WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

02 Apr 99 - seeking info; burning; computers; Clinton on retreads ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition --------------------- >From John Crisley, Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA: Massachusetts Reviewing its Source Reduction/Waste Prevention Strategy A little history In 1990, Massachusetts established a 46% recycling goal by the year 2000. Currently, the statewide rate stands at 33% overall (includes commercial and residential). The state established a 10-Point Plan in 1990 that covers municipal grant programs, market development, and grants for Pay-As-You-Throw programs, among others. The "meat and potatoes" of our programs to increase recycling have been equipment and technical assistance grants to our 351 municipalities. (Massachusetts does not have county government, unfortunately.) These programs have been successful at creating access to 85% of the state's 6.2 million residents. Measuring state progress We began this process by contracting with Tellus Institute for a review of our statewide rate calculation methodology. Tellus has worked with EPA on developing a model to relate personal consumer expenditures to the rate of waste generation. We are negotiating with Tellus to locate sources of data for Massachusetts's data on personal consumption expenditures to adapt the national methodology to our consumption pattern(s). So far we have not identified a source of this data. Have other states or regional governments adopted this methodology? Has it been validated? Research the state-of-the-practice in other states My job is to research the policy framework (regulatory, statewide planning processes, technical assistance and outreach, etc.) of selected other states and local governments. These are the issues and questions I'd like to answer: · Document the outlines of other state or regional programs. · How are they administered? · What mechanisms have proven successful? · How have governments **measured** the results of waste prevention programs? (i.e. The Holy Grail) · Lessons learned - to avoid repeating others' mistakes. Who are the best sources? I've spoken at length to staff at the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA) and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Minnesota seems to have the most sophisticated approach. They have set waste reduction goals, by specific waste streams, for several county governments. California has several active programs targeted at the organics waste stream, among others. Are there other people I should be talking to? Thanks very much for your assistance. Please don't hesitate to call or e-mail. E-mail: john [ DOT ] crisley [ AT ] state [ DOT ] ma [ DOT ] us Phone: 617-556-1021 --------------------- >From Jesse White, Resource Management Group, Tallevast, FL, responding to 3/29/99 posting seeking ideas for alternatives to burning cardboard in a wood furnace for a Vermont country store: Well, the waste reduction aspect of this problem is to make sure the store is as energy-efficient as possible (insulated, heat exchange, etc.). This would reduce the reliance on heating mechanisms. Of course this only works to a point. Then, the question is what local sources of BTUs are available. One might argue that using untreated urban wood waste might be waste reduction compared with importing a fuel from a long distance? Good luck. E-mail: Jessewhite (AT) aol (DOT) com ------------------- >From CompuMentor website: CompuMentor is a San Francisco-based non-profit that provides computer technical assistance to non-profit groups and schools. CompuMentor has a fact sheet on its website that gives tips on what non-profits should keep in mind when accepting donated computer equipment. There are also lists of national and international organizations that accept donations of computers, and links to more information on computer reuse. The Internet address for these resources is: http://www.compumentor.org/cm/resources/npo/default.html ------------------- Excerpted from an article by John Nelms in the February, 1999, "Recycling Works," the newsletter for the State of North Carolina Recycling Business Assistance Center: The image of tire carcasses on roadways leads many people to believe that retread tires are an inferior and unsafe product. However, most tire debris on roadways is not the result of retread failure, according to a recent study by the Tire Debris Task Force (a group representing trucking companies, retreaders, trucking and tire industry associations, new tire manufacturers, and government agencies). The task force recently collected and analyzed 1,070 pieces of rubber from heavy and medium truck tires at nine highway locations nationwide. Only one percent (11 pieces) could be attributed to retread failure. The task force reported that most tire debris on highways is caused by nail punctures, something that can happen to any tire, new or retread. According to federal environmental executive Fran McPoland, all federal and military aircraft in the United States use retreads, including the President's plane, Air Force One. - end -