SWANA/CRRA course and the definition of ZW

30 views
Skip to first unread message

Caroline Eader

unread,
Jul 30, 2021, 2:54:52 PM7/30/21
to Tracie Onstad Bills, des...@crra.com, lau...@crra.com, rac...@crra.com, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators
Hello CRRA Staff and Board Members, 

First, thanks to Tracie for her emails explaining CRRA's position on the CRRA/SWANA "Zero Waste Principles and Practices Certification Program" course content. I'm glad Chapter 1 of the training manual has been updated, but I still would like to understand why Chapter 5 still is not amended.  No, Covid is not an excuse - years ago I made the following suggestions:
p. 5-1 quote: "What processing technology should be considered in a Zero Waste plan?" 
The manual explains the 3 types of technologies - physical, biological, and thermal.  Yes, thermal technologies are a disposal choice, but not a Zero Waste choice.  That vagueness should not be allowed to stand, otherwise the attendee/reader can be misled to believe thermal technologies can be included as a part of a properly designed Zero Waste plan.
Quote: "After completing this lesson, the participant will be able to:"
Please add to the skill list, "Identify technologies which are not components of a Zero Waste strategy."

p. 5-13 WTE Chart at top half of page, "Some pre- and post-processing may occur:"
The second bullet point should be corrected to state, " Recover [some] recyclables"  This is a subtle change that is generous,because the correct term that should be used is "minimal."  I make this distinction because of my research and knowledge of the proposed Frederick & Carroll County, Maryland incinerator, that well-informed citizens defeated in 2014:
"The proposed [Frederick] WTE facility will be constructed and operated with energy recover[y]. The singular identifying feature of mass-burn facilities is they do not process incoming waste prior to combustion, other than the removal of and recycling of bulky white goods and other bulky items that may inadvertently be delivered to the facility."  (https://www.minnpost.com/letters/2013/06/incinerators-incentives-are-burn-not-recycle)

p. 5-14 Please see the Mass Burn chart at the top of the page, "Combustion is not 100% efficient leading to ash" - the first bullet point states, "Typically 10% by volume of the feedstock."  
It is imperative you also include, "30% or more by weight"  

p. 5-15 Under "Cons"

Correction from "More expensive form of electricity than fossil fuel," to "The most expensive form of electricity generation." Source = "Updated Capital Costs for Electricity Generation Plants" by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table 1: Updated Estimates of Power Plant Capital and Operating Costs" (Nov. 2010)  

Third to last paragraph which states, "Acknowledging these fundamentally different views [whether WTE is considered to be recycling or material diversion] is essential in any discussion of WTE as a part of Zero Waste" must be corrected to say, "discussion of using WTE OR choosing a Zero Waste strategy," [My emphasis of "or" is for your reading, but not required in the training manual.)   
p. 5-21 The last sentence needs to be deleted: "Using a combination of technologies is essential in this phase of Zero Waste program development." Again, conversion (aka burning) technologies cannot be part of the "combination" of ZW technologies, and the attendees should not be misled.

p. 5-22 Chart = a big No-No!

The chart has to be changed to remove thermal technologies as part of "Zero Waste Processing - How to Get There?"

Additionally, the last paragraph needs to remove these two sentences, " Any remaining residues from the MRF, MMPF, or MBT facility are then thermally processed (possibly with RFD processing as well). Ash from the thermal process is put to beneficial use.  

As a reminder about the so-called "beneficial use" of ash, please view Paul Connett's video.

I would appreciate CRRA understanding the effects of your course on people working for zero waste, as opposed to "making fuel."  The above suggestions may seem like minor points to all of you, but are trying to close the windows of opportunities for building expensive and polluting burning technologies. For example, the current scheme being peddled as a "Zero Waste Strategy" in Maryland is mixed waste processing (a dirty MRF).  

Please see the attached about Mixed Waste Processing as a recommendation from the Baltimore County, Maryland Solid Waste Work Group which includes Sara Bixby, SWANA Deputy Executive Director as a work group member.  In this video please see Bixby explain zero waste:

"In a local government scheme, where someone wants to look at their waste-to-energy facility as part of minimizing land disposal, and that's how they count zero waste, because they're talking about zero waste to disposal, then [SWANA is] saying they have to make up their own mind.  You know, set their own policy." ~ Sara Bixby, January 21, 2021.

Bixby jumps in to correct the definition of zero waste, yet, she is contradicting the most basic definition of zero waste - the one posted on SWANA's website. 

To everyone involved with CRRA and/or this course:

Is CRRA okay with someone "making up [their] own mind" about WTE counting as zero waste?

What can CRRA do to reel in the statements of Sara Bixby (who acts as the de facto expert on ZW, possibly because of the CRRA/SWANA course)?

Why isn't CRRA's course about zero waste, instead of including the subtle allowances to the incinerator advocates?  

How can CRRA make it clear that incineration is not part of the definition of Zero Wasteplease?

Why can't CRRA make it clear to SWANA that there are two distinct paths, and the ONLY one that CRRA wants involvement with is zero waste?  (I do not believe anyone has told SWANA to disavow incineration, but it should not be confused with ZW.) 

Please advise.

Thank you,

----
Caroline Eader, Esq. (pronounced "Ader"), 
Zero Waste for Zero Loss
Please fund my work.  You can go here to make a tax-deductible donation. Thank you!

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:34 PM California Resource Recovery Association <cr...@wildapricot.org> wrote:


REGISTRATION IS NOW OPEN! CLICK HERE

For more information, visit www.CRRA.com

ZERO WASTE PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES CERTIFICATION COURSE
May 10-14, 2021 - Click here to register
(5 spots open for this course)

CRRA in partnership with SWANA presents the Zero Waste Principles and Practices Certification Program.  THIS COURSE WILL BE PRESENTED ONLINE VIA GOTOMEETING.  

For over 40 years CRRA has been a leader in Zero Waste education in California.  Now, joining forces with SWANA, CRRA offers a new professional development course that will certify professionals in Zero Waste Principles and Practices throughout North America.

TECHNICAL COUNCIL APRIL WEBINARS

EFR Presents: "Food Industry & Edible Food Generators", April 6, 2021. Register here

CORC Presents: Lunch & Learn Series, "Implementing Organics Collection for SB 1383", April 9, 2021. Register here

Mixed Waste Processing.GBB - Baltimore County, MD.pdf

Alan Muller

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 1:08:27 PM8/3/21
to Caroline Eader, Tracie Onstad Bills, des...@crra.com, lau...@crra.com, rac...@crra.com, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators
Caroline:

Thanks for keeping on them about this.  I always thought CRRA was a good faith recycling lobby.  The Minnesota Resource Recovery Association is the state incineration lobby.  Zero Waste has become so diluted with bullshit and tokenism that one has to think carefully about the context of using it....

Best,

am

At 02:54 PM 7/30/2021 -0400, Caroline Eader wrote:
Hello CRRA Staff and Board Members,Â

First, thanks to Tracie for her emails explaining CRRA's position on the CRRA/SWANA "Zero Waste Principles and Practices Certification Program" course content. I'm glad Chapter 1 of the training manual has been updated, but I still would like to understand why Chapter 5 still is not amended.  No, Covid is not an excuse - years ago I made the following suggestions:
p. 5-1Â quote:Â "What processing technology should be considered in a Zero Waste plan?"Â

The manual explains the 3 types of technologies - physical, biological, and thermal.  Yes, thermal technologies are a disposal choice, but not a Zero Waste choice.  That vagueness should not be allowed to stand, otherwise the attendee/reader can be misled to believe thermal technologies can be included as a part of a properly designed Zero Waste plan.

Quote: "After completing this lesson, the participant will be able to:"

Please add to the skill list, "Identify technologies which are not components of a Zero Waste strategy."


p. 5-13Â WTE Chart at top half of page, "Some pre- and post-processing may occur:"

The second bullet point should be corrected to state, " Recover [some] recyclables"  This is a subtle change that is generous,because the correct term that should be used is "minimal."  I make this distinction because of my research and knowledge of the proposed Frederick & Carroll County, Maryland incinerator, that well-informed citizens defeated in 2014:

"The proposed [Frederick] WTE facility will be constructed and operated with energy recover[y]. The singular identifying feature of mass-burn facilities is they do not process incoming waste prior to combustion, other than the removal of and recycling of bulky white goods and other bulky items that may inadvertently be delivered to the facility."Â Â ( https://www.minnpost.com/letters/2013/06/incinerators-incentives-are-burn-not-recycle )


p. 5-14Â Please see the Mass Burn chart at the top of the page, "Combustion is not 100% efficient leading to ash" - the first bullet point states, "Typically 10% by volume of the feedstock."Â Â

It is imperative you also include, "30% or more by weight" Â


p. 5-15Â Under "Cons"

Correction from "More expensive form of electricity than fossil fuel," to "The most expensive form of electricity generation." Source = "Updated Capital Costs for Electricity Generation Plants" by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table 1: Updated Estimates of Power Plant Capital and Operating Costs" (Nov. 2010) Â

Third to last paragraph which states, "Acknowledging these fundamentally different views [whether WTE is considered to be recycling or material diversion] is essential in any discussion of WTE as a part of Zero Waste" must be corrected to say, "discussion of using WTE OR choosing a Zero Waste strategy," [My emphasis of "or" is for your reading, but not required in the training manual.)  Â

p. 5-21 The last sentence needs to be deleted: "Using a combination of technologies is essential in this phase of Zero Waste program development." Again, conversion (aka burning) technologies cannot be part of the "combination" of ZW technologies, and the attendees should not be misled.

p. 5-22Â Chart = a big No-No!

The chart has to be changed to remove thermal technologies as part of "Zero Waste Processing - How to Get There?"

Additionally, the last paragraph needs to remove these two sentences, " Any remaining residues from the MRF, MMPF, or MBT facility are then thermally processed (possibly with RFD processing as well). Ash from the thermal process is put to beneficial use. Â

As a reminder about the so-called "beneficial use" of ash, please view Paul Connett's video.

I would appreciate CRRA understanding the effects of your course on people working for zero waste, as opposed to "making fuel."  The above suggestions may seem like minor points to all of you, but are trying to close the windows of opportunities for building expensive and polluting burning technologies. For example, the current scheme being peddled as a "Zero Waste Strategy" in Maryland is mixed waste processing (a dirty MRF). Â

Please see the attached about Mixed Waste Processing as a recommendation from the Baltimore County, Maryland Solid Waste Work Group which includes Sara Bixby, SWANA Deputy Executive Director as a work group member.  In this video please see Bixby explain zero waste:

"In a local government scheme, where someone wants to look at their waste-to-energy facility as part of minimizing land disposal, and that's how they count zero waste, because they're talking about zero waste to disposal, then [SWANA is] saying they have to make up their own mind.  You know, set their own policy." ~ Sara Bixby, January 21, 2021.


Bixby jumps in to correct the definition of zero waste, yet, she is contradicting the most basic definition of zero waste - the one posted on SWANA's website.Â

To everyone involved with CRRA and/or this course:

Is CRRA okay with someone "making up [their] own mind" about WTE counting as zero waste?

What can CRRA do to reel in the statements of Sara Bixby (who acts as the de facto expert on ZW, possibly because of the CRRA/SWANA course)?

Why isn't CRRA's course about zero waste, instead of including the subtle allowances to the incinerator advocates? Â

How can CRRA make it clear that incineration is not part of the definition of Zero Waste, please?

Why can't CRRA make it clear to SWANA that there are two distinct paths, and the ONLY one that CRRA wants involvement with is zero waste?  (I do not believe anyone has told SWANA to disavow incineration, but it should not be confused with ZW.)Â


Please advise.

Thank you,

----
Caroline Eader, Esq. (pronounced "Ader"),Â
Zero Waste for Zero  L oss
Please fund my work.  You can go here to make a tax-deductible donation. Thank you!


On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:34 PM California Resource Recovery Association <cr...@wildapricot.org> wrote:[]


REGISTRATION IS NOW OPEN! CLICK HERE

For more information, visit www.CRRA.com

ZERO WASTE PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES CERTIFICATION COURSE
May 10-14, 2021 - Click here to register (5 spots open for this course)

CRRA in partnership with SWANA presents the Zero Waste Principles and Practices Certification Program.  THIS COURSE WILL BE PRESENTED ONLINE VIA GOTOMEETING. Â

For over 40 years CRRA has been a leader in Zero Waste education in California.  Now, joining forces with SWANA, CRRA offers a new professional development course that will certify professionals in Zero Waste Principles and Practices throughout North America.
[]  

[]  

TECHNICAL COUNCIL APRIL WEBINARS

EFR Presents: "Food Industry & Edible Food Generators", April 6, 2021. Register here

CORC Presents: Lunch & Learn Series, "Implementing Organics Collection for SB 1383", April 9, 2021. Register here
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyes+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenyes/CA%2BdyhgdCTJkDR%2BFcfAQYDEyOeR6QAToSY2M0zaFRoU2RSPu4_Q%40mail.gmail.com .
Content-Type: application/pdf;
         name="Mixed Waste Processing.GBB - Baltimore County, MD.pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
         filename="Mixed Waste Processing.GBB - Baltimore County, MD.pdf"
Content-ID: <f_krqmu9r50>
X-Attachment-Id: f_krqmu9r50

Neil Seldman

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 1:29:15 PM8/3/21
to Alan Muller, Caroline Eader, Tracie Onstad Bills, California Resource Recovery Association, Lauren Meyer, rac...@crra.com, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators
Caroline, I add my thanks for staying on this issue with CRRA.

CRRA WAS a great recycling organization, but it has been in a downward spiral for the past few years: did not stand up to CalRecyle on bottle bill disaster,  hopeless on EPR, recent report on 30 recommendations for CA is nibbling at the edges of what should be done.

Sad to see this.  Neil
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenyes/202108031707.173H7nep017395%40mail1.dca.net.

Neil Seldman

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 1:52:27 PM8/3/21
to Alan Muller, Caroline Eader, Tracie Onstad Bills, California Resource Recovery Association, Lauren Meyer, rac...@crra.com, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators
HI Caroline, Excuse my oversight. The 30 recommendations came from the state recycling commission, not CRRA. I will check to see if CRRA had a response.  Neil
--
Neil Seldman
Waste to Wealth Initiative
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
1200 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Neil Seldman

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 2:42:46 PM8/3/21
to Tracie Onstad Bills, Alan Muller, Caroline Eader, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, Colleen Foster, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators, Nick Lapis, Laura McKaughan (mckaughanlaura@gmail.com)
HI Tracie,' Thanks for this input and reference material to review. I would be happy to be proven wrong in my brief assessment.  I would very much like to discuss CRRA history as a policy player in CA and the US and why I think it has fallen short in the last few years. Please let me know if you and others are available.

Neil

On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 2:24 PM Tracie Onstad Bills <tra...@crra.com> wrote:

Just for the record, CRRA is not a lobbying organization. We do have a policy committee, which includes Susan Collins (CRI), Heidi Sanborn (NSAC), Nick Lapis (CAW), Doug Kobold (CPSC), Ruth Abbe, Gary Liss, Rick Anthony among others. The Recycling Commission is comprised of almost half CRRA members, including Heidi Sanborn as the chair and Tedd Ward her right hand person.

 

I am sorry you feel that way about CRRA. We are doing good work and have done an excellent job on education and working with CalRecycle and the State on issues. Our policy committee is top notch and I am proud to be included on the committee with experts and power hitters in our industry. I think most importantly we work closely with our partners, who do have lobbyists, to make change at the state level.

 

Letters that CRRA has submitted to the State can be found on our website.

 

Tracie

 

Tracie Onstad Bills

California Resource Recovery Association / Association Contractor / Executive Director

SCS Engineers / Northern California Director Sustainable Materials Management

Office: 916-441-2772, ext 1

Mobile:  408-406-1991

Tra...@crra.com

tbi...@scsengineers.com

 

CRRA Contact Information

915 L Street, Suite C-216

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916-441-2772

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:34 PM California Resource Recovery Association <cr...@wildapricot.org> wrote:Image removed by sender. []

REGISTRATION IS NOW OPEN! CLICK HERE

 

For more information, visit www.CRRA.com

 

ZERO WASTE PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES CERTIFICATION COURSE

May 10-14, 2021 - Click here to register (5 spots open for this course)

CRRA in partnership with SWANA presents the Zero Waste Principles and Practices Certification Program.  THIS COURSE WILL BE PRESENTED ONLINE VIA GOTOMEETING. Â

For over 40 years CRRA has been a leader in Zero Waste education in California.  Now, joining forces with SWANA, CRRA offers a new professional development course that will certify professionals in Zero Waste Principles and Practices throughout North America.

Image removed by sender. [] 

Image removed by sender. [] 

Caroline Eader

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 3:40:08 PM8/3/21
to Neil Seldman, Tracie Onstad Bills, Alan Muller, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, Colleen Foster, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators, Nick Lapis, Laura McKaughan (mckaughanlaura@gmail.com)
Thank you everyone for sharing your frustrations, and thank you, Tracie for your explanation.

I think Neil's comment about CRRA's role in national policy is important to address. The CRRA/SWANA class has far-reaching effects, and I'm disturbed these were not taken into consideration before CRRA entered into a partnership with SWANA.

Now that I know SWANA has the final say on the course's content, I am not hopeful you will be able to fix Chapter 5. This course as it stands is detrimental to communities at risk of hosting "fuel" producing dirty MRFs and other facilities that contradict zero waste policies, programs, and goals.  All of the great content contained within the course is negated by the way incineration is addressed; the half-truths omit materially significant information.

Please keep this group informed about SWANA's willingness to honestly address incineration within a class that is teaching about ZW.  Those who want to burn MSW need not attend. 

Also, please find someone who can negotiate a better partnership for CRRA with SWANA.

Thank you,

Caroline

Alan Muller

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 4:05:33 PM8/3/21
to Caroline Eader, Neil Seldman, Tracie Onstad Bills, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, Colleen Foster, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators, Nick Lapis, Laura McKaughan (mckaughanlaura@gmail.com)
The basic reality is that SWANA is a wasting industry lobby and burners are a substantial part of that industry.  SWANA is not going to do anything that makes the burner segment feel read out and stop paying dues.  It is essentially a materials-handling industry and most participants are interesting in more tons, no fewer tons.  So Zero Waste is seen as a useful rhetorical tool for bullshitting do-gooders, but not something to be implemented in a serious way.  I don't know anything about the relationship between SWANA and CRRA, but I do know that the opposition to the shutdown of Delaware's bottle bill was grossly mishandled.

am


At 03:39 PM 8/3/2021 -0400, Caroline Eader wrote:
Thank you everyone for sharing your frustrations, and thank you, Tracie for your explanation.

I think Neil's comment about CRRA's role in national policy is important to address. The CRRA/SWANA class has far-reaching effects, and I'm disturbed these were not taken into consideration before CRRA entered into a partnership with SWANA.

Now that I know SWANA has the final say on the course's content, I am not hopeful you will be able to fix Chapter 5. This course as it stands is detrimental to communities at risk of hosting "fuel" producing dirty MRFs and other facilities that contradict zero waste policies, programs, and goals.  All of the great content contained within the course is negated by the way incineration is addressed; the half-truths omit materially significant information.

Please keep this group informed about SWANA's willingness to honestly address incineration within a class that is teaching about ZW.  Those who want to burn MSW need not attend.Â

Also, please find someone who can negotiate a better partnership for CRRA with SWANA.

Thank you,

Caroline


On Tue, Aug 3, 2021, 2:42 PM Neil Seldman <nsel...@ilsr.org> wrote:
HI Tracie,' Thanks for this input and reference material to review. I would be happy to be proven wrong in my brief assessment.  I would very much like to discuss CRRA history as a policy player in CA and the US and why I think it has fallen short in the last few years. Please let me know if you and others are available.

Neil

On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 2:24 PM Tracie Onstad Bills <tra...@crra.com> wrote:
Just for the record, CRRA is not a lobbying organization. We do have a policy committee, which includes Susan Collins (CRI), Heidi Sanborn (NSAC), Nick Lapis (CAW), Doug Kobold (CPSC), Ruth Abbe, Gary Liss, Rick Anthony among others. The Recycling Commission is comprised of almost half CRRA members, including Heidi Sanborn as the chair and Tedd Ward her right hand person.

Â

I am sorry you feel that way about CRRA. We are doing good work and have done an excellent job on education and working with CalRecycle and the State on issues. Our policy committee is top notch and I am proud to be included on the committee with experts and power hitters in our industry. I think most importantly we work closely with our partners, who do have lobbyists, to make change at the state level.

Â

Letters that CRRA has submitted to the State can be found on our website.

Â

Tracie

Â

Tracie Onstad Bills

California Resource Recovery Association / Association Contractor / Executive Director

SCS Engineers / Northern California Director Sustainable Materials Management

Office: 916-441-2772, ext 1

Mobile:  408-406-1991

Tra...@crra.com

tbi...@scsengineers.com

Â

CRRA Contact Information

915 L Street, Suite C-216

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916-441-2772

Â

From: Neil Seldman <nsel...@ilsr.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 10:52 AM
To: Alan Muller <amu...@dca.net>
Cc: Caroline Eader <caroli...@gmail.com >; Tracie Onstad Bills <tra...@crra.com>; Despina M. Kreatsoulas <des...@crra.com>; Lauren Molinari <Lau...@crra.com>; Rachel Adell <rac...@crra.com>; GreenYes < gree...@googlegroups.com>; Stop Incinerators < stopincin...@lists.riseup.net>
Subject: Re: [GreenYes] SWANA/CRRA course and the definition of ZW

Â

HI Caroline, Excuse my oversight. The 30 recommendations came from the state recycling commission, not CRRA. I will check to see if CRRA had a response.  Neil

Â

On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 1:29 PM Neil Seldman <nsel...@ilsr.org> wrote:
Caroline, I add my thanks for staying on this issue with CRRA.

Â

CRRA WAS a great recycling organization, but it has been in a downward spiral for the past few years: did not stand up to CalRecyle on bottle bill disaster,  hopeless on EPR, recent report on 30 recommendations for CA is nibbling at the edges of what should be done.

Â

Sad to see this.  Neil

Â

On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 1:08 PM Alan Muller <amu...@dca.net> wrote:

Caroline:

Thanks for keeping on them about this.  I always thought CRRA was a good faith recycling lobby.  The Minnesota Resource Recovery Association is the state incineration lobby.  Zero Waste has become so diluted with bullshit and tokenism that one has to think carefully about the context of using it....

Best,

am

At 02:54 PM 7/30/2021 -0400, Caroline Eader wrote:

Hello CRRA Staff and Board Members,Â

First, thanks to Tracie for her emails explaining CRRA's position on the CRRA/SWANA "Zero Waste Principles and Practices Certification Program" course content. I'm glad Chapter 1 of the training manual has been updated, but I still would like to understand why Chapter 5 still is not amended.  No, Covid is not an excuse - years ago I made the following suggestions:

p. 5-1Â quote:Â "What processing technology should be considered in a Zero Waste plan?"Â

The manual explains the 3 types of technologies - physical, biological, and thermal.  Yes, thermal technologies are a disposal choice, but not a Zero Waste choice.  That vagueness should not be allowed to stand, otherwise the attendee/reader can be misled to believe thermal technologies can be included as a part of a properly designed Zero Waste plan.

Quote: "After completing this lesson, the participant will be able to:"

Please add to the skill list, "Identify technologies which are not components of a Zero Waste strategy."

Â

p. 5-13Â WTE Chart at top half of page, "Some pre- and post-processing may occur:"

The second bullet point should be corrected to state, " Recover [some] recyclables"  This is a subtle change that is generous,because the correct term that should be used is "minimal."  I make this distinction because of my research and knowledge of the proposed Frederick & Carroll County, Maryland incinerator, that well-informed citizens defeated in 2014:

"The proposed [Frederick] WTE facility will be constructed and operated with energy recover[y]. The singular identifying feature of mass-burn facilities is they do not process incoming waste prior to combustion, other than the removal of and recycling of bulky white goods and other bulky items that may inadvertently be delivered to the facility."Â Â ( https://www.minnpost.com/letters/2013/06/incinerators-incentives-are-burn-not-recycle )

Â

p. 5-14Â Please see the Mass Burn chart at the top of the page, "Combustion is not 100% efficient leading to ash" - the first bullet point states, "Typically 10% by volume of the feedstock."Â Â

It is imperative you also include, "30% or more by weight" Â

Â

p. 5-15Â Under "Cons"

Correction from "More expensive form of electricity than fossil fuel," to "The most expensive form of electricity generation." Source = "Updated Capital Costs for Electricity Generation Plants" by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table 1: Updated Estimates of Power Plant Capital and Operating Costs" (Nov. 2010) Â

Third to last paragraph which states, "Acknowledging these fundamentally different views [whether WTE is considered to be recycling or material diversion] is essential in any discussion of WTE as a part of Zero Waste" must be corrected to say, "discussion of using WTE OR choosing a Zero Waste strategy," [My emphasis of "or" is for your reading, but not required in the training manual.)  Â

p. 5-21 The last sentence needs to be deleted: "Using a combination of technologies is essential in this phase of Zero Waste program development." Again, conversion (aka burning) technologies cannot be part of the "combination" of ZW technologies, and the attendees should not be misled.

p. 5-22Â Chart = a big No-No!

The chart has to be changed to remove thermal technologies as part of "Zero Waste Processing - How to Get There?"

Additionally, the last paragraph needs to remove these two sentences, " Any remaining residues from the MRF, MMPF, or MBT facility are then thermally processed (possibly with RFD processing as well). Ash from the thermal process is put to beneficial use. Â

As a reminder about the so-called "beneficial use" of ash, please view Paul Connett's video.

I would appreciate CRRA understanding the effects of your course on people working for zero waste, as opposed to "making fuel."  The above suggestions may seem like minor points to all of you, but are trying to close the windows of opportunities for building expensive and polluting burning technologies. For example, the current scheme being peddled as a "Zero Waste Strategy" in Maryland is mixed waste processing (a dirty MRF). Â

Please see the attached about Mixed Waste Processing as a recommendation from the Baltimore County, Maryland Solid Waste Work Group which includes Sara Bixby, SWANA Deputy Executive Director as a work group member.  In this video please see Bixby explain zero waste:

"In a local government scheme, where someone wants to look at their waste-to-energy facility as part of minimizing land disposal, and that's how they count zero waste, because they're talking about zero waste to disposal, then [SWANA is] saying they have to make up their own mind.  You know, set their own policy." ~ Sara Bixby, January 21, 2021.


Bixby jumps in to correct the definition of zero waste, yet, she is contradicting the most basic definition of zero waste - the one posted on SWANA's website.Â

To everyone involved with CRRA and/or this course:

Is CRRA okay with someone "making up [their] own mind" about WTE counting as zero waste?

What can CRRA do to reel in the statements of Sara Bixby (who acts as the de facto expert on ZW, possibly because of the CRRA/SWANA course)?

Why isn't CRRA's course about zero waste, instead of including the subtle allowances to the incinerator advocates? Â

How can CRRA make it clear that incineration is not part of the definition of Zero Waste, please?

Why can't CRRA make it clear to SWANA that there are two distinct paths, and the ONLY one that CRRA wants involvement with is zero waste?  (I do not believe anyone has told SWANA to disavow incineration, but it should not be confused with ZW.)Â


Please advise.

Thank you,

----
Caroline Eader, Esq. (pronounced "Ader"),Â
Zero Waste for Zero  L oss
Please fund my work.  You can go here to make a tax-deductible donation. Thank you!

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:34 PM California Resource Recovery Association <cr...@wildapricot.org> wrote:Image removed by sender. []

REGISTRATION IS NOW OPEN! CLICK HERE

Â

For more information, visit www.CRRA.com

Â

ZERO WASTE PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES CERTIFICATION COURSE

May 10-14, 2021 - Click here to register (5 spots open for this course)

CRRA in partnership with SWANA presents the Zero Waste Principles and Practices Certification Program.  THIS COURSE WILL BE PRESENTED ONLINE VIA GOTOMEETING. Â

For over 40 years CRRA has been a leader in Zero Waste education in California.  Now, joining forces with SWANA, CRRA offers a new professional development course that will certify professionals in Zero Waste Principles and Practices throughout North America.

Image removed by sender. [] Â

Image removed by sender. [] Â

TECHNICAL COUNCIL APRIL WEBINARS

EFR Presents: "Food Industry & Edible Food Generators", April 6, 2021. Register here

CORC Presents: Lunch & Learn Series, "Implementing Organics Collection for SB 1383", April 9, 2021. Register here

Copyright 2021

www.CRRA.com

916-441-2772

Unsubscribe


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyes+u...@googlegroups.com.
Content-Type: application/pdf;
         name="Mixed Waste Processing.GBB - Baltimore County, MD.pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
         filename="Mixed Waste Processing.GBB - Baltimore County, MD.pdf"
Content-ID: <f_krqmu9r50>
X-Attachment-Id: f_krqmu9r50

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyes+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenyes/202108031707.173H7nep017395%40mail1.dca.net .



--

Neil Seldman
Waste to Wealth Initiative
Institute for Local Self-Reliance

1200 18th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036



--
Neil Seldman
Waste to Wealth Initiative
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
1200 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202 898 1610 X 5210
nsel...@ilsr.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyes+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenyes/CA%2BdyhgcwWkFcEEsU7M1-TYyUZ73BckUUcdS71%2BSdkXfegqZUvQ%40mail.gmail.com .
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="~WRD000.jpg"
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="~WRD000.jpg"
Content-ID: <17b0d50c482a30f8d381>
X-Attachment-Id: 17b0d50c482a30f8d381

schnei...@juno.com

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 6:02:18 PM8/3/21
to Neil Seldman, Alan Muller, Caroline Eader, Tracie Onstad Bills, California Resource Recovery Association, Lauren Meyer, rac...@crra.com, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators

Here are the recommendations from the California Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling:

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AkA647BRfk07uBq7nkg7f7WfGou8rvzC

 

We, the commission had only minor discussions on WTE. 

 

A good number of our recommendations have been picked up into legislation, but not sure how they’ve moved through the summer session.

 

Ann Schneider

Commissioner, Calif Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling

Mayor, City of Millbrae, CA

 

 

From: stopincinerat...@lists.riseup.net <stopincinerat...@lists.riseup.net> On Behalf Of Neil Seldman
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 10:52 AM
To: Alan Muller <amu...@dca.net>

Nick Lapis

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 8:14:54 PM8/3/21
to billat...@comcast.net, Alan Muller, Caroline Eader, Neil Seldman, Tracie Onstad Bills, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, Colleen Foster, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators, Laura McKaughan (mckaughanlaura@gmail.com)

Hey folks—I’m on the Board of CRRA so feel like I should chime in.

 

I hesitate to say anything because I want to be careful not to speak for the organization or the rest of the board and not to discuss any internal contract negotiations. But I did want to say that:

 

(1)  Caroline, et al—your points are well taken, and were well taken when this issue was previously raised. I think CRRA has historically been fairly outspoken on incineration issues, and I don’t believe our policies have changed. I would personally not be affiliated with an organization that considered disposal of MSW (via incineration, landfilling, or fuel production) to be Zero Waste, and I would be surprised if anybody walked away from this certification with that impression. But we can always do better and your comments are appreciated.

(2)  While we are partnering with SWANA on this course, we are very different organizations with different missions and different policy positions. CRRA and SWANA have often had opposing views on various bills over the years.

 

Since CA’s Recycling Commission came up (on which I also serve)—I’ll just say that the joint recommendations represented consensus among 17 disparate stakeholders including advocates, garbage companies, local governments, labor unions, and others. (All the meetings are recorded and posted online if you’d like to watch them.) Given that dynamic, I’m pretty proud of the recommendations we issued, including: eliminating recycling credit for plastics export, banning the use of the recyclable and compostable claims on products that do not have recycling markets and composters don’t want, encouraging a transition to reuse, etc.

 

Thanks for never failing to speak truth to power everyone!

 

Nick Lapis
Director of Advocacy | Californians Against Waste
916.443.5422 | 415.845.6335 (m)
CAWfacebooktwitter cid:image008.png@01D7888A.E55905C0

Schedule a meeting

 

 

From: Billat...@comcast.net [mailto:billat...@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2021 4:03 PM
To: Alan Muller
Cc: Caroline Eader; Neil Seldman; Tracie Onstad Bills; Despina M. Kreatsoulas; Lauren Molinari; Rachel Adell; Colleen Foster; GreenYes; Stop Incinerators; Nick Lapis; Laura McKaughan (mckaugh...@gmail.com)
Subject: Re: [stopincinerators-US] [GreenYes] SWANA/CRRA course and the definition of ZW

 

Things are going to get even more complicated, because of the “advanced recycling” legislation that has passed 13 states this year. That legislation recategorizes burning of plastics away from waste management into manufacturing. 

Bill Johnson, Chair, Rappahannock Group of the Sierra Club 

Better to be quiet and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. 


On Aug 3, 2021, at 4:05 PM, Alan Muller <amu...@dca.net> wrote:

 The basic reality is that SWANA is a wasting industry lobby and burners are a substantial part of that industry.  SWANA is not going to do anything that makes the burner segment feel read out and stop paying dues.  It is essentially a materials-handling industry and most participants are interesting in more tons, no fewer tons.  So Zero Waste is seen as a useful rhetorical tool for bullshitting do-gooders, but not something to be implemented in a serious way.  I don't know anything about the relationship between SWANA and CRRA, but I do know that the opposition to the shutdown of Delaware's bottle bill was grossly mishandled.

Â

---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:stopincinerator...@lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>

Neil Seldman

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 8:35:15 PM8/3/21
to Nick Lapis, billat...@comcast.net, Alan Muller, Caroline Eader, Tracie Onstad Bills, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, Colleen Foster, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators, Laura McKaughan (mckaughanlaura@gmail.com)
Nick, Thanks for your thoughts as always.

I disagree with you on the recommendations from the commission. Indeed there are good practices and policies included.

But the need for more aggressive actions, in my opinion, are warranted given the climate and plastic crises, in general, and the economic crises in CA, in particular. I would have expected a waste surcharge, packaging taxes, especially on hybrids, and far more assertive actions for building end use capacity in the state. (The recommendations state that market development is not a high priority.)

Tracie Onstad Bills suggests that we have a discussion on these issue after the CRRA conference. Would you be able to join this call, perhaps?  Neil



Alan Muller

unread,
Aug 3, 2021, 11:18:48 PM8/3/21
to billat...@comcast.net, Caroline Eader, Neil Seldman, Tracie Onstad Bills, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, Colleen Foster, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators, Nick Lapis, Laura McKaughan (mckaughanlaura@gmail.com)
At 07:03 PM 8/3/2021 -0400, Billat...@comcast.net wrote:
Things are going to get even more complicated, because of the “advanced recycling†legislation that has passed 13 states this year. That legislation recategorizes burning of plastics away from waste management into manufacturing.

Bill Johnson, Chair, Rappahannock Group of the Sierra Club
Better to be quiet and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Good point.  the hydrocarbons people are plotting huge increases in single-use plastics.  Or this in my impression anyway.  Here is a screed from the American Chemistry Council, among the most clever, well-funded, and dishonest lobbies around:  https://plastics.americanchemistry.com/what-is-chemical-recycling/?fbclid=IwAR2nffLBzjfgBI7Xij9QOmnTP7Z_1E1YPAwD1oRZ9H9C4qt9yaXG7CG7Cho

It is true that many plastics can be depolymerized, etc, but these sorts of processes would only be competitive with virgin monomers in very high oil/gas price scenarios--not on the horizon.  The plastics people have always wanted recyclables burnt up so as not to compete with new material.  I don't sense anything new here.

am


On Aug 3, 2021, at 4:05 PM, Alan Muller <amu...@dca.net> wrote:

 The basic reality is that SWANA is a wasting industry lobby and burners are a substantial part of that industry.  SWANA is not going to do anything that makes the burner segment feel read out and stop paying dues.  It is essentially a materials-handling industry and most participants are interesting in more tons, no fewer tons.  So Zero Waste is seen as a useful rhetorical tool for bullshitting do-gooders, but not something to be implemented in a serious way.  I don't know anything about the relationship between SWANA and CRRA, but I do know that the opposition to the shutdown of Delaware's bottle bill was grossly mishandled.


am

At 03:39 PM 8/3/2021 -0400, Caroline Eader wrote:
Thank you everyone for sharing your frustrations, and thank you, Tracie for your explanation.

I think Neil's comment about CRRA's role in national policy is important to address. The CRRA/SWANA class has far-reaching effects, and I'm disturbed these were not taken into consideration before CRRA entered into a partnership with SWANA.

Now that I know SWANA has the final say on the course's content, I am not hopeful you will be able to fix Chapter 5. This course as it stands is detrimental to communities at risk of hosting "fuel" producing dirty MRFs and other facilities that contradict zero waste policies, programs, and goals.  All of the great content contained within the course is negated by the way incineration is addressed; the half-truths omit materially significant information.

Please keep this group informed about SWANA's willingness to honestly address incineration within a class that is teaching about ZW.  Those who want to burn MSW need not attend.Â

Also, please find someone who can negotiate a better partnership for CRRA with SWANA.

Thank you,

Caroline


On Tue, Aug 3, 2021, 2:42 PM Neil Seldman <nsel...@ilsr.org> wrote:
HI Tracie,' Thanks for this input and reference material to review. I would be happy to be proven wrong in my brief assessment.  I would very much like to discuss CRRA history as a policy player in CA and the US and why I think it has fallen short in the last few years. Please let me know if you and others are available.
Neil
On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 2:24 PM Tracie Onstad Bills <tra...@crra.com> wrote:

Just for the record, CRRA is not a lobbying organization. We do have a policy committee, which includes Susan Collins (CRI), Heidi Sanborn (NSAC), Nick Lapis (CAW), Doug Kobold (CPSC), Ruth Abbe, Gary Liss, Rick Anthony among others. The Recycling Commission is comprised of almost half CRRA members, including Heidi Sanborn as the chair and Tedd Ward her right hand person.

Â
I am sorry you feel that way about CRRA. We are doing good work and have done an excellent job on education and working with CalRecycle and the State on issues. Our policy committee is top notch and I am proud to be included on the committee with experts and power hitters in our industry. I think most importantly we work closely with our partners, who do have lobbyists, to make change at the state level.
Â
Letters that CRRA has submitted to the State can be found on our website.
Â
Tracie
Â
Tracie Onstad Bills
California Resource Recovery Association / Association Contractor / Executive Director
SCS Engineers / Northern California Director Sustainable Materials Management
Office: 916-441-2772, ext 1
Mobile:  408-406-1991

Tra...@crra.com

tbi...@scsengineers.com
Â
CRRA Contact Information
915 L Street, Suite C-216
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-441-2772
Â
From: Neil Seldman <nsel...@ilsr.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 10:52 AM
To: Alan Muller <amu...@dca.net>
Cc: Caroline Eader <caroli...@gmail.com >; Tracie Onstad Bills <tra...@crra.com>; Despina M. Kreatsoulas <des...@crra.com>; Lauren Molinari <Lau...@crra.com>; Rachel Adell <rac...@crra.com>; GreenYes < gree...@googlegroups.com>; Stop Incinerators < stopincin...@lists.riseup.net>
Subject: Re: [GreenYes] SWANA/CRRA course and the definition of ZW
Â
HI Caroline, Excuse my oversight. The 30 recommendations came from the state recycling commission, not CRRA. I will check to see if CRRA had a response.  Neil
Â
On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 1:29 PM Neil Seldman <nsel...@ilsr.org> wrote:

Caroline, I add my thanks for staying on this issue with CRRA.
Â
CRRA WAS a great recycling organization, but it has been in a downward spiral for the past few years: did not stand up to CalRecyle on bottle bill disaster,  hopeless on EPR, recent report on 30 recommendations for CA is nibbling at the edges of what should be done.
Â
Sad to see this.  Neil
Â
On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 1:08 PM Alan Muller <amu...@dca.net> wrote:

Caroline:
Thanks for keeping on them about this.  I always thought CRRA was a good faith recycling lobby.  The Minnesota Resource Recovery Association is the state incineration lobby.  Zero Waste has become so diluted with bullshit and tokenism that one has to think carefully about the context of using it....
Best,
am
At 02:54 PM 7/30/2021 -0400, Caroline Eader wrote:

Hello CRRA Staff and Board Members,Â
First, thanks to Tracie for her emails explaining CRRA's position on the CRRA/SWANA "Zero Waste Principles and Practices Certification Program" course content. I'm glad Chapter 1 of the training manual has been updated, but I still would like to understand why Chapter 5 still is not amended.  No, Covid is is not an excuse - years ago I made the following suggestions:

p. 5-1Â quote:Â "What processing technohnology should be considered in a Zero Waste plan?"Â
The manual explains the 3 types of technologies - physical, biological, and thermal.  Yes, thermal technologiees are a disposal choice, but not a Zero Waste choice.  Thaat vagueness should not be allowed to stand, otherwise the attendee/reader can be misled to believe thermal technologies can be included as a part of a properly designed Zero Waste plan.

Quote: "After completing this lesson, the participant will be able to:"
Please add to the skill list, "Identify technologies which are not components of a Zero Waste strategy."
Â
p. 5-13Â WTE Chart at top half of page, "Some pre- annd post-processing may occur:"
The second bullet point should be corrected to state, " Recover [some] recyclables"  This is a subtle change that iis generous,because the correct term that should be used is "minimal."  I make this distinction because of my research and knowledge of the proposed Frederick & Carroll County, Maryland incinerator, that well-informed citizens defeated in 2014:
"The proposed [Frederick] WTE facility will be constructed and operated with energy recover[y]. The singular identifying feature of mass-burn facilities is they do not process incoming waste prior to combustion, other than the removal of and recycling of bulky white goods and other bulky items that may inadvertently be delivered to the facility."Â Â ( ( https://www.minnpost.com/letters/2013/06/incinerators-incentives-are-burn-not-recycle )
Â
p. 5-14Â Please see the Mass Burn chart at the top off the page, "Combustion is not 100% efficient leading to ash" - the first bullet point states, "Typically 10% by volume of the feedstock."Â Â
>
It is imperative you also include, "30% or more by weight" Â
>
Â
p. 5-15Â Under "Cons"
Correction from "More expensive form of electricity than fossil fuel," to "The most expensive form of electricity generation." Source = "Updated Capital Costs for Electricitty Generation Plants" by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table 1: Updated Estimates of Power Plant Capital and Operating Costs" (Nov. 2010) Â
>
Third to last paragraph which states, "Acknowledging these fundamentally different views [whether WTE is considered to be recycling or material diversion] is essential in any discussion of WTE as a part of Zero Waste" must be corrected to say, "discussussion of using WTE OR choosing a Zero Waste strategy," [My em emphasis of "or" is for your reading, but not required in the training manual.)  Â
>
p. 5-21 The last sentence needs to be deleted: "Usinng a combination of technologies is essential in this phase of Zero Waste program development." Again, conversion (akaÃka burning) technologies cannot be part of the "combination" of ZW technologies, and the attendees should not be misled.
>
p. 5-22Â Chart = a big No-No!
The chart has to be changed to remove thermal technoologies as part of "Zero Waste Processing - How to Get There?"
Additionally, the last paragraph needs to remove these two sentences, " Any remaining residues from the MRF, MMPF, or MBT facility are then thermally processed (possibly with RFD processing as well). Ash from the thermal process is put to beneficial use. Â
As a reminder about the so-called "beneficial use" of ash, please view Paul Connett's video.
I would appreciate CRRA understanding the effects of your course on people working for zero waste, as opposed to "making fuel."  The above suggestions may seem like minor points to all of yyou, but are trying to close the windows of opportunities for building expensive and polluting burning technologies. For example, the current sscheme being peddled as a "Zero Waste Strategy" in Maryland is mixed waste processing (a dirty MRF). Â

>
Please see the attached about Mixed Waste Processing as a recommendation from the Baltimore County, Maryland Solid Waste Work GroupÃâ‚ which includes Sara Bixby, SWANA Deputy Executive Director as a work group member.  In this video please see Bixby explain zero waste:
"In a local government scheme, where someone wants to look at their waste-to-energy facility as part of minimizing land disposal, and that's how they count zero waste, because they're talking about zero waste to disposal, then [SWANA is] saying they have to make up their own mind.  Youàknow, set š their own policy." ~ Sara Bixby, January 21, 2021.

Bixby jumps in to correct the definition of zero waste, yet, she is contradicting the most basic definition of zero waste - the one posted on SWANA's website.Â
To everyone involved with CRRA and/or this course:
Is CRRA okay with someone "making up [their] own mind" about WTE counting as zero waste?
What can CRRA do to reel in the statements of Sara Bixby (who acts as the de facto expert on ZW, possibly because of the CRRA/SWANA course)?
Why isn't CRRA's course about zero waste, instead off including the subtle allowances to the incinerator advocates? ‚
How can CRRA make it clear that incineration is not part of the definition of Zero Waste, please?
Why can't CRRA make it clear to SWANA that there are two distinct paths, and the ONLY one that CRRA wants involvement with is zero waste?  (I do not believe anyone has told SWANA too disavow incineration, but it should not be confused with ZW.)Â
Please advise.
Thank you,
----
Caroline Eader, Esq. (pronounced "Ader"),Â
Zero Waste for Zero Ãero  L oss
Please fund my work.  You can go here to make a tax-deductible donation. Thank you!
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:34 PM California Resource Recovery Association <cr...@wildapricot.org> wrote:Image removed by sender. []
REGISTRATION IS NOW OPEN! CLICK HERE
Â
For more information, visit www.CRRA.com
Â
ZERO WASTE PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES CERTIFICATION COURSE
May 10-14, 2021 - Click here to register (5 spots open for this course)
CRRA in partnership with SWANA presents the Zero Wasste Principles and Practices Certification Program.  THIS COUCOURSE WILL BE PRESENTED ONLINE VIA GOTOMEETING. Â
>
For over 40 years CRRA has been a leader in Zero Waste education in California.  Now, joining forces with SWANA, CRRA ooffers a new professional development course that will certify professionalsš in Zero Waste Principles and Practices throughout North America.

Image removed by sender. []  Ã‚

Image removed by sender. []  Ã‚
TECHNICAL COUNCIL APRIL WEBINARS
EFR Presents: "Food Industry & Edible Food Generators", April 6, 2021. Register here
CORC Presents: Lunch & Learn Series, "Implementing Organics Collection for SB 1383", April 9, 2021. Register here
Copyright 2021

www.CRRA.com
916-441-2772

Unsubscribe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyes+u...@googlegroups.com.
Content-Type: application/pdf;
         name="Mixed Waste Processing.GBB - Baltimore County, MD.pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
         filename="Mixed Waste Processing.GBB - Baltimore County, MD.pdf"
Content-ID: <f_krqmu9r50>
X-Attachment-Id: f_krqmu9r50

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyes+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenyes/202108031707.173H7nep017395%40mail1.dca.net .



--
Neil Seldman
Waste to Wealth Initiative
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
1200 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
--
Neil Seldman
Waste to Wealth Initiative
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
1200 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202 898 1610 X 5210
nsel...@ilsr.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyes+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenyes/CA%2BdyhgcwWkFcEEsU7M1-TYyUZ73BckUUcdS71%2BSdkXfegqZUvQ%40mail.gmail.com .
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="~WRD000.jpg"
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="~WRD000.jpg"
Content-ID: <17b0d50c482a30f8d381>
X-Attachment-Id: 17b0d50c482a30f8d381
---

Nick Lapis

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 2:25:15 PM8/4/21
to Neil Seldman, billat...@comcast.net, Alan Muller, Caroline Eader, Tracie Onstad Bills, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, Colleen Foster, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators, Laura McKaughan (mckaughanlaura@gmail.com)

I’d love to! Although any conversation regarding the commission must be limited to no more than two commissioners to avoid triggering CA’s public meeting laws.

 

As you know I’ve been a longtime advocate for all the items you listed.

 

Nick Lapis
Director of Advocacy

 

From: Neil Seldman <nsel...@ilsr.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 5:35 PM
To: Nick Lapis <nick...@cawrecycles.org>
Cc: Billat...@comcast.net; Alan Muller <amu...@dca.net>; Caroline Eader <caroli...@gmail.com>; Tracie Onstad Bills <tra...@crra.com>; Despina M. Kreatsoulas <des...@crra.com>; Lauren Molinari <Lau...@crra.com>; Rachel Adell <rac...@crra.com>; Colleen Foster <CFo...@oceansideca.org>; GreenYes <gree...@googlegroups.com>; Stop Incinerators <stopincin...@lists.riseup.net>; Laura McKaughan (mckaugh...@gmail.com) <mckaugh...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [stopincinerators-US] [GreenYes] SWANA/CRRA course and the definition of ZW

 

Nick, Thanks for your thoughts as always.

 

I disagree with you on the recommendations from the commission. Indeed there are good practices and policies included.

 

But the need for more aggressive actions, in my opinion, are warranted given the climate and plastic crises, in general, and the economic crises in CA, in particular. I would have expected a waste surcharge, packaging taxes, especially on hybrids, and far more assertive actions for building end use capacity in the state. (The recommendations state that market development is not a high priority.)

 

Tracie Onstad Bills suggests that we have a discussion on these issue after the CRRA conference. Would you be able to join this call, perhaps?  Neil

 

 

 

On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 8:14 PM Nick Lapis <nick...@cawrecycles.org> wrote:

Hey folks—I’m on the Board of CRRA so feel like I should chime in.

 

I hesitate to say anything because I want to be careful not to speak for the organization or the rest of the board and not to discuss any internal contract negotiations. But I did want to say that:

 

(1)  Caroline, et al—your points are well taken, and were well taken when this issue was previously raised. I think CRRA has historically been fairly outspoken on incineration issues, and I don’t believe our policies have changed. I would personally not be affiliated with an organization that considered disposal of MSW (via incineration, landfilling, or fuel production) to be Zero Waste, and I would be surprised if anybody walked away from this certification with that impression. But we can always do better and your comments are appreciated.

(2)  While we are partnering with SWANA on this course, we are very different organizations with different missions and different policy positions. CRRA and SWANA have often had opposing views on various bills over the years.

 

Since CA’s Recycling Commission came up (on which I also serve)—I’ll just say that the joint recommendations represented consensus among 17 disparate stakeholders including advocates, garbage companies, local governments, labor unions, and others. (All the meetings are recorded and posted online if you’d like to watch them.) Given that dynamic, I’m pretty proud of the recommendations we issued, including: eliminating recycling credit for plastics export, banning the use of the recyclable and compostable claims on products that do not have recycling markets and composters don’t want, encouraging a transition to reuse, etc.

 

Thanks for never failing to speak truth to power everyone!

 

Nick Lapis
Director of Advocacy | Californians Against Waste
916.443.5422 | 415.845.6335 (m)

Neil Seldman

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 2:43:06 PM8/4/21
to Nick Lapis, billat...@comcast.net, Alan Muller, Caroline Eader, Tracie Onstad Bills, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, Colleen Foster, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators, Laura McKaughan (mckaughanlaura@gmail.com)
Hi NIck,

Thanks for this reminder.
So if you, Tracie and I talked it would be legal. Correct? If so I will suggest a time for us to talk later in AUG.

Neil

Nick Lapis

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 2:51:52 PM8/4/21
to Neil Seldman, billat...@comcast.net, Alan Muller, Caroline Eader, Tracie Onstad Bills, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, Colleen Foster, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators, Laura McKaughan (mckaughanlaura@gmail.com)

Tracie is not a commissioner, so it wouldn’t apply to her. The only limitation is for 2+ commissioners.

 

Commissioner

Affiliation

John Bouchard

Teamsters 350, Principle Officer

Deborah Cadena

Kern County Recycling

John Davis

Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority

Jan Dell

The Last Beach Cleanup, Founder

Jeff Donlevy

Ming’s Recycling, General Manager

Laura Ferrante

Waste Alternatives, Owner

Joseph Kalpakoff

Mid Valley Disposal, CEO

Nick Lapis

Californians Against Waste, Director of Advocacy 

Manuel Medrano

City of Chula Vista, Environmental Services Manager 

Alex Oseguera

Waste Management, Director of Government Affairs 

Heidi Sanborn 

National Stewardship Action Council

Ann Schneider

Millbrae Vice Mayor

Coby Skye

LA County Public Works, Assistant Deputy Director

Sara Toyoda

City of Indio, Environmental Programs Coordinator

Richard Valle

Tri-CED Community Recycling, CEO

Tedd Ward

Del Norte Solid Waste Management Director

billat...@comcast.net

unread,
Aug 4, 2021, 9:22:26 PM8/4/21
to Alan Muller, Caroline Eader, Neil Seldman, Tracie Onstad Bills, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, Colleen Foster, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators, Nick Lapis, Laura McKaughan (mckaughanlaura@gmail.com)
Things are going to get even more complicated, because of the “advanced recycling” legislation that has passed 13 states this year. That legislation recategorizes burning of plastics away from waste management into manufacturing. 

Bill Johnson, Chair, Rappahannock Group of the Sierra Club 
Better to be quiet and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. 

On Aug 3, 2021, at 4:05 PM, Alan Muller <amu...@dca.net> wrote:

 The basic reality is that SWANA is a wasting industry lobby and burners are a substantial part of that industry.  SWANA is not going to do anything that makes the burner segment feel read out and stop paying dues.  It is essentially a materials-handling industry and most participants are interesting in more tons, no fewer tons.  So Zero Waste is seen as a useful rhetorical tool for bullshitting do-gooders, but not something to be implemented in a serious way.  I don't know anything about the relationship between SWANA and CRRA, but I do know that the opposition to the shutdown of Delaware's bottle bill was grossly mishandled.

Arthur Boone

unread,
Aug 7, 2021, 12:51:16 PM8/7/21
to billat...@comcast.net, Alan Muller, Caroline Eader, Neil Seldman, Tracie Onstad Bills, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, Colleen Foster, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators, Nick Lapis, Laura McKaughan (mckaughanlaura@gmail.com)
I was a member of the CRRA board in 1989 for one year and they made sure I never  won another election. 

CRRA is largely composed of municipal employees and their syncophant haulers. Their public posture is to groan and attend to business but they put very little of serious energy into the game. 

The waste haulers are like the investor owned utilities who want to keep all KWs flowing by their own tools and equipment. Recycling is a threat to waste haulers like  rooftop panels are a threat to IOUs wanting lots of peaker plants to keep you full of all their KWs that you would want.

A revolution that will destroy waste haulers is brewing but is at least 20 years behind the KW revolution.  Too many people, not enough stuff; wasting is a 20th century idea. ARBoone

Caroline Eader

unread,
Aug 14, 2021, 5:30:50 PM8/14/21
to Tracie Onstad Bills, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators
Hello All,

"I will talk with Sara Bixby and the SWANA training team to see about making the appropriate changes."


Tracie, I'm wondering if you've had a discussion with Sara Bixby about correcting her statements on the definition zero waste? Please see this video:

"In a local government scheme, where someone wants to look at their waste-to-energy facility as part of minimizing land disposal, and that's how they count zero waste, because they're talking about zero waste to disposal, then [SWANA is] saying they have to make up their own mind.  You know, set their own policy." ~ Sara Bixby, January 21, 2021.

 

Again, Ms. Bixby can review SWANA's definition page to see WTE is not included in SWANA's definition, and of course the first peer-reviewed internationally accepted definition can be found on ZWIA's website.


Also, is there now a commitment by CRRA staff and board to immediately amend Chapter 5 of the CRRA course, please?  (FYI, I pointed out these mistakes four years ago.)


Thank you for an update.


Sincerely,


----
Caroline Eader, Esq. (pronounced "Ader"), 
Zero Waste for Zero Loss
Please fund my work.  You can go here to make a tax-deductible donation. Thank you!


On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 3:11 PM Tracie Onstad Bills <tra...@crra.com> wrote:

Caroline,

 

Thank you for sending this email, I will be sure to share with our Board. As I mentioned, we started working with Gary Liss on changes to Chapter 5. There is a process that CRRA must follow, and ultimately SWANA has the final say on content. With that said, we do understand the importance of using resources to its utmost higher and better use, as noted in our Mission, Vision and Goals.

 

I will talk with Sara Bixby and the SWANA training team to see about making the appropriate changes.

 

Tracie

 

Tracie Onstad Bills

California Resource Recovery Association / Association Contractor / Executive Director

SCS Engineers / Northern California Director Sustainable Materials Management

Office: 916-441-2772, ext 1

 

CRRA Contact Information

915 L Street, Suite C-216

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916-441-2772

 

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 5:34 PM California Resource Recovery Association <cr...@wildapricot.org> wrote:Image removed by sender.

 

REGISTRATION IS NOW OPEN! CLICK HERE

For more information, visit www.CRRA.com

ZERO WASTE PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES CERTIFICATION COURSE
May 10-14, 2021 - Click here to register (5 spots open for this course)

CRRA in partnership with SWANA presents the Zero Waste Principles and Practices Certification Program.  THIS COURSE WILL BE PRESENTED ONLINE VIA GOTOMEETING.  

For over 40 years CRRA has been a leader in Zero Waste education in California.  Now, joining forces with SWANA, CRRA offers a new professional development course that will certify professionals in Zero Waste Principles and Practices throughout North America.

 

Image removed by sender.

 

Image removed by sender.

 

TECHNICAL COUNCIL APRIL WEBINARS

EFR Presents: "Food Industry & Edible Food Generators", April 6, 2021. Register here

CORC Presents: Lunch & Learn Series, "Implementing Organics Collection for SB 1383", April 9, 2021. Register here

Caroline Eader

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 12:37:15 PM9/14/21
to Tracie Onstad Bills, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators
Good Morning CRRA,

It's been a month since I last contacted you.  Did someone speak with Sara Bixby, and has she agreed to correct her statements about Zero Waste?

Thank you,
----
Caroline Eader, Esq. (pronounced "Ader"), 
Zero Waste for Zero Loss
Please fund my work.  You can go here to make a tax-deductible donation. Thank you!

Caroline Eader

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 9:01:28 AM9/16/21
to Tracie Onstad Bills, Despina M. Kreatsoulas, Lauren Molinari, Rachel Adell, GreenYes, Stop Incinerators
Good Morning,

Tracie, I know you were not in your position with CRRA when this deal was struck between CRRA and SWANA.  However, I know there were concerns at the time, and now as Executive Director of CRRA I hope you will work diligently to correct these wrongs.  

I am not asking a rhetorical question - I would like to know if the SWANA/CRRA course will be corrected (including teaching that incineration is the antithesis to ZW), or do I need to prepare myself to fight your "students" for the next several years about what is and is not ZW?

Attached is an additional video, wherein Sara Bixby clearly says, "Yes" when asked if the definition of Zero Waste can be "very tailored", and can be interpreted as "what [zero waste] means" for Baltimore County.  Through this wishy-washy explanation of ZW, Baltimore County now thinks "its" definition of Zero Waste can include Mixed Waste Processing that makes burnable RDF.  (As compared to composting as a priority, which is only being considered as 3rd-party pilot programs.) Many of us watched the presentations given to the Baltimore County Solid Waste Task Force about "converting" trash to energy, and then wrote emails to the Task Force explaining zero waste, but then Sara Bixby undid our work with her explanation that zero waste can be whatever you want it to be.

Not only did Sara Bixby misrepresent zero waste, there were at least three (3) other people on the Baltimore Task Force who completed your CRRA/SWANA course; and supposedly one of them is an instructor. None of them corrected Sara Bixby's mistake:

Jennifer Porter - GBB
Chris Skaggs - NMWDA 
Andrew Kays - NMWDA (CRRA/SWANA ZW instructor)

It's one thing to have flexibility with a community that currently uses an incinerator (or other burning technology) that wants to move towards zero waste.  However, it's unacceptable to have a "zero waste course" that allows a new incinerator or "conversion" facility to be promoted because a community has decided that "what zero waste means to them" includes a brand new burning technology, instead of using the bedrock policies and programs of real zero waste.

If a conversation needs to be had, I would be willing to discuss this further -  303 440 9585.

Thank you, Tracie.

Sincerely,
----
Caroline Eader, Esq., M.E.R.L. (pronounced "Ader"), 
baltCo_bixby.mp4
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward