RE: [greenyes] Seattle Mayor Proposing Bans on Recyclables

[CUYLER Alex D <Alex.D.CUYLER@no.address>]

Hi All:  I too read this article with a lot of interest but unlike Eric the
thing that jumped out at me were the statistics on diversion.  At Z-Best,
the loads are "processed to remove contaminants, coarse shredded, and
composted".    Is there actually a step prior to the grinding where the
garbage is actually gone through to remove those items that are incompatable
to the composting process (like HHW)?  My understanding is that the loads
are ground, composted, and then screened to remove the non-compostables.

As much as I'd like to believe that 81 percent of that garbage/yard debris
stream would be compostable and only 19 percent would end up as being
landfilled, that just doesn't seem possible with the waste composition
numbers that I'm familiar with.  Is this akin to the increases in diversion
that are being attributed to single stream recycling without examining the
residual streams at the MRF, or more importantly, at the paper mill?

If Richard could clarify, it would be much appreciated.-- AC

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Lombardi [mailto:eric@no.address] 
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 11:25 AM
To: KGrobe@no.address; 'Jenny Bagby'; greenyes@no.address
Subject: RE: [greenyes] Seattle Mayor Proposing Bans on Recyclables


Karin,

Thanks for drawing out attention to two of the most significant current
events in the recycling world.  And while these two approaches may be very
different, I don't think they are necessarily exclusive of each other.  In
fact, I am quite excited by the Portola Valley approach and would like to
know a lot more about it.  The idea of creating more widespread bans on
landfilling would in fact just strengthen the efficacy of the Portola Valley
system.

There is one astounding element of the Portola Valley program that caused me
to chuckle, and I'd love to hear from Richard (if he's out there on
GreenYes) on this issue.  In order to preserve the ability to charge the
homeowner a "unit" rate for garbage, the system requires that the yard
trimmings be separated from the trash at the home, but then when the
collection truck arrives, the two streams are mixed together for hauling.
There MUST be another way solve this PAYT dilemma, or, why not just have a
truck with three compartments instead of just two?

Love to hear what others think.  That article Karin sent on Portola Valley
really is worth reading, and my kudos go to Richard Gertman for offering the
world something new.  I like it, but I'll bet a lot of folks on GreenYes
won't.

Eric Lombardi
Executive Director
Eco-Cycle, Inc
Boulder, CO
303-444-6634
www.ecocycle.org
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Karin Grobe [mailto:KGrobe@no.address] 
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 11:51 AM
To: 'Jenny Bagby'; greenyes@no.address
Subject: RE: [greenyes] Seattle Mayor Proposing Bans on Recyclables

Hooray for Seattle!  In sharp contract, Portola Valley has begun a program 
where all garbage and yard trimmings will be mixed together in a single 
truck compartment.  The whole enchilada will be processed to remove 
contaminants, coarse-shredded and composted.  Of course, the goal of both 
systems is to reduce landfilling.  Very different approaches.  Here is an 
article on Portola Valley's program.

http://www.forester.net/mw_0307_portola.html


-----Original Message-----
From:	Jenny Bagby [SMTP:Jenny.Bagby@no.address]
Sent:	Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:14 AM
To:	greenyes@no.address
Subject:	[greenyes] Seattle Mayor Proposing Bans on Recyclables

FYI
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/132182_recycle24.html
Still has to be approved by City Council.