Robin Murray and Materials It Invites an Alternative
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
A Review of Restrictions and PVC Free Policies Worldwide
PVC-Free Future: A Review of Restrictions and PVC free Policies Worldwide A list compiled by Greenpeace International 9th edition, June 2003 © Greenpeace International, June 2003 Keizersgracht 176 1016 DW Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 523 6222 Fax: +31 20 523 6200 Web site: www.greenpeace.org/~toxics If your organisation has restricted the use of Chlorine/PVC or has a Chlorine/PVC-free policy and you would like to be included on this list, please send details to the Greenpeace International Toxics Campaign 1 Contents 1. Political......................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 International Agreements on Hazardous Substances............................. 4 Mediterranean........................................................................................................... 4 North-East Atlantic (OSPAR & North Sea Conference)..................................... 4 International Joint Commission - USA/Canada................................................... 6 United Nations Council on Environment and Development (UNCED)............ 7 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).............................................. 7 UNEP – global action on Persistent Organic Pollutants..................................... 7 UNIDO........................................................................................................................ 8 1.2 National PVC & Chlorine Restrictions and Other Initiatives: A-Z.......10 Argentina..................................................................................................................10 -
Five Principles of Waste Product Redesign Under the Upcycling Concept
International Forum on Energy, Environment Science and Materials (IFEESM 2015) Five Principles of Waste Product Redesign under the Upcycling Concept Jiang XU1 & Ping GU1 1School of Design, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China KEYWORD: Upcycling; Redesign principle; Green design; Industrial design; Product design ABSTRACT: It explores and constructs the principles of waste product redesign which are based on the concept of upcycling. It clarifies the basic concept of upcycling, briefly describes its current development, deeply discusses its value and significance, combines with the idea of upcycling which behinds regeneration design principle from the concept of “4R” of green design, and takes real-life case as example to analyze the principles of waste product redesign. It puts forward five principles of waste product redesign: value enhancement, make the most use of waste, durable and environmental protection, cost control and populace's aesthetic. INTRODUCTION Recently, environmental problems was becoming worse and worse, while as a developing country, China is facing dual pressures that economical development and environmental protection. However, large numbers of goods become waste every day all over the world, but the traditional recycling ways, such as melting down and restructuring, not only produce much CO2, but also those restruc- tured parts or products cannot mention in the same breath with raw ones. As a result, the western countries started to center their attention to the concept of “upcycling” of green design, which can transfer the old and waste things into more valuable products to vigorously develop the green econ- omy. Nevertheless, this new concept hasn’t been well known and the old notion of traditionally inef- ficient reuse still predominant in China, so it should be beneficial for our social development to con- struct the principles of waste products’ redesign which are based on the concept of upcycling. -
2016 Maryland Statewide Waste Characterization Study
NORTHEAST MARYLAND WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 2016 MARYLAND STATEWIDE WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY FINAL REPORT July 14, 2017 11875 High Tech Avenue, Suite 150, Orlando, FL (800) 679-9220 www.mswconsultants.com This report was delivered electronically. If it is necessary to print hard copies, please do so on post-consumer recycled paper and recycle. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study would not have been successful without the cooperation and assistance of multiple disposal facilities across the State of Maryland. MSW Consultants would like to thank the following facilities for hosting the field data collection during this project: Appeal Landfill of Calvert County, Cecil County Central Landfill, Charles County Landfill, Forty West Municipal Landfill of Washington County, Garrett County Landfill, Northwest Transfer Station, City of Baltimore, Quarantine Road Landfill, City of Baltimore Northern Landfill of Carroll County, Somerset County Landfill. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the study organizers for their assistance in the organization and data collection for this project: Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (NMWDA). NMWDA/Maryland Department of the Environment 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This page intentionally left blank. 2 NMWDA/Maryland Department of the Environment TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... ES-1 ES 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. -
Rates 2017.Xlsx
Facilities with Scales - Schedule of Charges March 2017 Description Charges GENERAL Basic Gate Fee $50 per ton Minimum Gate Fee Charge for Waste $5.00 Recyclable Materials Drop Off No Charge TYPE OF MATERIAL HOUSEHOLD TRASH Up to 200 lbs. minimum Gate Fee $5.00 $0.50 each additional 20 lb. increment or fraction CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION (C&D) C&D with no concrete, recyclables, green waste or chipable wood $50 per ton minimum $5.00 Separated Concrete $25 per ton minimum $5.00 Separated chipable wood $25 per ton minimum $5.00 Mixed C&D (household trash, recyclables, green waste and/or concrete in the load) $175 per ton minimum $5.00 GREEN WASTE Lawn Clippings/Leaves, Up to 400lbs. Minimum Gate Fee $5.00 yard waste, brush, shrubs, $.0.50 each additional 40lb. Increment or fraction trees, branches, woodchips. Tree Stumps $4.00 less than 24" plus Gate Fee $5.00 $12.00 greater than 24" plus Gate Fee $5.00 Mixed Debris (Green waste, household trash,recyclables and/or concrete in the load) $175 per ton minimum $5.00 ANIMALS Small (less than 25 lbs.) $5.00 each + $5.00 Gate Fee Medium (25-200 lbs.) $10.00 each + $5.00 Gate Fee Large (more than 200lbs.) $30.00 each + $5.00 Gate Fee FURNITURE $5.00 minimum Gate Fee plus $4.00 per item ELECTRONIC WASTE No Charge UNIVERSAL WASTE No Charge RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE No Charge COMMERCIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE Not accepted SEPTAGE Inyo $65.00 first 3,000 gallons $42.00 per additional 1,000 gallons or increment Out of County $130.00 first $3,000 gallons $84.00 per addional 1,000 gallons or increment Facilities with Scales - Schedule of Charges March 2017 Description Charges TIRES Auto & light truck $4.00 for 19" rim or less + $5.00 Gate Fee $8.00 for 20" - 24.5" rim + $5.00 Gate Fee Tractor/Heavy Equipment Tire $30 For Up to 100 lbs + $5.00 Gate Fee $40 over 100 lbs. -
Safety Data Sheet Neste Lipa 2
Revision date: 21/08/2017 Supersedes date: 30/07/2015 SAFETY DATA SHEET NESTE LIPA 2 SECTION 1: Identification of the substance/mixture and of the company/undertaking 1.1. Product identifier Product name NESTE LIPA 2 Product number ID 10748 Internal identification 7572 1.2. Relevant identified uses of the substance or mixture and uses advised against Identified uses Solvent. 1.3. Details of the supplier of the safety data sheet Supplier Neste Markkinointi Oy Keilaranta 21, Espoo, PL 95, FIN-00095 NESTE, FINLAND Tel. +358 10 45811 [email protected] 1.4. Emergency telephone number National emergency telephone +358-9-471 977, +358-9-4711, Poison Information Centre number SECTION 2: Hazards identification 2.1. Classification of the substance or mixture Classification (EC 1272/2008) Physical hazards Flam. Liq. 2 - H225 Health hazards Eye Irrit. 2 - H319 STOT SE 3 - H336 Asp. Tox. 1 - H304 Environmental hazards Not Classified 2.2. Label elements Pictogram Signal word Danger Hazard statements H225 Highly flammable liquid and vapour. H304 May be fatal if swallowed and enters airways. H319 Causes serious eye irritation. H336 May cause drowsiness or dizziness. 1/9 Revision date: 21/08/2017 Supersedes date: 30/07/2015 NESTE LIPA 2 Precautionary statements P210 Keep away from heat, hot surfaces, sparks, open flames and other ignition sources. No smoking. P304+P340 IF INHALED: Remove person to fresh air and keep comfortable for breathing. P305+P351+P338 IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing. P301+P330+P331 IF SWALLOWED: Rinse mouth. -
00 Gate Fee Schedule
EFFECTIVE Nov. 17, 2020 GATE FEE SUMMARY Walker Transfer Station / Lanfill Mono County Solid Waste Program *All prices for waste that must be transported off-site include a $20/ton Transportation Surcharge GREEN ITALICIZED TEXT = RECYCLED MATERIAL Category / Item Description Unit Cost Minimum Gate Fee ....................................................................................................................... $5.00 per load Household and Commercial Waste. “First” Garbage Can(s) (up to 82 gallons, or any portion thereof) .................................................. $5.00 Additional Cans (up to 41 gallons each, or any portion thereof) ............................................. $2.50 Mixed Waste, Generally ......................................................................................................... $11.75 per cu. yd. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Mixed Building C&D Debris -- 2 CUBIC YARD DAILY LIMIT (painted wood, furniture, drywall, insulation, plumbing fixtures, mattresses, cementitious building products, carpet, other misc. bldg. debris) ..................................................................................................................... $16.50 per cu. yd. Recyclable Building C&D Debris (un-painted lumber, engineered wood products) …$5.00 per cu. yd. Wood, Green Waste, and Similar Organics. Organics8 (clean loads of bark, hay, grass clippings, sod, tumbleweeds) ............................... $5.00 per load Wood (clean loads of prunings, brush, tree limbs and trunks less than 18” -
Waste Minimisation
Waste Minimisation An Environmental Good Practice Guide For Industry This guide will help industry and the Environment Agency move forward together to minimise waste and achieve national environmental goals WASTE MINIMISATION An Environmental Good Practice Guide for Industry “The cost of your waste is not so much the cost of getting rid of it as the value of what you are getting rid of!” Published by the Environment Agency April 2001, to help business achieve sustainable practice through waste minimisation. Revised edition April 2001. First published April 1998. i Waste Minimisation Good Practice Guide Environment Agency April 2001 FOREWORD Minimise waste – maximise profit The way we use our planet’s natural resources is now widely recognised as one of the root causes of many environmental problems. Waste and industrial emissions have a major impact on the environment both nationally and globally. Effects such as global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, air and water pollution are all derived from local emissions, but the resources consumed may be mined and manufactured from anywhere in the world. From extraction to consumption the global economy consumes vast quantities of raw materials, water and energy. In the UK some 600 million tonnes of raw materials, excluding water, are used each year. More than 90 per cent of the resources we consume are either thrown away as wastes or discharged to the environment as effluent or air emissions. Since the Environment Agency first published this guide in 1998, waste minimisation has become an established business practice for many organisations and thousands of businesses have now implemented waste reduction programmes. -
Chapter 14 the Economics of Marine Litter
Chapter 14 The Economics of Marine Litter Stephanie Newman, Emma Watkins, Andrew Farmer, Patrick ten Brink and Jean-Pierre Schweitzer Abstract This chapter aims to provide an overview of research into quantifying the economic impacts of marine litter. From an environmental economics perspec- tive it introduces the difficulties in measuring the economic costs of marine litter; reviews those sectors where these costs are notable; and considers policy instru- ments, which can reduce these costs. Marine litter is underpinned by dynamic and complex processes, the drivers and impacts of which are multi-scalar, trans- boundary, and play out in both marine and terrestrial environments. These impacts include economic costs to expenditure, welfare and lost revenue. In most cases, these are not borne by the producers or the polluters. In industries such as fisher- ies and tourism the costs of marine litter are beginning to be quantified and are considerable. In other areas such as impacts on human health, or more intangible costs related to reduced ecosystem services, more research is evidently needed. As the costs of marine litter are most often used to cover removing debris or recov- ering from the damage which they have caused, this expenditure represents treat- ment rather than cure, and although probably cheaper than inaction do not present a strategy for cost reduction. Economic instruments, such as taxes and charges addressing the drivers of waste, for instance those being developed for plastic bags, could be used to reduce the production of marine litter and minimise its impacts. In any case, there remain big gaps in our understanding of the harm caused by marine litter, which presents difficulties when attempting to both quantify its economic costs, and develop effective and efficient instruments to reduce them. -
Craighead County Regional Solid Waste Management District
REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CRAIGHEAD COUNTY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT November 1, 2004 November 1, 2004 CRAIGHEAD COUNTY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE – Activities Analysis CHAPTER TWO – Action Plan Section 2.101 Overview Section 2.201 Mission Statement A. History B. Current Section 2.202 Executive Summary A. Strategies Section 2.102 Organization and Administration B. Outlook A. District B. Board Section 2.203 Goals C. Staff A. District’s High-Level Goals B. District Plan’s Goal Areas Section 2.103 Revenues and Expenditures 1. Collection A. District 2. Disposal B. County 3. Recycling C. City 4. Waste Reduction 5. Special Materials Section 2.104 Demographics 6. Education and Public Awareness A. Planning Area 7. Other Goals B. Population C. Industry Section 2.204 Goal Areas – Objectives D. Facilities A. Collection E. Haulers B. Disposal F. Volumes C. Recycling G. Flow D. Waste Reduction H. Economic Impact E. Special Materials F. Education and Public Awareness Section 2.105 Current Services G. Other Goals A. Collection B. Disposal Section 2.205 Administrative C. Recycling A. Plan Implementation D. Waste Reduction B. Implementation Timetable E. Special Materials C. Funding and Budgeting F. Education and Public Awareness G. Other Services Section 2.206 Legislative Studies Section 2.207 Appendices A. Administrative Procedures B. By-Laws C. Regulations and Ordinances D. Tables, Charts, Graphs and Maps E. Other Information Regional Solid Waste Management Plan for Craighead County RSWMD 1 November 1, 2004 REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN For the Craighead County Regional Solid Waste Management District PART TWO - CHAPTER ONE — ACTIVITIES ANALYSIS A.C.A. -
Environmental Protection Agency Batneec Guidance
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BATNEEC GUIDANCE NOTE Class 3.3 FERROUS METAL FOUNDRIES (DRAFT 3) Processing of Iron & Steel in Forges - BATNEEC Page 1. Introduction 3 2. Interpretation of BATNEEC 4 3. Sectors covered 6 4. Control Technologies 7 5. Emission Limit Values 11 6. Compliance Monitoring 14 7. References 15 8. Appendix 1 - Sources & Emissions 16 BAT33v3.DOC 14/05/96 Page 2 of 21 Processing of Iron & Steel in Forges - BATNEEC 1. INTRODUCTION This Guidance Note is one of a series issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and is designed to provide guidance to those applying for integrated pollution control licences under the EPA Act. It should also be read in conjunction with Application Guidance Notes, available under separate cover. It should be noted at the outset, that noise is not included within the scope of this work and guidance on this parameter has been issued separately. This Guidance Note is comprised of seven main sections and an appendix. Following this introduction, Section 2 contains a general note on the interpretation of BATNEEC. The industrial activity covered by the terms of this note is given in Section 3. In Section 4, the technologies to control emissions are tabulated and in Section 5 the specific emission limit values (ELVs) are given. Section 6 contains comments on compliance monitoring requirements, while the principal references are given in Section 7. The Appendix gives the main sources of emissions, and the principal releases from such sources. All applicants for Integrated Pollution Control licences, in the sector covered by this note, should carefully examine the information laid down in this Guidance Note, and should use this information to assist in the making of a satisfactory application for an Integrated Pollution Control licence to the Agency. -
Meeting of the MED POL National Coordinators
UNEP(DEC)/MED WG.231/6 5 May 2003 ENGLISH MEDITERRANEAN ACTION PLAN Meeting of the MED POL National Coordinators Sangemini, Italy, 27 - 30 May 2003 STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME GUIDELINES SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL IN THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION In cooperation with WHO UNEP Athens, 2003 Table of Contents Page No. 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of Document 1 Target Audience 2 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 3 Background water quality 3 Wastewater characteristics 3 Characteristics of wastewater discharges 5 Aesthetics 5 Pathogens 5 Nutrients 6 Toxicants 6 Dissolved solids 7 Suspended solids 7 Other considerations 7 Environmental uses and water quality 8 Use area definition 8 Environmental Quality Objective and Environmental Quality Standards 9 Legislation and role of authorities 12 Approaches 12 Role of authorities 13 Monitoring 14 3. MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 16 Aims and Objectives 16 Strategy and Principles 16 Control Mechanisms 17 Regulations 17 Enforcement 18 Economic tools 18 Effluent Quality 19 Effluent management and environmental values/water uses 19 Technology-based guidelines 21 Determination of effluent quality 21 Receiving Water Body and Aquatic Ecosystem Protection 22 Stakeholders 23 The Role of the Wastewater Company/Authority 23 Page No. Community Consultation 24 4. OPTIONS FOR EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT 26 Waste Minimisation 27 Managing the Collection Systems 28 Managing the Treatment Systems 30 Effluent Reuse 30 Land Application 32 Discharge to Coastal Waters 35 Discharge to Inland Waters 37 Treatment of wastewater 38 Treatment processes 38 Sludge processing and disposal/reuse 39 Selection of flow scheme 41 Submarine Outfall 42 Mixing zone 44 Treatment and disposal design philosophy 45 Environmental quality objectives 45 Use areas 46 Design of wastewater sanitation schemes/sewerage schemes 46 5. -
Report: Fukushima Fallout | Greenpeace
Fukushima Fallout Nuclear business makes people pay and suffer February 2013 Contents Executive summary 4 Chapter 1: 10 Fukushima two years later: Lives still in limbo by Dr David McNeill Chapter 2: 22 Summary and analysis of international nuclear liability by Antony Froggatt Chapter 3: 38 The nuclear power plant supply chain by Professor Stephen Thomas For more information contact: [email protected] Written by: Antony Froggatt, Dr David McNeill, Prof Stephen Thomas and Dr Rianne Teule Edited by: Brian Blomme, Steve Erwood, Nina Schulz, Dr Rianne Teule Acknowledgements: Jan Beranek, Kristin Casper, Jan Haverkamp, Yasushi Higashizawa, Greg McNevin, Jim Riccio, Ayako Sekine, Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Kazue Suzuki, Hisayo Takada, Aslihan Tumer Art Direction/Design by: Sue Cowell/Atomo Design Cover image: Empty roads run through the southeastern part of Kawamata, as most residents were evacuated due to radioactive contamination.© Robert Knoth / Greenpeace JN 444 Published February 2013 by Greenpeace International Ottho Heldringstraat 5, 1066 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 7182000 greenpeace.org Image: Kindergarten toys, waiting for Greenpeace to carry out radiation level testing. 2 Fukushima Fallout Nuclear business makes people pay and suffer © NORIKO HAYASHI / G © NORIKO HAYASHI REENPEACE Governments have created a system that protects the benefits of companies while those who suffer from nuclear disasters end up paying the costs.. Fukushima Fallout Nuclear business makes people pay and suffer 3 © DigitaLGLOBE / WWW.digitaLGLOBE.COM Aerial view 2011 disaster. Daiichi nuclear of the Fukushima plant following the Image: Nuclear business makes people pay and suffer Fukushima Fallout 4 for its failures. evades responsibility evades responsibility The nuclear industry executive summary executive summary Executive summary From the beginning of the use of nuclear power to produce electricity 60 years ago, the nuclear industry has been protected from paying the full costs of its failures.