WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

12 Feb 99 - lead paint rule; funding; no-waste betting; mail ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition ----------------------------------------- >From Susan Nogas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (forwarded by Julie Rhodes) regarding the proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lead-based paint regulations that will affect the deconstruction industry: The comment period on these proposed rules has been extended to April 2, 1999. The Federal Register notice announcing the extension will appear within the next week. Note: Information on the proposed rule, and how to comment, is on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TRI/1998/December/Day-18/tri33326.htm (For the core issues related to reuse, scroll down to about page 70211.) ----------------------------------------- Excerpted from message from Moira DeRosa, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9: Take advantage of potential funding for research and development projects involving recycling technologies. The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. The ATP is a unique partnership between U.S. industry and government to enhance the nation's competitiveness and economy by developing new technologies. Through cooperative agreements with individual companies or groups of companies, large and small, the ATP invests in industrial projects to develop technologies. For information, see the ATP website at: http://www.atp.nist.gov Note: This program has provided funding for a number of waste prevention-related projects. ------------------------------------- >From Jim Schrock, Earthworks Recycling, Spokane, WA: I thought this was a 'no waste' solution to going to the casino or track to bet. A recent issue of Electronic Media (1-11-99) had a brief article about the launching of a new 24-hour horse racing cable channel that lets viewers bet on live horse races. The yet-to-be-named channel will launch in eight states next fall where over-the-telephone betting is legal. Viewers will place bets by telephone, the Internet or digital cable box. E-mail: jschrock [A T] cet [D O T] com ------------------------------------- >From Brian Foran, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA, responding to recent postings complaining about the "Titanium" MasterCard application mailing that offered a gift of two cases of Coca-Cola and included a card that makes the fizzing sound of a pop can being opened: I'm not trying to defend Coke's weak recycling track record here, but are the people who complained about this sure that the Coca-Cola company is a knowing participant of the credit-card company's marketing scheme? I know it's unlikely in this litigious society we live in, but is it possible that the credit card company is simply using the Coke trademark and giving away the Coke beverages on their own? If Coke has no involvement, it doesn't absolve the credit card company of blame for using the ridiculous promo tool, but it might save the embarrassment of a false accusation. If Coke is involved, then fire all guns! E-mail: bforan [ AT ] CIWMB [ DOT ] ca [ DOT ] gov --------------------------------------- Also from Brian Foran, responding to the 2/5/99 posting on the final recommendations of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) "Greening the Mail" task force: Thanks for the update on the "Greening the Mail" report. Some encouraging news. Sorry to be a semantic-head, but is redistributing unsolicited (and undeliverable) product samples to needy individuals really "encouraging waste prevention"? Not in my book. If the USPS were to truly encourage waste prevention, they would encourage direct marketers to avoid sending product samples altogether -- on the premise that a large percentage (majority?) of those samples likely end up in the garbage anyway! Of course, I don't expect the USPS to ever take such an advocacy role, but let's call a spade a spade. E-mail: bforan [ AT ] CIWMB [ DOT ] ca [ DOT ] gov ----------------------------------- >From Jeff Tumarkin, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC: In response to Kayleen Warner, I too have become frustrated with receiving America Online CDs every month! I just sent them an e-mail and asked them to please remove me from their mailing list. I hope this works. E-mail: TUMARKIN [ D O T ] JEFF [ A T ] epamail [ D O T ] epa [ D O T ] gov ------------------------------------- >From Polagaya Fine, Snohomish County Public Works, Everett, WA, in response to the 2/8/99 posting from Clarissa Szabados-Mish about the large quantity of undeliverable mail received at her university: I believe the recipient can refuse any piece of mail and return it to the post office as refused. This won't send it back to the company, if return postage is not guaranteed. But it does force the post office to deal with it, instead of the recipient. Stamp the unwanted items, "REFUSED" and give them back to the Post Office. E-mail: Polagaya [ DOT ] Fine [ AT ] co [ DOT ] snohomish [ DOT ] wa [ DOT ] us ------------------------------------- >From Jeffrey Smedberg, County of Santa Cruz (CA) Public Works: HOW MUCH DO PEOPLE HATE JUNK MAIL? Lately this NWPC list has almost been a Stop Junk Mail list. I appreciate the indulgence of those for whom this is not the biggest hot button issue. A June 1997 press release on the R.L. Polk & Co. (Polk is big in the list business) website (http://www.polk.com/) states: "According to recent Simmons Market Research, 68.7 percent of the U.S. adult population shops by mail. The U.S. Postal Service's Household Diary Survey reports that nearly 80 percent of Americans read or look at their direct mail, and nearly two-thirds find their mail useful or interesting." My experience contradicts industry figures. I really got on the no junk mail bandwagon when circulating a petition at the 1990 Earth Day Fair asking people if they wanted to stop getting junk mail. The response was overwhelming. I've done lots of petitions, and I never saw this level of enthusiasm. Almost everyone asked signed it. Admittedly, this was in Santa Cruz. I believe some in the industry also don't believe the hype and can see the handwriting on the wall. Also from the Polk website: "As consumer privacy concerns threaten direct mailer access to consumer information by way of increased legislation and regulation, the industry seeks resolution through self-regulation. As an industry leader, Polk has developed ChoiceMail, a consumer selective opt-out file by going directly to the consumer. Over 4 million consumers have told us, in over 90 product and service categories, what they don't want to see in their mail box." (Including complete opt-outs. Polk's Opt-Out number, by the way, is 800-873-7655. Specify if you want off of mail, telemarketing, and/or city directory lists.) Has anyone outside of the marketing industry done any public surveys to determine if annoyance with junk mail extends beyond a small fringe group of anti-consumer fanatics? I'm thinking of doing such a survey locally, and would love to build on what's already known. E-mail: dpw179 [ AT ] scruza [ DOT ] cahwnet [ DOT ] gov ------------------------------------- >From Tom Watson, Forum moderator: I'll be out of the office all week Feb. 15-19, and part of the week after that. So, there will be a little break from the Forum. Thanks! - end -