Today's Topics:
(Fwd) Re: Tyvek Contamination at Paper Mills
bottle bill
Re[2]: Tyvek in magazines
Tyvek in magazines
Tyvek in periodicals
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:98/5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 11:40:49 -0600
From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: (Fwd) Re: Tyvek Contamination at Paper Mills
For those of you interested in the Tyvek in publications issue, I
thought you might like to see this response from Weyerhauser in Des
Moines, IA on the impact Tyvek might have on their mill
John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:27:26 -0600
From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
To: <recycle@envirolink.org>
Subject: Re: Tyvek Contact at DuPont
Dear Chuck Irvine
In previous postings you argued that Dupont's inclusion of Tyvek
samples in advertisements in 19 magazines was no problem and that
their response to complaints to offer to cut them out and take them
back reflected a good corporate citizen.
I disputed your statement that Tyvek did not impede recycling and
asked which mills you were contending wanted Tyvek in with their OMG.
You replied by suggesting that I contact Weyerhauser in Des Moines.
I did so. Here is the correspondence that ensued:
> To: Barry, Michael
> From: Peter Anderson
> Subject: Tyvek
>
> I have a quick question. Dupont has included a page of Tyvek in
> last month's Business Week and 18 other publications as a cute
> advertisement to illustrate its indestructiblity.
> My question is whether the presence of Tyvek, if in noticable
> quantities, would adversely affect any of Weyerhauser's paper
> recycling mills operations.
To: Peter Anderson
From: Mick Barry
Yes and No the definition of noticeable is the key. Obviously
excessive plastics cause a screening problem for any paper mill. An
additional problem and maybe the more serious one is the glue line
used to hold the sample on the page. The real issue is education of the
advertising community to think of recyclablity when they CREATE a
cool idea. My personal view is in the natural flow of the disposal
of the culprit magazine their would be little to no red flags from
mills as the volume would not reach the noticeable level unless
there were complete bales of this issue entered into the stream.
Otherwise the scavenger/cleaners should pick up this nominal amount.
If it was in noticeable quantities it would plug the living hell out of the
screens.
reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 21:06:17 -0500
From: "a. kushner" <adelek@stc.net>
Subject: bottle bill
Bill Sheehan suggested people might want to see my letter to the editor,
and perhaps copy it -- but please not in north Georgia! Thanks.
THOSE DARNED BOTTLES
Are you as tired of seeing those cans and bottles lining our
roads as I am? Lots of
people are -- and some are doing something about it.
Last spring Georgians For a Bottle Bill (GFBB) came together to
support
Georgia's first bottle bill, following some good examples in other
states. Sen. Donzella
James of Atlanta sponsored SB 191, the Beverage Container and Litter
Reduction Act,
but it soon got bottled up in committee. It probably wasn't because of
the formidable
title, but the intense pressure that came from Coca-Cola -- the
beverage industry reported
the most lobbying contributions during the last legislative session.
Other states report that container deposits work. Bottle bills
produce recycling
rates of 80 to 95 percent, more than twice the rate in non-deposit
states. The recycling
process creates new jobs and recycling related businesses.
The bills also put the responsibility for clean-up back on the
manufacturers, rather
than forcing taxpayers and local governments to pay the cost of litter
clean-up and waste
disposal. The Dec. 22, 1997 issue of Plastic News, in its column
on interesting
stories of 1997, had this item:
'SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL AWARD. To Coca-Cola Co., for
ignoring
repeated pleas from 50 environmental groups and a Georgia state senator
to reuse Coke
bottles voluntarily instead of allowing them to be landfilled. A
written plea from the
Grassroots Recycling Network to top Coke officials fell on deaf ears, as
did the group's
protest outside Coke's Atlanta headquarters. When GRRN complained in
March, Coke
officials directed all calls to the Georgia Soft Drink Association,
which in turn insisted it
was an industry issue."
It should be noted that Coke bottles are routinely recycled in
Australia and many
European countries.
So what's the objection? The beverage industry does not want to
handle the
returns. They say it's a sticky, messy, insect-attracting operation.
Furthermore, they
claim it doesn't really reduce litter or increase recycling.
I'm old enough to remember when everybody saved everything, from
fats to
aluminum foil to bottles. Collecting and returning Coke bottles was a
great way to
supplement a meager allowance. I don't remember hearing strenuous
objections from the
stores that were involved, but then my memory of the old days is a
little shaky.
The states that have passed bottle bills are now perfectly happy
with them. Within
four years of implementation, 90 percent of Oregonians favored the law,
and it continues
to be one of the most popular pieces of legislation ever passed in the
state. Within 15
years cans and bottles accounted for only four percent of roadside
litter, down from 40
percent prior to the bill.
SB 191 could help clean up a lot of our neighborhoods now
inundated with cans
and bottles. Sure, it isn't the answer to all litter, but it's a good
start.
Our Georgia bill, SB 191, never got out of the Senate Resources
Committee and
was given to the subcommittee chaired by Sen. Eddie Madden of Elberton.
Your senator
would be glad to hear your opinion, now that the legislature is back in
session. The
GFBB is headed by Bob Woodall at 404-266-0820; fax 404-266-1839.
It will be interesting to see if public pressure is stronger
than Coke's influence on
our legislators.
-- Adele Kushner
319 Wynn Lake Circle, Alto GA 30510 706-778-3661
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 98 17:50:01 EST
From: "Amy Porter" <aporter@bna.com>
Subject: Re[2]: Tyvek in magazines
In the midst of all this discussion on Tyvek in magazines, ironically,
I received a press release from Dupont touting Tyvek as a material
used for priority mail envelopes and other purposes that is made from
30 percent (?) recycled content and is 100 percent recyclable.
So what was in the magazines that cannot be recycled?
Amy Porter
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Tyvek in magazines
Author: reindl@co.dane.wi.us at INTERNET
Date: 1/9/98 1:04 PM
Interesting calculation, Bruce!
It is absurd, both for the cost, and for DuPont, after causing the
problem, to put the responsibility to clean up this mess on someone
else.
But, on the positive side, the feedback to DuPont seems to have
struck a nerve. Besides the response I got the other day from a
DuPont official, today I have a good conversation with their PR
firm, explaining the problems that Tyvek can cause for paper
recyclers. Part of the discussion included who is really responsible
for making sure that this problem doesn't happen again. So, we may
be able to get manufacturers and advertisers to think about their
impacts on recycling more in the future and have some better
discussions on manufacturers' responsibility and extended product
responsibility.
The contact at DuPont is Maryanne McGuire. Her phone number is
(800)448-9835; fax is (800)203-0013. For the PR firm, the contact is
Malea Brown. Her phone number is (202)393-5247; fax is
(202)393-5221. Both are interested in hearing from others on the
impacts of Tyvek on paper recycling.
John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 98 13:09:40 PST
> From: b_nbca@dante.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
> To: greenyes@UCSD.Edu
> Subject: Tyvek in magazines
> Someone said:
>
> > DuPont has acknowledged that while the Tyvek ad is not recyclable mixed in
> > with paper, Tyvek material by itself is recyclable and they will be glad to
> > do so if people will take a pair of scissors, cut out the ads, and send them
> > to DuPont Tyvek, DMP LR2E5, Box 80705, Wilmington, Delaware 19880-0705.
>
> This is absurd. I don't know how much Tyvek weighs per unit area, but
> supposing that it is twice as heavy as copy paper, then there are
> 100,000 sheets of 8.5x11 Tyvek per ton. Spending $.32 on postage
> (assuming no envelope--a rash assumption) for these implies a cost
> of $32,000/ton for the recycling--assuming no labor costs on either
> end (also ridiculous). I think that anyone can think of better uses
> for $32,000 than to recycle one ton of Tyvek.
>
> Either the DuPont people are clueless or they think that the rest
> of us are.
>
> --Bruce
>
> Bruce Nordman
> BNordman@LBL.gov
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> 510-486-7089; fax: 510-486-4673
> http://eande.lbl.gov/BEA/People/b_nordman.html
>
reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:02:23 -0600
From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: Tyvek in magazines
Interesting calculation, Bruce!
It is absurd, both for the cost, and for DuPont, after causing the
problem, to put the responsibility to clean up this mess on someone
else.
But, on the positive side, the feedback to DuPont seems to have
struck a nerve. Besides the response I got the other day from a
DuPont official, today I have a good conversation with their PR
firm, explaining the problems that Tyvek can cause for paper
recyclers. Part of the discussion included who is really responsible
for making sure that this problem doesn't happen again. So, we may
be able to get manufacturers and advertisers to think about their
impacts on recycling more in the future and have some better
discussions on manufacturers' responsibility and extended product
responsibility.
The contact at DuPont is Maryanne McGuire. Her phone number is
(800)448-9835; fax is (800)203-0013. For the PR firm, the contact is
Malea Brown. Her phone number is (202)393-5247; fax is
(202)393-5221. Both are interested in hearing from others on the
impacts of Tyvek on paper recycling.
John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 98 13:09:40 PST
> From: b_nbca@dante.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
> To: greenyes@UCSD.Edu
> Subject: Tyvek in magazines
> Someone said:
>
> > DuPont has acknowledged that while the Tyvek ad is not recyclable mixed in
> > with paper, Tyvek material by itself is recyclable and they will be glad to
> > do so if people will take a pair of scissors, cut out the ads, and send them
> > to DuPont Tyvek, DMP LR2E5, Box 80705, Wilmington, Delaware 19880-0705.
>
> This is absurd. I don't know how much Tyvek weighs per unit area, but
> supposing that it is twice as heavy as copy paper, then there are
> 100,000 sheets of 8.5x11 Tyvek per ton. Spending $.32 on postage
> (assuming no envelope--a rash assumption) for these implies a cost
> of $32,000/ton for the recycling--assuming no labor costs on either
> end (also ridiculous). I think that anyone can think of better uses
> for $32,000 than to recycle one ton of Tyvek.
>
> Either the DuPont people are clueless or they think that the rest
> of us are.
>
> --Bruce
>
> Bruce Nordman
> BNordman@LBL.gov
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> 510-486-7089; fax: 510-486-4673
> http://eande.lbl.gov/BEA/People/b_nordman.html
>
reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:29:35 -0800
From: "Brennan, Terry" <tbrennan@ciwmb.ca.gov>
Subject: Tyvek in periodicals
Hello all,
The other day a representative of DuPont called me back and we discussed
this issue. She stated said that this was a one-time ad campaign and
not something they plan on continuing. She also said that the decision
to put out these ads was done at corporate headquarters, and the people
in the Tyvek division found out after the fact. She and I both were
uncertain of the actual affect the this is having on mills. To make
sure she understood the potential problem, I commented it might be
similar to DuPont receiving glass in their HDPE supply (although now
that I think about it, that might cause even bigger problems). She
seemed to understand.
Has anyone on this list been in touch with the mills that recycle
newsprint and magazine stock to see how this potential problem is
affecting them, or suppliers that may have been turned away? While I
know most of these mills aren't used to dealing with plastic
contamination of this magnitude, I haven't heard yet directly or
indirectly from the people who have to deal with the problem. In the
past, mills have always adjusted to changes in feedstock, but I would
think these large sheets of plastic could quickly clog up screens used
to pull out plastic. Also, even if some subscribers cut out the Tyvek,
if they leave a strip in the magazine this still contaminates the paper
stream.
If this is a major problem for mills, it is a good example of the lack
of producer responsibility in free enterprise. Here's a possible
scenario:
Mills stop accepting feedstock and possibly shut down temporarily;
Paper packers can't afford to separate the Tyvek out and would either
have to pay to landfill the material turn away suppliers;
Curbside and drop off suppliers would either have to pay to landfill the
material or stop accepting it (probably the former since this is
supposed to be a temporary problem and it is much more difficult to stop
a recycling program that to start one); and
If collectors choose to stop collecting, it will become evident to
consumers, and the backlash could be considerable.
It would be very interesting to know the overall tonnage of material
that has been contaminated, and potentially landfilled. Some of the
periodicals listed have a very large distribution. If the worst case
scenario occurs, this information could be used towards a cost estimate.
A project for someone?
Please note that this could be an inaccurate description, however. The
contamination might be spread out over a long period of time, since
people don't recycle old magazines and old newspapers at the same rate,
thus allowing the mills to better deal with it. Time will tell....
Terry Brennan
Integrated Waste Management Specialist
California Integrated Waste Management Board
tbrennan@ciwmb.ca.gov
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the
California Integrated Waste Management Board or the State of California.
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #5
******************************