August 2004 Newsletter
RA Board Slate for August 9 Election
To Box or to Bag?
Collecting Recyclables at Apartment Buildings, Part 2
Cell Phone Recycling Update
It's More than the Toxins
Question of the Month
Download PDF version here
Back to Newsletter Page
RA Board Slate for August 9 Election
Members vote at Annual Meeting
The nominations are in! Lori Stole is up for re-election as RA Vice-President. Rick Paul is officially running for Treasurer. And Betty Patton is on the slate as an at-large member of the Board. Betty is an environmental consultant with Environmental Practices, LLC, in Portland, specializing in solid waste, recycling, and waste prevention. She returns to the RA Board after a seven-year hiatus. Betty has been a member of RA since 1992 and served as the RA Board Chairperson from 1994-97.
To vote for the board slate, join the RA Board and members at RA's tour of the Blue Heron Paper facility at 419 Main Street in Oregon City. The tour starts at 5:30 p.m. and the annual meeting and Board election follows (at 6:45 p.m.). Afterwards we will retire to the McMenamins Pub at 102 9th Street in Oregon City for refreshments (Dutch treat) and discussion.
Come meet fellow members of RA. We come from a variety of backgrounds: environmentally concerned individuals, solid waste professionals, business leaders, followers of simpler living, artists, activists and more.
For directions to the facility and to register for the tour, call (503) 777-0909 or e-mail RA at info@recyclingadvocates.org.
To Box or to Bag?
DEQ releases results of study analyzing packaging and shipping of soft goods
By Tanya Schaefer
Packaging makes up 20% of the waste generated in Oregon. Consumers can control packaging to the extent they buy in bulk, reuse bags and make other earth-friendly purchasing decisions. But, even the organic cotton shirt purchased on the Web and shipped from your favorite outdoor retailer, has to be packed in something to arrive on your doorstep safely.
The Oregon DEQ recently completed a pilot project designed to help a small number of volunteering Oregon businesses accomplish measurable waste prevention, and identify "best management practices" that reduce waste and save money. One of the elements of the project, funded by DEQ, Metro and the U.S. EPA, was a study to analyze the life cycle of packaging options for shipment of retail mail-order soft (unbreakable) goods. David Allaway presented the study at AOR's annual conference in June and, while the results are intriguing, he cautioned (after hopping up on a chair to emphasize his point) that readers should NOT extrapolate them to other situations. For example, this study sheds no light on the paper vs. plastic bag debate. (RA reminds you to bring your own bags!)
The study conducted an inventory analysis (as opposed to a more complex impact analysis) of the solid wastes, as well as energy, materials, and atmospheric and waterborne emissions associated with the entire life cycles (production, use and discards) of a variety of packaging materials currently used to ship soft goods, e.g., clothing, linens, etc., in retail mail-order sales. The two main types of packaging studied were corrugated boxes with various types of void fill and shipping bags. Void fill, otherwise known as dunnage, included inflated air packets, expanded polystyrene foam loose fill, cornstarch foam loose fill, molded pulp loose fill, draft paper, newsprint and shredded post-consumer paper and corrugated. Shipping bags included unpadded and padded bags made from several different paper grades and resins.
The most significant finding of the study is that the weight of the packaging is the most critical factor influencing the environmental burdens of material production, transportation and disposal. In this specific analysis, all bags have lower environmental burdens than boxes because of their much lower weight. The heaviest box and void fill option (corrugated box and molded pulp loose fill) weighs 26 times more than the lightest bag (LLDPE bag). This is the case even though corrugated boxes have a relatively low environmental profile per pound, while plastic bags are made of materials with higher per-pound burdens. Thus, in this situation, recyclability and recycled content of the packaging and fill are not good predictors of life cycle energy use or emissions. Allaway explained that this supports the higher ranking of waste prevention than recycling in the waste management hierarchy.
Life cycle analyses are valuable tools allowing us to move beyond single-criteria environmental issues, such as recycling or energy use. As this study showed, it is too easy and likely not accurate to say, "plastic is bad." And, while recycling is important and obviously a better choice than disposal, the recyclability of a packaging material may not be as critical a factor to businesses making decisions that affect upstream environmental burdens such as manufacturing and transportation.
Sources: David Allaway, Packaging Waste and Life Cycle Analysis, June 12, 2004, Association of Oregon Recyclers Conference; and Executive Summary for Energy and Environmental Results for Packaging Options for Shipment of Retail Mail-Order Soft Goods, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/solwaste/data/lifecyclereport.htm).
Collecting Recyclables at Apartment Buildings, Part 2
Two jurisdictions tackle compliance through outreach
Last month the RA Newsletter reported on apartment recycling in Oregon law and the key obstacles to collecting recyclables from apartments. This month we take a brief look at two different communities' responses to the issue: Gresham and Roseburg. Alison Cable, recycling coordinator for the City of Gresham, provided the information about Gresham which was also presented at the AOR conference in June. Terri Peterson, the waste reduction manager in Douglas County, sent us information about Roseburg.
Gresham's Multifamily Targeted Outreach
In 2001, the City of Gresham began a targeted outreach effort designed to improve the collection of recyclables at multifamily apartment complexes. Having opted to require that apartment buildings offer recycling opportunities to residents, city staff knew that with limited resources outreach would yield better results than any attempt to enforce the rule alone. Phase I of the outreach effort included identification and observation of low performing properties. The apartments were targeted due to their high contamination and/or low participation in recycling.
Twenty-seven properties participated in the outreach effort. City staff began developing working relationships with property managers. Eighteen of these apartment complexes offered no opportunity for recycling. By the end of one year, 25 of the 27 properties were brought to "good" standing. According to Allison Cable, good standing means most recyclable material is being collected, all containers are adequately labeled and contamination is minimal or at least has significantly decreased from levels prior to intervention. Six of the multifamily complexes hosted a children's recycling fair.
During 2002-03, Gresham staff rolled out Phase II of the outreach project which included continued monitoring of compliance with the City's recycling rules, a survey of residents in apartment complexes, and a city-wide inventory of 349 sites (recycling stations at multifamily dwellings). The survey found:
• 85% of respondents were aware of having carts or bins for recycling
• 69% of respondents answered yes to having sufficient recycling containers
• 85% of respondents could accurately name a few recyclables being collected at their site
• Cardboard, plastic bottles, and scrap paper were among the most well known recyclables.
The inventory revealed that 109 of the 349 sites did not have adequate labeling. Fifty-five of the 349 sites were observed as recycling one percent or less of recyclable materials. Sixty-three of the recycling stations were located 80-100 yards from the farthest unit.
Douglas County begins outreach effort
Roseburg, population 21,000, is the largest city in Douglas County and has an ordinance mandating multi-family recycling for units of five or more. According to Terri Peterson, the county's waste reduction manager, the rule has never been actively enforced. "We see very little compliance," adds Peterson.
As in other jurisdictions, Peterson notes that a lack of recycling stations at multifamily dwellings, low levels of awareness about recycling, property manager turnover, and contamination all interfere with the successful collection of recyclables at apartments in the county.
With only a handful of multifamily properties actively recycling, Peterson and other staff are taking the initiative to help apartment owners come into compliance. Recently, a city planner from Roseburg, a hauler, and Peterson met with members of the local Rental Owners Association to discuss their responsibilities.
Programs exist and are in the works to support property managers and tenants in efforts to recycle. Currently Roseburg Disposal sells property owners and managers a four-compartment recycling bin, provides informational materials, and collects recyclables weekly. Peterson notes that her future effort will expand to provide more materials for the owner/manager and residents, decals, and a follow-up service to trouble-shoot problems.
Peterson would like to see far greater collection of recyclables at apartments in Roseburg. "We're going to take the first serious effort to make people aware of the ordinance and how to comply, bringing the city, the hauler and myself in as resources and project overseers," she adds.
National company offers cell service and refurbished phones in Oregon
Earth Tones introduced an eco-friendly wireless service in Oregon earlier this year. Earth Tones Wireless claims to give consumers a choice for cellular service that shares their concern about protecting our planet and gives them a way to make a difference. The cell phone company's service is provided on the Verizon network.
According to a company press release, approximately 500 million cell phones will be thrown out generating over 250,000 tons of waste by 2005. To address this issue of cell phone waste, Earth Tones has partnered with Georgia-based company Collective Good, to help customers to recycle their old cell phones. To find out more about Collective Good's mobile phone recycling program, go to http://www.collectivegood.com.
In addition, Earth Tones offers two cell phone options made from recycled materials. Both phones are touted to be high quality, completely refurbished or reconditioned, and come with a full warranty.
Founded by a coalition of non-profit organizations in 1993, Earth Tones continues to be completely owned and operated by non-profit groups. The company claims to give 100 percent of the profits it generates to environmental organizations. For more information contact: Liz Karan at (888) 327-8486 or by email at lkaran@earthtones.com. For more information, go to http://www.earthtoneswireless.com.
It's More than the Toxins
Energy and resource use in manufacturing of computers
In past issues of the RA Newsletter we've pointed out the environmental and health hazards associated with computer equipment. Monitors, and to a lesser degree CPU's contain significant levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium. These pose possible health risks to manufacturing workers and environmental risks to water supplies near landfills where they are eventually dumped.
Computers and the Environment: Understanding and Managing their Impacts discusses the amount of energy used to manufacture computer equipment. The United Nations University Report provides more justification for extending computer equipment use and developing ways to reduce e-waste associated with computers.
According to a press release about the report, the high-tech nature of computer manufacturing makes it extremely energy intensive and therefore significant for climate change and depletion of fossil fuel and other resources.
Although computers use relatively less energy when they are in operation, the combination of a high-energy manufacturing process and a short lifespan raise a computer's lifetime environment-related energy impacts to about the same level as a refrigerator, which is one of the more energy-intensive appliances in the home.
Among those involved in the UNU study, there is broad agreement that measures to extend the useful life of existing equipment are the most important pieces of a proposed framework for the environmental management of computers in the future.
Because so much of the energy used over the life cycle of a computer is in manufacturing high-tech components, which are usually destroyed in recycling processes to recover raw materials, the energy savings potential of reselling or upgrading is some 5-20 times greater than recycling, says Eric Williams, the UNU scientist who leads the Information Society and Environment Issues project.
"Every computer user has a role to play. Users should think carefully about whether they really need to buy a new computer; if upgrading the existing machine could serve the same purpose. Promptly selling old machines to the used-product market is also important," he says.
The UNU study identifies several options available to national, regional and local governments intent on mitigating the environmental and health impacts of computers. These include: the environmental regulation of manufacturing processes (e.g., setting standards for emissions from semiconductor factories) and the environmental characteristics of computer products (e.g., banning the use of lead and other heavy metals); mandatory product take-back, recycling systems and voluntary programs like eco-labeling; and funding research and analysis, as well as education and public awareness campaigns on the environmental impacts of computers.
Source: Study tallies environmental cost of computer boom. update.unu.edu, Issue 31. May - June 2004. http://update.unu.edu/issue31_5.htm.
Reducing the amount of packaging you use can save resources and reduce the amount of materials in the waste stream. In what ways are you trying to cut down on packaging?
E-mail your responses to info@recyclingadvocates.org or call us at (503) 777-0909 and leave a message by August 20.
Do you have a question you would like us to publish? E-mail us your question at info@recyclingadvocates.org