Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-10 Correspondence1 CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)356-500C) TO: Bill Ambrisco, Darrel Courtney, Kate Dickson, Susan Horowitz, Randy Larson, John McDonald, George Strait You and each of you are hereby notified that pursuant to the authority vested in the Mayor of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, or under State Law and the Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, as Mayor, I hereby call a special meeting on May 10, 1988, at 5:15 p.m., to be held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center of Iowa City, Iowa. The meeting is called for the purpose of consideration of a motion approving recommendation that the City negotiate a construction management contract with Stanley Consultants for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project, and further approve recommendation that the construction of neighborhood sewers and other major sewers be incorporated into our in- house public works operations; and consideration of a motion approving the purchase of an automated pool blanket for the Mercer Park Aquatic Center, all as detailed on attached agenda. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 6th day of May, 1988. ATTEST: IT CLERK CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHNGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000 THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CITY CLERK Notice of Special Meeting of May 10, 1988 received: •' Signature of Councilm er r e3 -, � / Date Time IF UNDELIVERABLE: Signature of Officer CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CEN(ER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000 THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CITY 'CLERK Notice of Special Meeting of Play 10. 1988 received: IF UNDELIVERABLE: Signature of Officer I i. I i THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CITY 'CLERK Notice of Special Meeting of Play 10. 1988 received: IF UNDELIVERABLE: Signature of Officer WA CITY OF I O 319) 356-5050CITYWGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 5224p � CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASH s� i i THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CITY CLERK Notice of Special Meeting of May l0 1988 received: (Signature of Councilmemoer� �gi- � � Time DatkLv e ' /y10 ,j/(4 IF UNDELIVERABLE: Signature of -of f -ice-r CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CV, IOWA 52240 (319)356-50M THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CITY CLERK i i Notice of Special Meeting of May tn. ig88 received: i ignature of Councilm tuber (Date Time s i IF UNDELIVERABLE: - i Signature of Officer j i CITY OF IOWA CITY CHIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5000 THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CITY CLERK Notice of Special Meeting of May 10. 1988 received: 'AfW,tJ_AYaM (n, 1161 Mn i nature Councilmem er) �� �I lgff 3,`(0 Pnj (Date) Time IF UNDELIVERABLE: Signature of Officer I i I i i a F THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CITY CLERK Notice of Special Meeting of May 10. 1988 received: 'AfW,tJ_AYaM (n, 1161 Mn i nature Councilmem er) �� �I lgff 3,`(0 Pnj (Date) Time IF UNDELIVERABLE: Signature of Officer CITY OF IOWA CITY CNIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CffY, 19WA 52240 (319) 356-5COD THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CITY CLERK Notice of Special Meeting of May 10, 1988 received: IF UNDELIVERABLE: Signature of Officer a i j i i i I THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CITY CLERK Notice of Special Meeting of May 10, 1988 received: IF UNDELIVERABLE: Signature of Officer a CITY OF CMC CENTER 410 E. W 10 VVA WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CfIY, IOWA 52 CITY 240 (319) 356-5000 THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CITY CLERK Notice Of Special Meeting of blay 10, 1988 received: IF UNDELIVERABLE: Signature of fficer i CITY OF CMC CENTER 410 E. W 10 VVA WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CfIY, IOWA 52 CITY 240 (319) 356-5000 THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CITY CLERK Notice Of Special Meeting of blay 10, 1988 received: IF UNDELIVERABLE: Signature of fficer City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 5, 1988 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Vandalism I was advised by Department of Parks and Recreation staff that on the evening of April 29, 26 monuments were tipped over, two of which were broken and a 20 -foot section of split rail fence was torn down. Our crews were able to repair the damage. I was further advised that this is the second time on the weekend of a prom night that vandalism has occurred at Oakland Cemetery. We do not wish to direct any undue criticism; however, the coincidence cannot be ignored. Hopefully, during the prom night in 1989, we will be able to provide more frequent police patrol in the area and apprehend the vandals. Also on Wednesday night, nine City vehicles were sprayed with a tar -like substance. Each automobile will need to be sanded and the damaged area repainted. cc: City Clerk bj/pc2 ! •� 0 M6 W City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 5, 1988 To: Committee on Community Needs (CCN) From: City Manager Re: Women and Minority Business Enterprise The other evening I reported to the City Council the concern we have with respect to the inability and general unsatisfactory performance we have experienced with respect to Women and Minority Business Enterprise par- ticipation in the CD8G program. While the Council was understanding of the difficulties we are experiencing, they suggested we may wish to under- take new policy initiatives to encourage WBE/MBE participation. It would be appreciated if the Committee would schedule a discussion of this issue and if possible prepare policy alternatives for Council consideration. Thank you for your attention to this matter. tp3/8 cc: City Council Marianne Milkman Don Schmeiser Ell / R G87 RECEIVED MAY 3 1988 THE LAND C000nting Americ ' Ga jba�ge � Glut as BY STEPHANIJOHN E PM, 0WASSON AND he United Sures is the ultimate throw-au5y socia}•. eusrdispos- able tlashiighn and razor 61ades and u•ar oaper clothing, Il'e dmr vonciousli• at' -""nod resnunnrs that havily pack2ge rhrir products. If'e sealcd aio l biodegradable laves tightly plastic bads, along with disposable tars, tattles and nus, ans mountains of paper, No other rounrn' in the world can match she L-itcd•$ntcs's output of garbage on aper -capita basis..amcrinns Refit. - four to six pounds of garbage pct da>', about double that produced by the typial Japanese, Su•iss, ll'esr German or Swedish Citizen and almosr three times that of the typial resident of Oslo, \oru•ay, The total amount of tush Fenented in the res 4 JA"" )e 11 a wnm SOence fOr the Pe6 40 colp STE C000nting Americ ' Ga jba�ge � Glut as BY STEPHANIJOHN E PM, 0WASSON AND he United Sures is the ultimate throw-au5y socia}•. eusrdispos- able tlashiighn and razor 61ades and u•ar oaper clothing, Il'e dmr vonciousli• at' -""nod resnunnrs that havily pack2ge rhrir products. If'e sealcd aio l biodegradable laves tightly plastic bads, along with disposable tars, tattles and nus, ans mountains of paper, No other rounrn' in the world can match she L-itcd•$ntcs's output of garbage on aper -capita basis..amcrinns Refit. - four to six pounds of garbage pct da>', about double that produced by the typial Japanese, Su•iss, ll'esr German or Swedish Citizen and almosr three times that of the typial resident of Oslo, \oru•ay, The total amount of tush Fenented in the res 4 JA"" )e 11 a wnm SOence fOr the Pe6 40 colp United States each day—about 400.000 tans—boggles the mind. It's enough to fill about 40.000 carbace trucks or feat an armada of 125 c2.,bagc barges Re the ..prodipal barge" that rceendy uandacd the Atlantic Chun czrvin c tush eenmud to Islip. Long Island. Where docs this countn•'s trash go? Well. as a recem advertisement placed by the St amfitting Industry Promotion Fund put it, "There are four wars to dispose of garbage: Burn it. Bun• it. Recycle it. Or send it on a Caribbean cruise." Although the last alternative is used more width• than people think—another, las pubdiciztd barge full of toxic incinerator ash has been wandering the sats for over a yor—the three basic alternatives are burring the garbage in landfills, burning it in incinerators or recycling it. The vast majority of g2rb2ge-80 to 90 percent—is dumped in landfills. fhc remainder is split fairly evenly between recycling and incineration. This historical pattern is about to change dnstially. Landfills arc rapidly running out of space. A nxcmt survey hs• the federal Environmental Protection Agmcv (EPA) found that one- half of 211 municipalities will run out of landfill space within ten yars, one-third within five vars. This spacecrunch will be compounded by the difficulty of finding new dumpsites and the closure of man)- dumps anydumps that are polluting ground or surface waters with 2 host of toxic materials. With landfills filling up and closing down, communities across the country are grappling with the problem of what to do with their trash. Where will the mountain of garbage be moved in the coming decades? THE LEAKING LEGACY OF LANDFILLS One approach to the gub2ge glut would be to build more landfills. But such a program would be difficult and expensive to implement. Land shorr2ees, public opposition, and the costs of adequate environmental monitoring and controls will combine to limit the use of landfills in the future. Landfills require large expanses of accessible space, preferably removed from residential 2tas. Such land fs an increasingly rare and expensive commodity in many cities and towns. and landfills cannot be built on just 2nv avail2ble 12nd. The iesson that has been Tamed, the hard way. over the last few decades is that landfills must be sited in areas with appropriate soil condition in order to present comaminarion John.tf. I Pinson em4rararraJJsrirnrin fm m rneironmrnsal consulting firm. Srrphmfr Pollark is an mvironmrnml lacyn and mrmhn of Srirncr Jar shy Proplri rdirorul committer. SE OF GARBq�;E; THERE ARE FOUR WAYS TO DISpO IIrStHlta Af 4l 9 ,e srPY Kr car � `I.Ir,...r+c�r,. ^4ro,0 „oC n..."•+� of ground or surface waters. Historically, municipal landfills—then known u town dumps—wen placed on unwanted land, over old sand and gravel pits or in swamps or wetlands. But such lomrions were ultinutely found m contain very permeable soil and resideabovcmajor groundwater 2euifm. Raims�tcr percolzing through the decomposing trash mixed with wastes such as paints, solvents, oils. poricides, and fertilizers to form toxic leachate streams. This toxic soup traveled through the permable soil into the groundwater below. The results? Municipal dumps ended up polluting the groundwater below than with frightening regularity. A survey of New Hampshire landfdls br the Consen'2- tion Mau• Foundation of New England found that two-thirds of the dumps that had monitored narbe groundwater found evidence of contamination. According to 2 1986 EPA survey, over twenty percent of the 850 sites then chosen or proposed for the Superfund cleanup list were municipal 12ndfills. (See the accompanying sidcb2r.) This enduring lee2cc of leaking landfills posy a serjous roadblock to communities or prix•", dr•elopers seeking to construct neat• landfills. Citizens simply do not scant such facilities in their towns. let alone their backyards. Even ifi, developer an identify 2 suitable site for 2 new landfill, the plans usually meet with stiff local opposition. Such opposition is hardly unexpected, given the current span of dump closures and disclosures about drinking water contamination. Landfill developers counter November/December 1997 5 6V The Disposable Society. A Look at the Nation' POICent of oil materials thrown' Y Where It S Garbage What We Throw Awa waste systems in 1984, into municipal Goes �r x� ElRecycletl Foaer ontl ❑Incfneraled for energy 37.1% Poperboord ■landfill Source; fron4//ngaoaiotet yourd wastes 17,9% —Glass 9.7% —Metals 9.6% —Food 8.1% —Plostics 7.2% -Wood 3.8% Rubber and leather 2.5% Textiles 2.1% Other 1.9% ' by expl,fning 0121 landfills bi ad,), bear little resemblance communed Inking Predecessors. Stare• to their i landfills use a host o °f•thc•art treatment technalo f containment and Of Inchare. Symheticto limit the spend Placed ben. 'the I, and clay bners are ramwaterthat er landfill to Capture the I Cnlleaionsysrems°pumrhroughthe rush . disposedof the ofll so it can this he treated and nd monitorin f Properly, In addfrfan, Frounduateru•ells ring the sire so Thar basis for ea° be tested on a r But this concminarfon. regular liners are hnv To' is largely unrested; forn•er and llnkcha To remain fmpermcable j fail. And eve to eolleman sysrerus can ensure ° Per(eer man cannot Thar new landfills will not pollute ppthooe ens•uonmem. Given the nothistPollute fand(fq ord of govC'mar cal r i Opponents le ieFul,TorsI question who will overs a mately and • eventually. elosurre the opernian tacit fries. of the new A related problem is landfill ou•n ensuring th -- ry •75 '77'79 '81 '83 landfill is ex r millions of If nsis•r, often running rens of dollars. Part of this high c°mmu n sures. Bur thrsizrof nF is the result of F rice nirics or eve develo decisions by landfill regional landfills not pars to censrrua as I,rgea Gcflfq•,s > im•ieonres tont Possible, Since Opposition. ,"lost residents simple do not the rime and u'anT their community Per its ito obtain necessary• to m°nr}' dum 10 become the Permits it relatively indc cat and state of°r surrounding erns. o(Thrfadlir •, Pendenro(theshc duCn•en rhe lack of open space in and ro obtain The rdes elopers h,eean Incentive the high rose of mos lar n°he°r`' aPPr°s•,Is for one -tcorous local cunng r°f-rhe-artnlandfrlls, the Fe hdliry'• than ro r Process for a number of s ryrn the and 0I Un Opposition They engender, 4"s'fngly, maller sires, and fiann CF macs about Their are often smto-o4the-art and merits, it sec rhnoloeid regional facilities, that ,crept Thar burial mill be ms improbable u•as«s from a number garbage the primary Of surraun 1 disposal in comingmans of g Landfills will, of Course. luea role roades, bemuse certain npv of u•ste_ Play Mar) be -aviator ash—must go to such s �,.af �/ States far lo, er Percentage But landfills Will handle arethan Th., Percentage of municfp,l wastes, Planning do today, on making. .on responsible ars are held fi u moble for ode Ge nPci'^la ; their gree q°i1p a Preeminent mersuraifcont P Neighbors of p p 1�ndfiUs n occurs• ' how to as marrask trash_disposal... sere and local gosemmcnr a(fici h and landfill developers will Fuaramee that re f. Halides U., I Ge m method, MI �e Financed. \",.Ind-itsamussr t surfatt-roarer possibility' of ground- and �anneCl ICut for n ' contamination and prossi,r plays to rob1 Pid and ef(eaive remedial aaiont if burn P tans write. chmlFurther,testmolefcalfixesd p.'. Constma0not cothe-three-quarters P ing , state•of- me 6 ,tt of its garbage, THE BURNING QUESTION OF INCINERATION Goverrmment planners in,-.sinely a•ieu• inane-ro-energy(ae.1.. as the solutionToTheir garbage the EPAdisposal needs. ,According To b . there are III incinerators uT`9 six million tons of muncipal tubage nou•—bur there could be 300 iadlinv burning up To ?S Pvttnt of the nation's garbage by the mid -"Ices. o ft he and munries in at just de stars are fn the ies process of planning, permitting or °�raO°F rim «ashburners. ,item• stare are pl=Twv r trash ng on akfdss� w r yro�r. 0 Fy their for example, Plans to incfnen« rtan"Clice quarters of its Farbage by 1990. The reasons for the headlong rush are p Science for the people a clear: incineration reduces the volume of garbage that must be landfilled by Min 90 percent, and in the process generates cicancity that can he sold to utilities. But such benefits do not come without a price. 11'astc•m-energy facilities MIT a hast of art pollutants and leave hchind toxic ash. And because of these environmental hazards• incinerators arc beginning to face the same kind of local apposition as landfills. Two of the most controversial classes of air pollutants emitted by municipal incinerators are dioxins and furans. Dioxin, a component of Agent Orange and the notorious colprit in the Times Beach, Missouri contamination, is one of cher most potent carcinogens known. Incinerators emit dioxin• but in concentrations so low that it is often difficult to detect even at the top of the smokatack. Nonetheless, no one disputes the presence of dioxin in incinerator emissions. The controversy is over the magnitude of the health threat. One of the most vocal opponents of incinerators is Dr. Barry Commoner, director of the Ncw York -based Center for the Biology of Natural Synems. Commoner argues that the dioxin emitted by incinerators makes them "an inhercndv urocccprable technology." Anothcr critic of trashburners, Ellcn Silbcrgcld, chief toxicologist for the Environmental Defense Fund, stresses that dioxin is believed to be one of the longest -lived contaminants that accumulates in the human body. As a result, dioxin—cven in the small amounts mined by incinerators— can pose a significant health threat because of its tendency to remain in the human body over long periods. Dioxin is hardly the only dangerous pollutant emitted by incinerators. Neil Seldman, director of the Institute for Local Self -Reliance in Washington. D.C.• characterizes the dioxin controversy as a "sideshow"—trot because dioxin emissions are safe• bur because the disputes deflect attention from air emissions that are potentially trate dangerous. Two pollutants of particular co earn tae metals and acid gases. Seidman points out that, unlike dioxin, there is little controversy over the health threats posed by heavy meals emitted by incinerators. One example he cites is lad• a potent neurotoxin whose effects on blood formation and neurological development at even low levels are well documented. Allen Henhkowim. of the New York - based environmental croup INFORM, similarly argues that more attention should be foswed on the 27 different meals that municipal incinerators may emit. Only three of the 27 are currently regulated. Incinerators also emit significant levels of acid gases and acid min precursors, such as hydrogen chloride and sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Besides contributing to acid min, highly corrosive acid gases can November/December 1987 CLEANING UP THE LANDFILLS' LEGACY n many cities and towns, landfills are not part of the solution to the solid waste crisis—they're part of the problem. Indeed, many town dumps Epe a crisis all their own• because of the und• and surface -water contamination they have wrought. Regulators and communities struggling to dal with the garbage crisis will, at the same time, have to devote regulatory attention and financial resources to closing down existing landfills and cleaning up their toxic legacy. Bcause municipal landfills contain a variety of hazardous wastes mixed in with the household crash, they an produce Icachatc containing a variety of carcinogenic and toxic substances. The EPA's preliminary• assessment of haardom organic compounds in leachate from municipal landfills found 48 different Substances, including bmzm mahykne chloride, tetnchlorcacthylene, trichloro- ethylene, and toluene. Most existing landfills are not designed to prevent this ledsate from coma m arc ring groundwater. In 1986, the federal Environmental Protection Agency completed the first phase of a Coneresiom8•v mandated study on regulation of nonhazardous solid waste disposal. The agency identified 16.416 municipal and Private landfills, and found that feu• had taken adequate precaution 10 protea against groundwater contamination. Only eleven percent had either soil or synthetic liners• and only four percent had leachate collection and removal Systems. No one is certain how serious the Problem of groundwater contamination is, however, beaus: very line monitoring has been done. Only 19 percent of the landfills surveyed by the EPA performed any groundwater monitoring at all. One startling statistic from the EPA study protides an important clue about the snipe of the problem: over 20 percent of the 850 situ thin on or proposed for the Superfund clamp lis[ were municipal landfills. Another clue: a 1980 study by the :Ueine Department of Environmental Protection found that every landfill located on a sand and gravel aquifer was contaminating the aquifer. Federal and state regulation is finally catching up with these laking landfills, and many will eventually have to be shut down and cloned up. A Massachusetts court, for example• recently upheld the state's effort to close a laking landfill in Quincy, calling the dump "an ecological disaster, discharging leachate into adjacent wetlands and quarries, and God knows where else." The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended in 1984, provides that open dumps must be shut down or upgraded to meet minimum criteria established by the EPA to ensure the safety of sanitary landfills. Under the Act, states formulae solid waste management plans and receive federal funds to aid in their implementation. lAndfills must obtain permits or shut down. The EPA's solid waste management criteria are being revised currently. Congress mandarcd that new regulations be in place by March 31, 1988. The criteria arc expected to require that landfills located in certain panieularly facile locations shut down, nese and existing landfills install groundwater monitoring systems, and new and expanded landfills have liners and lachare collation systems. Current and expected regulatory i requcomm's will force many municipal Iandfills to close. Only half of the nation's 9,244 municipal landfills have valid operating permits. Many of the others wont,Zlify. New York's Env'nonmmal C, lavation Commissioner has estimate( that only 65 of the state's 340 landfills qualify for state operating permits. Some towns may be able to upgrade their dumps, but choose not to because of costs. Mlulrinationd Business Systems, I= has escimated that compliance with the EPA's revised criteria could cost municipal landfill operators anywhere from 83 to 835 billion. THE ECONOMICS OF INCINEPATION _ r Inst until additional pollu- uon controls ere required, trash - burning will be a huCrahVe seg- ment of the United Scatter's $13 billion solid waste disposal industry, But incinerators are more than 2 waste disposaltechnology:21,500ton-per-day plant produces 40 mcg2W2tts of daxridry. The economics of incineration an be. understood only by viewing the plants as elaxriciq• gencraron u well u truhbumm. Incinerator operators make money at both ends: municipalities pay them tipping fee's to take the garbage and Utilities Pay to buy the electricity produced by the plants. But much of the revenue comes from energy sales. Signal Environmental Systems in Saugus, M2ss2chusens gets a tipping fee of S?2 per ton plus 2 little over seven cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity from its 37- mcg2av2[1 plant. Electricity sales produce over 60 percent of the plants tool revenue The profitability of incinerators is likely to be greatly reduced by regulatory developments in the next few years. Scrubbers and high -efficiency particulate removal systems—used to reduce emissions Of meals, acid gases, and perhaps dioxin—arc expensive. Allen Heehkowim of INFORM esrirratn that air pollution controls would add SS to SIO to current tipping fees of S20 to S35. In connection with its recent proposal to impose emission standards, the federal Environ - menial Protection Agency estimated that iuch controls would cost from $9 to S 1 per ton, adding 10 to 15 percent to the consumer's cost for solid waste disposal. Any requirement that ash betrated as 2 h2mrdous waste would further incase costs. California, which regulates incinerator ah as a hazardous waste, estimated in 1981 that disposal costs under its regulations would be S50 per ton. .... _. Mich orw•ithout pollution controls, the economic of incineration would be very different if incinerators were viewed as solid waste disposal facilities other than energy production facilities. Treating garbage.2s 2 fuel for electric generation an have the unfortunate side effect of undermining source reduction and recycling efforts. Incinerator operators w•2m a steady scam of fuel—garbage— ad contracts may nm penalize rnuudlwliit who undertake recycling efforts that reduce their waste Bows below a guanntced minimum. Priorities should be reversed, critics contend, with all possible recycling conducted to minimize waste Bows, and incineration used only for that garbage which cannot be recycled. Recycling 2dvoatc argue that, at a minimum, incineration should occur in refuse -derived fuel facilities rather than mass -burn incinerators. %12ss-burn Plants incinerate a mixed stream of garbage with little or no pec -processing, while refuse -derived fuel facilities sort Out metals 2nd sometimes other materia$ priorto incineration. Ncil Scldmanofthe Institute for Local Self -Reliance has estimated that pre-processing the waste stream to remove recycl2ble matc621s prior to incineration would lower the cost of 2 2,500 ton-per-dav incinerator from S300-5400 million to S125million. Even 2 stricter recycling program than char used in refuse -denied fuel fadlitic would not naxssar0y proven incinerators from serving as cost-effective electric generators. Studies have shown that 2 well-planned program of mull -material recycling on 2cu2lly increase the BTU content of the pubage. and even if 60 percent of the paper is removed from a waste scram through recycling prior to incineration, the gubage's energy content is reduced by less than nine percent. Recycling advocates, such as the Natural Resourm Council of M:iinc, thus conclude there is no conflict bcw•em rcevclinp and incineration. - Still, earn if incineration an be used to produce clecvicity in a manna that docs sear discourage reeding, enviuesrnemlists saws the impomnce of viewing the Plants as waste disposal facilities other than power plana. Allen Hershkowitz has studied incineration in Japan and concluded that one of the reasons that it is arced out so elonly and sucrosfully is That J2pance operators sin their lobs as preventing pollution. To U.S. operators, what they bum is just solid fud that happens id be garbage Hershkowiitz rejects "the erroneous assumption that a municipal incinerator is primarily involved inroducing energy rather than disposing of wane" adversely affect people's eyes and mpruory sysern INFOR.\I's Hcohkouzz has written that refuse -burning plants in the United Stites emit 90 times as much hx•drogm chloride a mil-bumme heilitics. Proliicnrine incinerators would thus exacerbate the acid rain problem. Incinerator advocate,. like landfill operators. argue that this pollution nn be substantially reduced by mandating use of snrca(the-an contuols. C0r2ml todrrtolugia such as acid gas scrubbers and hiph efficiency particulate removal systems— electrostaticprecipitators and baphous r— an allegedly remove 99 percent of toxic particulates. But the ability of such controls to limit emissions of the most controversial air pollutant—dioxin—is still uncertain. As importantly such controls are larking on most existing incinerators and will not be required on current or new plants forsome time. Although state-of-the-art controls are standard faeurc on J2pancw incinerators, only two of the 70 high-volume incinmton operating in the U.S. as of 1986 had scrubbers. The EPA has just announced plans to impose technology -bated limits on emissions from new incinerators beginning in November 1989 and from existing incinerators beginning in 1993. Critics contend that these delays will allow too many vashbumers to be built without adequate pollution controls. And they will not protect public health as stronely as standards under 2 different section of the Clean Air Act that w2s designed to deal with toxic air emissions. The N2mnl Resources Defense Council 2nd t%vo stats have challenged the EPA's approach in court. Toxic substances present in g2rb2ee or created by combustion also escape from incinerators in ash, which includes both the fly ash trapped in pollution control equipment 25 the cues flow- out the sock and the bonom ash that falls to the bonom of the boiler after combustion. Ash is essentially the part of g2rbape that don not bum. Depending on the technology. from 65 to 90 percent of municipal solid w•ute is combustible, laving 10 to 35 percent to be disposed of 25 ash. Based on the EPA's projections of incinerator opacity, 10.000 to 35.000 tons of ash will be generated daily by the mid-1990s. This ash may contain high concentrations; Of heavy meals, dioxin• and organic chemicals. Noncthelees. except in a it" - states such as California and Washington, ash is not treated as a hazardous waste. Incinerator ash is usually disposed of in landfills. FIs• ash and bottom ash are generally combined prior to disposal, 21thoueh some environmentalists contend that the more toxic Oy ash should be handled scp2rarel'v. Undfilled ash poses a threat to human health and the essirorment 60 Science for the People through direct exposure—dust Bnating in the atmosphere, suspended particulate falling on surfaccwvtcl, or contain manrs in the sod - and indirectly' by the leaching of its toxic consumcnts Into groundwater. "ne most corn ovasol issue surrounding incinerator ash is whether it should he regulated as a hanrdnus waste. Fly ash tested alone virtually always fails the EPA's leachability rests. as does combined bottom and 0v ash in many cases. The Environmental Defense Fund has notified operators of current and planned incinerators of these test results, triggering a duty on the part of the facilities to, conduct additional testing. But the EPA don not regulate the disposal of incinerator ash bcause it is not convinced that the eurramt test Procedures adequately measure the toxicity of ash. Bills have been introduced in both the House and Senate that would order the EPA to set standards for testing and disposing of incinerator ash. Regulatory treatment of ash as a hazardous waste would have a profound effect on the economics of incineration, since disposing of ash would become much more exprnsiee. (Sec the acmmPnying sidebar.) Such argumcmts about environmental effects and safety, made in the face of a scenting iuggemant toward incineration. remind at last one critic of the early debates over another technological fix that eventually w•cm awry. Neil Scldman of the Institute for Local 5c11.1162nce fears that incinerators could be the nuclear power plants of the 1990s. He has written that both technologies "have been plagued Ilya series of technological failures and plant cancellations. Both force a communip• to put all its eggs into one technological basket. And both have a powerful industry as their strongest advocate." THE POTENTIAL FOR RECYCLING ....."..,.,.R er. the nnelear tsow•er Recycling is a flexible, decentralized approach to solid -waste disposal that may, like conservation, prove to be the cheapest way to go, plants of the solid waste industry, receding is its conservation analogue. Rather titan depending on large, custrolizcd and largely unrested rechnologics like landfills and incinerators. recycling efforts focus on changing the way garbage is generated and disposed nf. Recycling is a flexible, decentralized approach To solid waste disposal that may. like conservation, prove to be the cheapest w•ay to go. Environmentalists and government oficials are beginning to reach a consensus that recycling should he the number -one solid waste disposal option for the 19905 and beyond. But a recycling program that would involve _'i to EO percent of the 150 million tons of garbage generated in the C.S. each year will look very different from today's saticred, often voluntary efforts to recycle perhaps live to ten percent of the waste stream. Recycling advocates view garbage not at waste to be disposed of out as a collection of "pre-omsumaf' raw materials available to Ir .mined." .\fang of the components of parbage-paper and ncscspaper. yard wastes. aluminum cans. glass -an be easily recovered from earbaec and renud. (tic, the• occompanvmg sidebar.) But even rcc)clmg advocates disarray about shit perecm age of the want stream an be rccvdcd in practice. Effective recpelmp programs must fust promote a high level of consumer participation. Neil Scldman advises municipalities and recycling companies to think of consumers at suppliers of raw materials. They can be Induced to "supple' recyclable goods by mandating participation in recycling programs and by offering financial and other incentives. Tlse other key to widespread recycling involves the "demand" side of the cquatium go,cmmcm at all levels must help develop stable markets for bath "raw' rec}'clad materials and finished products made with recycled materials. Without such markets, rccyelers will have recharge more To accept garhace because then will not be able to make as much selling it. In the same way that incinerator operators make money from both tipping fees and electricity sales, reepders will sock profits from both tipping f ecs and sales of rccyded materials. After evaluating the potential for promoting recyclinp, several cities and states have recently made their recycling goals far more ambitious. New Jcrscy and .Massachusetts are aiming to recycle 'i percent of their waste stream, while Berkeley. California and Philadelphia have crated a 50 percent recycling target. Japan, which has one of the world's most successful recycling proenms. recycles upwards of 6i percent of its garbage. (See the accompanying sidebar.) Others aim earn higher. Barry Commoner believes that source reduction and recycling could eventually eliminate 70 percent of America's garbage; Veil Seidman cites Nowmber/December 1987 ' 0, i figura as high a 90paccnt. (Bosh u-ould place the rest in landfills and ba .Place Two differ mi kinds of anion,, usually grouped together as "recycling." are touted as means it, reduce or redirect the solid waste scram: source reduction and various kinds of separation. Snurcc reduction entails shrinking the amount of material entering the waste "ream, cspcnally items that cannot be Secvcicd or composted. Neil Seldmanm estiate that familia who rcrvelc reduce their waste output by 20 to .'5 percent simply because they think more about what they buy. %lost source reduction Proposals focus on reducing excessive packaging, which generally accounts for 30 percent of the weight 2nd. -+0 patent of the volume of household waste. Taxes and other penalties could be used to reduce the over 600 pounds of packaging material (paper, glass, mails, and plastic) disposed Of annually by the avenge American. Separation involves removing recyclable mataials either before or after thec enter the unstc scram. Source scpantinn takes place at home. Households are nquircd to separate garbage into different categories (paper, glass, cans). Although many Carly recycling programs rcquircd separered materials to he brought to desienarcd locations, most recycling advoeaa ague that curbside eollccrion is necessary 10 ensure high Ores of participation. The most successful recycling programs supplement source separation with further sorting in materials -recover• facilities. Separation—generally using labor-intesise sorting—and Samnrimes processing of «cyC12bIcs at these tens!)V loosed facilities results in high-qualin"and high. volume rm•cled goods, whirls helps to ensure markets for these materials. The economics of recycling depends on a number of factors, including the cost of altemative disposal methods and the availab[liry of markets for the recovered products. For a town with garbage to dispose of, however, the deciding. factor will be the cost of ren -cline compared to tipping fes at landfills or incinenrors. As Cymthia Pollock•s recent 15'orldwatch Instirute report explains, "For years, recycling has been hampered by the belief that it should makemone•. But recycling is a cost-effearve'disposal' option so long u is require fewer government subsidies tion bndfdlTog or mcinararion." : ccordism to \ eil Seidman. most cities recs•cleto sas•e the disposal costs (of up to SI do per ton), nth" than to gain the sale value of rm•cled goods (perhaps SIO to Si5 per ton). Recent estimates of disposal costs strongly favor recycling. Charles Papke of San Francisco's 'Resource .\langemenr Associates estimates that that it cons S20 to S30 pa ton to con a weekly curbside r trash collation and recycling program, Li las than The Si40 to S60 con of Imdfilhng or the S70 to S L'0 cost of incineration. A 1957 study of uuuc management costs m \Imncapnli, and St. Paul. khnnesou reaehul the same eonelusinn. Consulum John Madole estimated recycling costs at $30 per ton, compared to landfill costs of S90 to S INS and incineration costs of S90 to S110. In addition to saving on disposal costs. cities can tryto make moncv from recycling h, selling the recovered matcrials. Some even use rccyckd goods as raw materials in municipally owned manufacturing businesses, such as Fresno, Califomia's plant for turning recycled newspaper into cellulose insulation. The Institute for Lou[ Sclf-Reliance argues that rcx•vcling should be linked with local economic duelnpmt and used to create fobs (six times as many a the use of virgin materials) and profitable nese businesses. But those who would profit from the salt of recycled products, whether cities or prime companies, must overcome stmetunl and attitudinal problems if stable markets for their warn arc to he dcecleped. Secondary materials markets areeurrenth• plagued by low and volatile prices. The marketplace is skewed against recycled products buse of govment policies hearing or mernsubsidizing virgin matcrials. such as below -Cost rirnba Sala and water rates. Cynthia Pollock of the Worldwatch Institute has Called for government anion '• to level the economic playing field so that used materials can compete with new substances." Such levelling is likely to involve new subsidies for recycling, since existing subsidies for virgin materials will bee difficult to rescind. But there are other anions Char gowcmmcnt IS all levels can take to promote recycling. Government agencies an use their purchasing power to create markets for recycled materials. Federal lou• requires the Fnvironmermal Protection Agency to establish guidelines that encourage fedml and state govemment agencies to purchase products made of recs•cicd goods. After prolonged delays, the Environmental Defense Fund recenrIv sued the EPA to prompt the esablishmemt of such regulations BUT state and 1001 goyemmam aren't waiting for fedenl action. Thinem states lase passed laws coning the procrareman of ren•Cconcerningcd goods. Vermont's precedent. Baring statute, for example, requires the mate's purchasing director to consider the Costs of disposal in comparing the costs of virgin and recycled matcrials. Govan ments also have an important role to play in retching providers of recycled MTC621S with existing end-use markets for their products. Emily Barson of the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation notes that one of the best WHAT'S IN A WASTE STREAM? PAPER Over one-third of the waste material disposed of by U.S. municipalities is Pipet and paperboard. At Inst one- quarter of this is newspaper. A recent IPorldwatch Institute report notes that recovering the print run of the Sunday Nnx )'af Tiara would leave 75,000 ace standing. Newspaper arid cardboard— which usually contain recycled paper and an be recycled again—arc probably the osior and most lucrative matcrials for recycling programs to dispose of. A survey by the Natural Resou Sees Council of Maine found that newspaper brings SIO to S32 per ton and cardboard S22 to 515 per ton, compared to Sl2 to S20 per ton (or glass and pnaically nothing for scrap metal (which some recyclas pay to have hauled assay). YARD WASTES V2rd wasteS, which make up about Ig percent of the waste stream, can be recycled using composting, one of the oldest recycling techniques known. Currently, leaves and other vard wastes are trapped in nonbiodegradable plastic bags in dumps. If, instead, they are properly stacked and aerated and given the right amount of moisture, they will decompose into fertilizer. GLASS Glass makes up about ten percent of munidpal wastes. After being sorted by color, it an be crushed into nickel -sized Pieces called culla. This recycled glass an be used to make new glass, insulation, and aggregate forasphalt in road paving. Glass producers' demand for culla has increased with the adoption of striver air pollution Controls, became its use reduces emissions. METALS Another ten percent of the wvsre mom consists of mails. Some, such a rin and aluminum ons, an be wily recycled. Recycling aluminum acts an ala conserve up to 95 patent of the large amounts of electricity needed to make aluminum from bauxite. Boole bills and voluntary efforts have prompted large. sale recycling of aluminum ons: over half of all the aluminum acts sold in the US. are aerssally taumd for recycling. Science fw the People6p? NElectric pow" \V,1 generation sillily steam piped to turbine generator Boller TYIbIM generator crane Steam drum Refuse feed hopper / Scrubber IN,Fabric / finer o r o Refuse fuel PllINV M 0 0 Receiving aroHyd'r r tam feeder ram feedd er Stack MoM Bottomash Flyash a�raa�s�s+vf�aurr�io.�rn.,i sMrns conveyor conveyors aep0ete01vn teorebD'ae.vw Abore: Row a wale• fly ash—the ash carried te»n.rgy plant out of the furnace by as. works. lime sprayed Into haus! gases. A fabric fll• the scrubber neutralizes ler collects the fly ash, ■cld gases that would which must be dumped in otherwlse contribute to secure landfills so that It meld rain. The scrubber does not contaminate _ also helps control dioxins groundwater. The bottom and toxic metals emitted ash, another residue of during burning. These pol. the burning process, Is lutants are adsorbed onto not as dangerous. examples of this type of governmental effort is the New Hampshire Resource Recycling Association. Towns inform the association about the materials for which then need mark as: the associuion comate businesses in the ars, negoliams a prig scale for the town, and arranges a pickup schedule once the town has enough volume. Government must Ind the Way in creating and promoting markers for recycled materials to help compensate for Americans' suspicious attitude toward goads crude from such products. �,\luny people view- ren•ded products as inferior to goods made from virgin resources. As Clifford P. Case of the National Recycling Coalition has noted, "our soden• is built an the idea that new is always bencr." The biggest barrier to recycling is both strumr2l and anintdiml: the natmrnt of recycling u an interesting hobby for hippie or u a fundraiset for scout troops, rather than an integral pan of solid waste doposal policy. Like energy conservation, consumers must begin to sen recycling u a necessary pan of resource management, rather than a monev-saving anion to be taken by individuals. Given the magnitude of the solid uaste problem and the amount of recycling that Nmtember/December 1987 is needed to make a significant dant, individual actions are no longer enough. As Lester Brown of the 1l'orldw2teh Institute has noted, "It's one thing to save your aluminum cans or your u•asrc paper -Go ,dni ent must. lead the way in, 1.::•, creating 'and.:'; promoting markets '. for recycled; aterials fa:: " help compensate-. for Americans"'. suspicious, attitudes toward-' recycled products for recycling, but if there isn't a viable, stable, lang-term, national market for these materials, that one day you'll find there s no place for your stack of papers to go." TOWARD A RATIONAL SOLID WASTE POLICY Bum it. Bury it. Recvcic it. Or send it on a Caribbean cruise. That is the May of disposal options available to municipalities as they grapple with how to best disposeof their steady stream of trash. Treating the last option as a ioke—although in the currant state of affairs it has become an unfortunate reality—the question becomes what mix of rm•cling, incineration, and landfilling should cities ute2 The answer doe not involve a simple choim among theserhreetechnologies. for one thing, no single disposal mahod can handle the entire waste stream. The most avid recycling enthusiasts acknowledge that 10 to 30 percent of the waste strum cannot be recycled. Even if all waste were to be incinerated. the ash would have to be disposed of in landfills. And the potential use of landfills is limited by the difficulry of siting than given land shortages, rnviron- mcnol considerations. and public opposition. Nor ran the problem In v%cwal as a purciv technological choice. Ile'eamat none of the technologies can In evaluated independent ni its ccononuc, environmental. and soctal comet. A boiler is a header, but incineration looks veru dsf iercm schen it is cw%%cd as a mctimd of polluuan control (x is the case in Japan) as oppwscd to a means of producing electricity. SmularIv, recycling can be seen as lust another solid waste disposal technology car as a method of mining urban wastes for raw materials that can Income the basis of municipal industry and connomic develop- mcm. Cit ics and towns must decide not only which disposal technologies to use, but how they arc to be used and regulated to promote economic and environmental goals. The three major factors that states and cities should consider in deciding upon a regulatory policy for solid waste are environmental COSTS and b%nclits, economies, and implementation issues. The three arc not independent. Disposal costs, for example, arc strongly affected by %%-hit environmental controls arc required for landfills and incinerators. Recycling is the clear winner %t hen environmental bcncfsts and drawbacks arc considered. It is environmentally benign, with few (if any) drawbacks and many benefits. Recycling substitutes the reuse of materials for the use of virgin materials and thereby reduces the number of trees that must be cut and the Tonnage of metals that must be mined. Recycling also reduces energy use: the Worldwatch Institute notes that recycling aluminum requires only five percent as much energy as producing it, so each recycled beverage can saves the energy equivalent of a half -an of gasolinc..11 ining Tau materials from garbage slots conump. rion of the United States's limited mtural resources and ensures that they are used wisely and fineall%•. londfdls and incinerators, by contrast, pose many environmental ducats. Incinerator emissions pollute the air. while incinerator ash and other wastes in landfills can contaminate groundwater with an array of toxics. While the adverse environmental impacts of these disposal methods may he mitigated through the use of control and containment technologies—like snubbers, liners, and leachate collection systems—the controls' long-term effectiveness is uncertain. Indeed, recycling tray be one of the most effective means of rcducine the environmental impacts of incineration and landfilling. Sepataring recyclable materials out of the waste stream removes the plastics that appear to be one of the major causes of dioxin formation in incinerators and the metals that might otherwise go up the stack of a trashburner or into the groundwater under a landfill. And as 12 Recycling aluminum requires only five percent as much energy as producing it, so each recycled beverage can saves the energy equivalent of a half -can of gasoline, Allen Hcrehknwnz of INFOR\I notes, by removing noncombusublcs such as bonles and cans. receding reduces the amount of ash produced by incinerators. Foumumics also scum to i.nor rvcvciing, especially when the rnruonmental costs of incinerators and 6ndfills arc properly considered. Federal, state, and local governments must act to ensure that disposal costs for landfills and inancrators accurately reflect environmental costs by mandating measures such as sate -of -The - art pollution controls and escrow accounts car bonds to ensure that a pool of money will be set aside to ensure adequate maimenaec and to pay for unforeseen problems. Figures cited above indicate that recycling costs Mae be only one-third to one-half of those for incineration or landfilling. Using straight economic principles, a torn should rccycicup to the point where The cost of promoting additional recycling will exceed the cost of alrcrntive disposal methods. This analysis it u . _- s I'. Science for the People 61? will, however, involve more than a eomp+nsoo of ripping fees, brcausc rrecdmg entails other cvpenses such as implementing and enforcing a Source the sc•Pantion ardinancc. ma for strike acain.0 mevelme is nor em'difrNl til or economic, hill polidnl: itis difficult m Implemenr..11anv olscnrlcs must be ocercomc for rres'cbnc to become the primary mcrhnd of garbage din pL Sourcrc separation will require a chance in Am cans' 2rtitudrs and habits Chas will have ro be induced through some Combination of public education and anions w coercion, •11anv government and private ill be needed to create sable Prices and viable markets for rec•cied materials and Plod u The cts Made With them. But these obsndcz arc nor insurmountable PI wcanbeoughtabouttheneedfor rcc)'Img• perhaps with some emphasis on the need for source separation in order to keep landfills and incinerators our n(thcir btck!vwds. Procurcmrnr and other afthei- menl poi ark can Ix used ro dcrc'. and m. stabilize markets and offset to dg elop Ind that favor use of dugin matcrials. subsidies ,lltounpalitics arc also heginnine to realim that massive incineration and landfill proerarm have implement,,rion problems of their own Public opposition must he fought, sommma through landfill and incincntor orpormions "buving off' to subsidies and Mrenis•es. was still, And stare and lool Friremments will also have to take on the task of ensuring slut P°8udon corHerr, arc imnllcd and op=,cd neededProPta10 IMI. coo, public education %.01 be P needed ro mmirim Citizens that the benefits o! i these rerhnoloeirs s task that will &, outu•cieh their risks—a explain easier if public ofridah Can ° P that as much of the wane steam his ° been rcneled as possible ,I Ilhrnallrhe(xtorshayelxerlu ciehed.the bo •erou•esg Comrnsus is that rm•dinc desen•es BE impact. Ind !a bche lwsrorin•, Asa dercnrralized.lou•- rcrlsnol cur u's`r`tu°agemrnr, it is far npPrwchsosolid I} tnsitonnvn,II, bmirm than rc ncvlblearsd ra high-technologylandfili s,nhdion`rn`ne aCt cOroll with their -'attendant and.in ometsral the problems Ind reehnologinI unten2inties, a•ot There is also a Consensus about u•hn recv anions need to be taken to bout mo Increase the level o(rervding. All levels of gov'rnment should begin or upgrade NAM etrans to promote sour ce srpanrion by 10'3 forrecycled Crate Ind snbilizemarkrts of it from em. m2seriah and Products made . recyc m them. permits for new landfills and eo0eet sncin. Torsshouldbegnnredonlc'upon, WY shooing rh,r the facllin•'s size is bocci °Pon [he selling assumption that 211 feasible order r manures will star betaken to reduce the `htln ° waste stream using source reduction and Final recti I, at ' to of 11'has should be done nigh that part of 100 ton the waste Sir eam which cannot be MINN CONONUED ON PAGE 32 has inn I MAKING RECYCLING WORK Successful Prograrns, Future Strategies VFW ome cities and towns have been working 2t recycling for a long program celled "shared sarin s.' it work Thr cxpre Ind nemoccofeound untto in, Ile like Pres private wings." The rccyclers i `Cfl and community Japan and L'.5. cities like Berkelen•, recycle newspaper.P rely S 1 J Per Ion to ldmnblrg' and ,ll' Profits for reyles n, is results (o both h sratc Ind Ionl Officialsout` ch u'ak2d cin•, chi amb III ous ch would othcrss•isc have ro pay programs. No assess or mor° Sl: per tonto dump the news , yet possible of the three corns transfer station. •P Pers ora initiatives profiled here—regulatory C this each u•s bcgin.d )•ar—Isut they mark the Ne* Regulalory Inlllaflves sr fri i n( what Promises ro Ise a new sophistinto and far-reaching NEW JERSEY: Aj;cta Vs a too ycling iniriativcS. leader in mo recycling efforts , theoil to m scare recently Programs That source sc andItaly recycling and Work p ration. Each 'counr0 is d�igncnar'd ,s ,solid n•asrc planning JAPAN: This country is usually cited as Ind must submit a hoeing one of rhe best teevclin Rcn•clIn Plan District minims in the world. g °f Faliro 1O the state Dcpattmcnr e crate The Japanese The plans Prorecdon for approval. aPF°ties , whh dlfferbrnrgts• into ses•en P m must target reductions at at lost l3 Percent by the end of the first n different dans. Over 95Pesrollened year and 13 ru•spaprrs, i0 percent of second s. percent by the end of rhe percent of steel and tar. P�eh municipality must uminum ons, and 3 0 perccnr of lass eta a •lluma pal rtles ,rr recycled, g ado tasourm- Ra.. COOniP�AorRKELE, P sepanrion ordinance , and reM4,, Cr1lIFORNI patCie.rollmion sysrem for separated +Cody rerydes ?0 ',' The city materials. 3,000 eonsoigarba a percent of the pHILADEIP r, utin , g sr generates each HIti PENNSYLVANIA; ,;(tv g mmbmarion of curbside metal reluctance, Mayor Wilson enian, composting of Bard brush recently si Goode erred ar Ciro 0 Orr m•C, an ordinance u•'rh a goal landfill. Thy ffsrres'andsalvageat g50porce torthI, T,,s2,000 City Council recently to pet day off wares by L 99 ed to aim for a goal of SO percent tu•o ears, 211 ho 1 tilt in cling by Ian im IIIc•, Coes and businesses will rnorium on m poses five-year more rh sepanre their garbage into no rutrsretion of inancmors. Can manhfaur bundles, The cin• an BURG, NEW YORK This town of who fails to pickup from any resident 00I cycles an estimated 3} ownPercof comply, s trash through 2 mandatory MAINE The stare's neu•solid waste lou• is !mg ll gram. Garbage is not deigned to reduce the "a UMC of waste ed unless it u properly separated. and- in on, the town found market for grnenrion crease the level of the r recycling• A new Office of 11•aste m•eled in and, in Rcci'clingandRcc1 o emure Stability, has stuck with snrc reeydin etion n"lirompletea s•rn when prices 1121.0 gonedou•n. MOST crunaBf Plan by January 1, 1989. rg reC*v IM 300 tons of glass, }}0 solid ultsm din Dial ming is nod to other newspaper ,rad nrdboard, and lou'• a license n methods Tinder the s of ons annually. din n n be issued for a u•2sse disposal facility only after 2 licensing EAPOU4 MINNESOTA: This cit , board fords th2r u•atre volume has been plcmented ( S reduced Noi,emp=r/lac>mb:a onvard-thinking 2hle by m rhe gravitationgravitationgravitationevsrnr n m•ling 2nd source reduaiorrn r 1987 13 6y9 STERIUZATION CONTINUED FROM PAGE I6 I,. Is he psvchnloynr, .err LL Ihnrmlike Lrwn li'"to' amt Role. Terkel The Ila uvluJn mdl-nu. 116. ocher Geld, n.dl, the"' uml. r, •horn .car gone amve m rhe,mm. 34 T lar rs-i Chda,m. ap. Co.. pp. 41.42. Ibid., pp. 44, 56. Jo. do Address by Dr. ro Fnd.. FInchmumnr [.,.he Imrnor. We" he Fm, 6 mo,ff of he E,{en Cnunsil far Population and R,o.Pabnn, held an elm, June J M8, 1933- Evee 1111 Nr.-,, ell. 19, m.., ,\larch'.{peal 1934. p. 34. This aro hrpn p,o nesesnly be uenlurd. Cap eau no, V, -no, p uPnms of Nurnjon, uprcprion, muroayr rolneu0no mJ ,anon mold hmN. Thu was the,{moon ruga n . ell. 17. F. Osbom, Grrua, Leon F<6. 34. 19J7, Srnpbook, American Eupmin Society Pnpe,6 BA 6. For the (i,rman Innillamon sulunn• sea G. fka{, "Racism andi,.- " jn 117rn Bia/ep BnmrrDminp ii:fMin'pe;Ium'uklieriii:ea Ln,vlehrn IO.• only 1930. Sheabo noI dol FOmen and 49o.amm JN I a a ,null of rhe suI ny. ,\Iran dMile mania nn also be found in Hero Harmsrn, "Thr C. Srrilinrian An of 193J," h'aprnan In Rri . vol. 46, In, 4. 1935. nn. ;:7•J32. Iry lahon t renin (New nran ai eaavtionm fonhe Third Rnchinnumtte npartoa. "h he toned;' be arpuN, ".•jrh r l"ute, basic In the couln. m.sui0 con., rhntice ofr httrl it inch I IIhinp u life not w'anhu W be lived." For an eamordimn' anidr on the cont 1. we of hear nmr ps'cholepinl merlum,ms, tin RIthaI Cmldvnn and Pnnet Brabn, •'Tnhrdsum of Tanurr: How Ph)Yinam &come APmn of &ne Tttror;' in Thr Bdmrn, a U111 1 ion of the \ru' lbrk .{ndnnr o(,11Nidn, ardl'•{pril IVB6. The article raammea torture jn tool and Ceaonl Amttin in rhe 111, n. v9. Tetuan>_ -i ChiL{rm. op. civ, p. if. 30. Ibud, pp. if, 46. f I. m me Sullins 1973 for his work in off'• His mshwiusie approval a! Noxi magma ted. Sit sod I eo tannic EalholoFinl Theonn Esplam eon and Ideology. 193&1943--1 aa,aal of rN Nuren rJ BaI vol, le, no. I•Spnng 1983. pp•30.33. 7.. Quoted from pose, or. cal.. P. 349. 33. "Eugenia in Gerona in 1946;' Eo mtid x�Y,YOL'I.no..,JJanC 1946, p.?I, a 74. Fora nanpMe deacnprisn o(.hlmpele's work a Wash. =* and his rebn eat hip Io {'mchun, see R. .iiron. 71r \'_r n..._. _ mchua i amnuea eond In under Thr Saai rrlpvne u "misdn minium and tined him 6110 Mail,. He connnued his illusion. ann,and rnirNuthairtrt e on chs• Dcwmmns of Canmn d I974. 35, Humphrey, was head of the Drpanmrnr of Pn'e6sloPv. Noor o(the PnrhehpBa/ BW/nin and true irorruror frond eJPrrriwip. and the Ierond•hiphrn admjm,mmr ,n'be Smorol Snmre Found Ulan. 36. Lloyd Humphny't. "Intelliprna and Public Polis•," •Paper PresemN act he ,ympolium Innllipnue, ,,ylea,urmumr and Public Polity.;' held in hens, of HumrhrnYi muemenr from held Cnirenny of Ilhnnis. ,April 30..11ar ], 1983. The L'nivmi,y of Illinois Press i, pubhlhunr the Po sendow, of doe rnnferm,e_ 32 WASTE LAND CONTINUED FROM PAGE 13 reccclol? Practically speaking thcamou that is inrincnted will be determined i large parr, by the number of incinerator that have already been built or at currently under construction. I(rhar is th F ,; case, more garbage will be burned than w people like Neil Scldman and Barry k Commoner would like The most important consideration for he nontecy'clible waste, u•herher it is landfilled or incinerated, is ro ensure that the facilities arc equipped with sraI of c -art pollmion moot 1ahnology and hcavily moniror� m msurc complimr. .4 massive shift from fall ills and fnoll loss m I c..cling will f uirc an even more massive shift in the u•av individuals and communities think about garbage. The current labra c of moff consumers is summed up by a woman in San BemadmcS Califomia. ll'hm asked her view about a proposed solid waste policy, S he replied, "lihv do We need to chance mashing? f put my garbage out on she Si dewalk and They take it turas•," ds Cynthia Pollock of she Worlilivatch In it hu u•d'Tell, "7hefaathatthereis no real 'au'av' (or throu always hisnot vo it home." Thus, the most difficult parr of developing a rational solid waste manage- ment policy will not be makine the choice among disposal technologies, or even designing a «cubion• spstan to Lmplanm, that choice The crux of the problem is convincing individuals—and government agencies—that they can no longer send their garbage our and forpr, about it, Perhaps solid waste policy should be bucd on a rule put is rth by Neil Seidman and the Institute for Local Sell -Reliance: no waste can be disposed of more thin ern mil from where it is Peneratcd. J HERITABIUTY CONTINUED FROM PAGE 23 ns tri"ell eye and demand much standards IT of proof. Clarms that things arc 6 changeable, hisw'ever. sato self-v%idsntly C true ,o us, so we scrutinize them much c Its. We should not tolerate this double standard. licredirarI bom on amassing evidence of The fixin• of our biological Palates, while, for us, the research agenda is to drrminc how• ro Po about changing Things. }'a, again, the positions are not svmmcrlcal. Heredinrians daiui to have the same imerst as anti-hercditarians, to determine how much change is possible so that we may act ratiomlly in social programs. But if that is Scally he hereditarian agenda, why do they keep studying heritability, which simple logic ,ells us cannot give the answer to the problem: Why do rhes• not desicnsmdics rook the questions about changeability dircoh, Because the answer would come out •in file wrong direction. It is here that rhe deep asymmetry' of The ideological positions realla• TICS. ( human soft really tumI or he rcor4v cS. then the political •agenda of the left is iri elct'ant and those of us it -hose lives arc devoted to bringing about such change are doomed to failure. That is, for the left a knowledge of The truth about these questions is absolutely essential, Orh a mad person would donare his or her life to an activist- known to be contrary to nature. For the richt, however, thetmth of the matter is of no great moment. Even if Sfioet' were as changeable a the left claims, the right could, with perfect coherence and with the assurance of considerable success, resist that change. To delude themselves and evervone else abour the meaning of heritabilin• isnot Pnaially and politically in contndinion with the social agenda of the riehr. 14'ith enough power, one nn Solis, change almost indefinitely. Thus, the two ideologies have very' different stakes in finding out ,he rru,h about human flexibility, .VOTES I. R.0 Leu'ontin. "Race and Imc!!ipence" Rul/rrin of rhe "'"if Srfrnru t, trot. ?6, no, 3, 1970, pp, 2.8. '. R.C. Lewont!n and ,ILII', Feldman 'Tear Hniobilbt• Hang•up; 'Snout, no. 190, 1976, pp. 1163.1168. 3. "Genetic Aspects of Intellipma;' .Inlaid Rrei—i of Gmelin, no. 9, 1967, pp, 38;•405, 4. L.J. Gamin. 77,e Srirnrr and Polircraf lQ. John Wiley and Sons, I974. Science for the PeoPle6erQ 1185 E. Jefferson St Iowa City, Ia 4/21/88 City Managee Stephen Atkins �( and Q _ 1988 Iowa City Council members Dear friends: MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK ('s) For some time, some of us in the Senior Center have been disappointed with the situation in our handsome building The recent issue of the Senior Post with its two articles (p.l and p.4) challenge us to think seriously about strategies for improving the situation. Thanks to funds provided by the federal government and Iowa City, we in Iowa City have a very attractive, spacious facility. We studied the federal guidelines as we planned the move from 61ose Mansion to the new center. One of the guidelines was: --to have annual survey of those who use the center both as volunteers, staff and friends --just to monitor our performance. With the University's resource of current developments in areas of Social Bork and technological innovations, we could readily design appropriate decodable summaries that would reveal our strengths and weakness in current programs in the building. There is no gain, --just tension and hostility --as seniors -- the intended fo�,_,cvs of the program are labelled ttLSvesL Certainly, if Iowa City ranks so high with its youngsters' scores on national tests, it stands to reason, that there are some fairly "smart" adults now in the "senior" age group in our area. My second recommendation—,'s to look into the selection of our Senior Center Commissic:.. Only one or two of that commission is ever seen in the building except for the once -a -month Commission meeting. .lith as many able-bodied, seasoned retired adults in town „ wouldn't it be possible to discover persons to serve on the commi_cSion, who had the time and interest to mingle around, participate, size up the us&ts of the center. , N-) v ES My third concern is eeneer o wi-th the library use. Vie are so lucky to have an attractive reading center. Why not, open the Library Committee to our interested "senior citizenry" to see whether we couldn't arrange to have minimal supervision more hours of the week, so that resources could be more widely used. We could have book reviews or discuss current issues. Here's hoping, that one by one the missing new Encyclopedias will be returned and we can regain our friendly, trusting relationships during these "phasing out" days of our life! You, our City Council can help us, busy tho you are! Sincerely, KLIL11- � 9� I 109 South Johnson Street Iowa City, Iowa $2240 April 18, 1988 I I To Whom it May Concerns There has been much discussion regarding the elderly since Bette Meisel and Lori Benz wrote the two articles in the Senior Post recently. Does anyone really believe the elderly populhttion is any ss section rent as tor far as greediness and theft are concerned than any population? We must get down to the question. Why are the books missing? Wouldn't i1 this same condition exist if books were handled in a public school, church library, or elsewhere as they are in the Senior Center? If there is an open ; room for books with no one present to check the books in or out, why wouldn't many be missing? It seems to me that the system is at fault. In some cases I believe people have taken the books to read and haven't } returned them yet -- why hurry since no one is checking up. I am sorry our Senior Post had such aegative articles about the Johnson County Senior Citizens who come to the Center. i As far as the garden surplusses are concerned, the volunthers need to make rules for themselves and take turns enforcing them. I As far as the bread is concerned, the same holds true. The volunteers need to decide in a democratic way how to handle charitable donations and how- to enforce the rules. What really is needed in all these matters is warm, kind, friendly leadership. Sincerely, s. Lorna L. Mathes CCs City Manager Members of City Council Chairman, Senior Center Commission Chairman, Council of Elders �ILlly �IUUj� -.32'1988 i MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK (3) �� APR 201988 4 i9, �98Y MARIAN K. KARR CLERK (3) J p 4 alLJa�.�� -L•ai .� •-rt ��-eL -Lt� �e.c�-Q -, I (/• ��-� -'�'-�-+�i2eJ`� �h¢.citJ �z•�- �y�-�-e-�.�aJ G� � � ��— � � CY�a'•-rL—Q`/-GG.`�'�c•'� z i- : _ e 7 �� �Gv-P�c�a-� �uJ <Li L ,!J �Lt�zauy l/� �%Zl/, / jiLo•'L`y L' fes, LPi G� �Y� �K?/ •�!7 .c Chi �L� �.(/ cC/�4iytoZ LL�'tit .LG^/2J-QJ GL Ii.•b .� FiGtet�i✓ Lc7 Lst/ •u"��` q,�/-�J ,s�zi�--�J .Gc�'rL?� i /,'L/#i .LC .GC-I'a)'LP/ • iV-C�//J LE -r �P///I�-Q�c�-1�s✓ ��T//P LL -f/ //L6't��� -/�/ �C.� t% ��/Jiy,�• L /L(' �i�I /j/L�(/�ila.—� ,4t !i'�l LGI�—tix/� /� /J�Q-tc�C�/' A-� •LY% •-Y�Y.� P/t�l� 4/JiGL "'/LtiL-lam .vJJ 1 ��� /JiyL¢JI . w 1��, �.e�A.�f� �/L•' �c�l't-E/' . ���, "���iC� .LG'�C-1�t./�/�.,/ - ""� .C� �/ �W` � LL C-� L �[•Q/ iJ% L.. �eCa� �G/ �a.G L aiL� +c�CIJ t i! 6`ZfJ �a�� �///u//' �Ga�l��/ .e�t,PJ .L�/ I//Z.�'•� �W/-�liJ Z�ie/ .P��L•�-, Gs-�L..tic�-r->•+�aJ ate.-�L.�