Office
Dear GreenYes,
I spoke with Mary Appelhof this afternoon, and she suggested I share a book with you that I've written. It's called "The Smart Office: Turning Your Company on Its Head." It's the first comprehensive, how-to-green-your-office book that I know of. Feel free to take a look at our web site: www.smartoffice.com. In the meantime, I'll take a look at a few of your newsletters that Mary forwarded to me.
Best wishes, Amy Townsend
---------------------------------------------------------- Amy Townsend President, Sustainable Development International Corp. (SDIC) P.O. Box 623 Olney, MD 20830 phone: (301)774-0917/fax: (301)570-9394 E-mail: aktownsend@igc.apc.org Web Site: http://www.smartoffice.com ----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #26 ******************************