RE: [greenyes] Trashed Recyclables and the Big Picture

["Steve Bloom" <spbloom@no.address>]

And does L.A. count these residuals toward their 50% diversion requirement?  If so, they
are very much incentivized to not do such education.
	-- Steve Bloom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerecycl@no.address [mailto:Jerecycl@no.address]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:01 AM
> To: gary@no.address; greenyes@no.address
> Subject: Re: [greenyes] Trashed Recyclables and the Big Picture
>
>
> While I agree completely with Gary Liss that there should be much better
> municipal contractual guidelines for and oversight of MRF's utilized to
> process commingled recyclables from single stream curbside programs, these
> guidelines alone will not keep residue rates at 5%.  The reason is "garbage
> in, garbage out".  When localities and/or haulers ignore the importance of
> educating residents on what is/is not recyclable in any given program, the
> price they pay is high residue and this residue cannot be controlled by the
> MRF.  The City of Los Angeles is an excellent case in point.  They have
> contracted with some highly respected recyclers who have excellent marketing
> track records and have invested in state-of-the art equipment.  But residue
> rates have remained at 20-22%  for years because City staff has not
> implemented effective education programs to correct this problem.  Residents
> want to recycle but are not provided with a credible and consistent
> educational program detailing what materials should be placed into the "blue
> bins".  As a result, residents place all sorts of items into the bins in the
> mistaken impression that they are helping recycling.  Similarly, there is no
> substantive program to correct deliberate misuse of recycling bins through
> placement of refuse in these containers.
>
> Joan Edwards
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: greenyes-unsubscribe@no.address
> For additional commands, e-mail: greenyes-help@no.address
>