Blogs

RU Feedback Letter Board Response

2019 Board Retreat

INVITATION TO INCLUSIVITY AND AWARENESS FROM YOUR NCRA BOARD
By The NCRA Board, 7/9/19
The Board of Directors would like to acknowledge receipt of an anonymous letter in late May reflecting on the recent Recycling Update (RU) conference hosted on March 19, 2019. Part of the letter is presented at right while the entire three-page letter – with one name redacted, is available on the website.

The author self-identified as a supporter, community member, member of present and future generations, and a person of color. S/he addressed the board on uncomfortable RU content and generally inviting the organization to reflect on its role in rooting Zero Waste in environmental justice and ethnic equity.

First, we appreciate the courage it must have taken to share these reflections, let alone to attend RU again when the content and environment was previously experienced as alienating and disturbing. We understand that the invitation is less to draw attention to the individual’s discomfort but rather to reassess our role in contributing to a Zero Waste world that serves the urgent goals of ethnic equity, collaboration and inclusion. We hear you. We are grateful for you for speaking up.

We apologize for facilitating a conference that did not welcome all equitably and may have propagated microaggressions, such as depicting people of color performing undesirable behaviors while white people were shown demonstrating desired behaviors. We own the impact that our collective lack of attention to these details had on at least one attendee. For that, we apologize.

We accept the challenge to adopt inclusivity, collaboration and ethnic equity as a guiding mission at NCRA. We own our role as a board in crafting the content framework of RU and as a space for the diverse NCRA membership and non-members to explore and learn. Our intention is to serve all. We are committing to leveraging resources for our membership and broader communities to that aim.

We invite you to join us, your Board, to reflect on NCRA’s history and re-center our shared mission around diversity, equity, inclusion and collaboration. We are gathering a subcommittee to consider the resources available. Please, join us in this important work of reorienting our zero waste work to build a more just and inclusive movement.

Let us know your experience, thoughts, reflections and interest in joining the initiative at by completing the NCRA Inclusivity Survey. Also use it to share any resources you think will help on this journey. We would also appreciate hearing from anyone who would be willing to assist with organizing RU next year, helping to select RU speakers, or giving a presentation at RU that addresses environmental justice or related issues.

Responses – anonymous or signed can also be mailed to: NCRA, PO Box 5581, Berkeley, CA 94705-5581

 

Recycling Update Evaluation Results 2019

By Rebecca Jewell, RU Co-Organizer and Portia Sinnott, Editor
68 surveys were received out of 430 registrations – 16%; 10% is considered a good response. Approximately 120 comments were submitted including 29+ recommendations for next year. Only a few respondents skipped questions, except for Q11. NCRA Events Outside of Zero Waste Week, received 21 responses and 47 skips.

Q1. Overall: 91% of the respondents said the Conference was Excellent – 54% or Good – 37%. Nine percent said okay and no one – 0% said they did not enjoy the Conference.
Q2. Topics: 90% were satisfied or very satisfied with the Speaker topics.
Q3. Recommendations: Almost half – 46%, made speaker recommendations or other suggestions for next year.
Q4. Subjects: The top ten subjects they would like to see more of in 2020 were EPR, Food Waste Reduction, Public Education Strategies, Food Recovery, Legislation and Regulations, Reuse/Repair, Product Bans, Product Redesign, Franchise Innovations and Zero Waste Businesses.
Q5. Price: 80% said the price was just right for the content; 9% would pay more, 7% a little expensive, 4.69% too expensive.
Q6. ZWW Events: When asked which of the other Zero Waste Week events they found valuable, more than half – 55%, said they were not able to attend the other events, 31%, said Green Drinks, 14% Zero Waste Youth Convergence and 13% Devil We Know film screening and discussion.
Q7. Zero Waste Week: 76% of folks said they think we should continue to offer Zero Waste Week, 1.5% said No and 22% No Opinion.
Q8. NCRA News: 88% read the NCRA News; 47% said they read it monthly while 41% said they read it occasionally. (One suggestion was to include it on the NCRA Facebook page.)
Q9. Membership: 79% of the respondents are NCRA members.
Q10. Member Satisfaction: 73% are satisfied with the services and information NCRA offers to its membership; specifically, 31% are very satisfied, 42% satisfied and 5% are neutral; 19% are non-members. There were zero comments.
Q11. NCRA Events Outside of ZWW: Only 21 respondents answered this question. 57% attend Tours, 52% Networking Mixers, 33% Annual Meetings, 29% the Annual Picnic, 24% Board Meetings and 10% the Semi-annual Holiday Party.
Q12: Lunch: 75% thought highly of the lunch: Excellent – 53% or Good – 22%. Nine suggestions were provided including a better system rewarding folks who brought their own plate and telling folks in advance what’s on the menu so they can choose to bring their lunch.
Q13: Profession or Affiliation: 53% of attendees are government employees, 13% consultants, 7% educators; 10% franchised waste haulers/recycler; 7% are non-profits, 7% are educators, 6% businesses, 6% activists, 7% other and 0% Independent recycler/composter.

Comments List In Question And Submittal Order
Editor’s Note: One comment was edited to remove identifiable references. The two specific individuals were apprised of these comments via email and phone.

Q1. Overall

  1. There were a few sessions I found informative, but it lacked interesting/new/innovative speakers that the conference has showcased in the past.
  2. Please print Name and Organization in larger font on the tags. The tags were almost illegible. There is plenty of room, and this will facilitate conversations.
  3. Such range and depth — love the format too!
  4. Topics seemed a little bland and heavy focus on recycling vs higher up the hierarchy (rethink, redesign, reuse, refuse). My favorite presenter was ironically the least technological -Plate Scrape!
  5. Best NCRA I’ve ever attended.
  6. I just love hearing from all aspects of the recycle community.
  7. Need to touch more topics like implications of China’s ban
  8. I very much like the lightning style, but I think you should allocate 5 minutes for questions. There are always more questions than time, and not enough networking time to follow up later.
  9. I wish there was more diversity with presenters and we could hear from communities too instead of solely industry speakers.
  10. It is my Not To be Missed annual event!
  11. The ten minutes format was a bit too short. Fewer, and more selective, choices would be better.
  12. Presentations were not particularly engaging, but event was well organized

Q2: Topics

  1. I would have liked to see more food waste reduction topics, more focus on topics that are current news, issues cities and counties are faced with such as SB1383, Plastic reduction (great to see Berkeley’s ordinance), more innovative public/private partnerships.
  2. Some good topics. Others felt like they had been discussed before.
  3. Because we do not live a society with a justice system that benefits everyone I did not care for the illegal dumping topic. I also did not care for the XXXXX speaker as she clearly does not know what Environmental Justice means and joked about it.  XXXX.
  4. It was such a wide variety, and some were not relevant to my work. Some were a little too far “out there”, and for example didn’t think Sabatini’s presentation offered anything. I would like to see more “practical” presentations, case studies or pilot studies of new programs, outreach ideas, etc. For example, Gigantic Idea’s presentation was great.
  5. Is it possible for NCRA to review speaker slides ahead of time & help edit down? Some of the speakers had way too much text/hard to read charts or graphic illustrations on their slides. If NCRA can provide guidelines for slides–maybe even limit the total number of slides the speaker can have/text, it would make their presentations more effective. Also, help speakers do a run through of their videos to make sure they work before the presentations. Some speakers had more success than others with showing video content.
  6. Not enough cutting edge, need more about plastic, some speakers not very good
  7. There were a few that got zero questions, and that was often l indicative of who might have been left off list in my longer-than-ten-minutes suggestion.
  8. Some presenters had poor presentation skills, and others presented on topics that were forgettable

Q3: Recommendations

  1. Please make sure to include statewide policy directions. I missed that.
  2. Loop (Terracycle)
  3. Given the recycling processing market crisis, this topic is something many people are interested in learning more about and would be good to cover more of this
  4. Generally I appreciate the speaker themes you come up with. I find I like the cutting edge/hard to handle discard issues the best-such as alternatives to landfilling dog shit!
  5. David Alloway,
  6. Markets, which companies are recycling materials into new products, where are they?
  7. Folks from out of state. There are too many locals we’ve heard from before
  8. New take on upcoming policies (state and local), how to actively implement 1383 (maybe more than one consecutive speaker)
  9. The Berkeley foodware and litter reduction ordinance
  10. Max Weschler – Urban Ore, James Slattery, SF Environment – C&D, Michael Siminitus, ZW Events, mark Funkhauser, Chumash Casino Resort – Tribal ZW & TRUE ZW Certification Process
  11. Would love some sort of global bin comparison study – who’s using what and how happy they are with them. so difficult when each entity has to do the research from scratch!
  12. A few speakers on SB 1383. What about a pre-recorded talk from a processor from China?
  13. Can we hear from more school-based programs? Universities and K-12 alike.
  14. Please have the projector set up and expanded as much as possible before presenters begin speaking. Many of the presentations in the morning were hard to view until the projection was expanded later in the day.
  15. More details on SB1383 requirements and how to do it; recycling markets – let’s hear from the sellers or processors of materials
  16. More on latest technologies
  17. It would be interesting to have speakers from environmental organizations like: Women’s Environmental Network (WEN), Cascadia Consulting Group, Green Mary, Replate, Olio, Farming Hope, Imperfect Produce, Rethink Waste, Stopwaste
  18. More on circular economy, hazards in plastics, more on how we can create policies that galvanize more reuse, recycling like a requirement for x% of recycled content in everything!
  19. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sunrise Movement, 350.org’s Youth vs. Apocalypse, anyone who cares about creating a more inclusive zero waste/environmental movement.
  20. More on how cities etc are approaching SB 1383, AB 1826 compliance, etc.
  21. Provide presentation guidelines to all presenters with some basics (1 page and some helpful links) on how to create and deliver engaging presentations in the given time restrictions. Many presenters are not prepared (don’t know they have 10 minutes, don’t know how to give a 10 minute presentation) or cram too much into their time. It’s a unique challenge to be asked to present, often very complex topics with narratives in a short period. Presenters could use some help from NCRA to guide them on how to make the most of their time and the audience’s time. Simple suggestions could include a major emphasis on keeping presentations to 10 minutes, practicing, giving a slide # recommendation (15 or less), and being consise with their stories and complex concepts. OVERALL, some presenters are great and all usually have relevant and important stories to tell. However, the way that some people present distracts from the audience’s ability to digest, understand and appreciate their message.
  22. Allow 1 & 5 minute speakers again too. Limit number of slides, words per slide and font size (no unreadable slides). Encourage more than powerpoints–mix it up. Allow people to talk with each other outside–it’s often better than the speakers. Thanks.
  23. I think the private company folks should be vetted further – like the first speaker who talked about circle economy and highlighted ikea and other companies’ greenwashed tactics as a good thing.
  24. Ellen MacArthur Foundation representative that can present the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment report efforts to address plastic pollution
  25. More examples of partnerships versus individual representative
  26. Cutting edge products like platescaper or new cutting edge services, toxicity of plastic pollution
  27. Longer than ten minutes. Actually, have some longer, some shorter. I once went to a conference where a session had several 99 second talks, and it was FUN, and not for the faint of heart presenter.
  28. It’s interesting to hear of innovative new products, but I don’t think vendors necessarily need to have their own presentation slot
  29. Mark Nicolas, SFE re: SFRecycles & presenting clearly

Q4: Subjects

  1. Who are the “players’ with legislation? (industry, key legislators)
  2. Reduction: foodware and litter
  3. C&D
  4. Textile Management / Microfibers / Reuse & Recycling
  5. Markets
  6. Technology
  7. Regional/multi agency partnerships
  8. Suggest that you might offer roundtable discussions to brainstorm policy/legislation
  9. Outreach, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
  10. Scaling source reduction and reuse beyond boutique efforts.
  11. Emphasis on waste prevention

Q5 Price:

  1. Great learning/$

Q6 ZWW Events

  1. I wouldn’t mind a 20-30 minute Q+A session for the entire group to be able to bring up certain questions/issues and see how other folks/municipalities are handling/facing those challenges (separate from the dedicated speaker format)
  2. Very nice & tasty reception. Loved the veggies & tater tots.
  3. I wish I had heard of swap-o-rama earlier, as I wasn’t able to make it because I somehow missed the memo until after the date passed!
  4. Once BART is available from San Jose, I will be able to attend more events.
  5. Was everything on the website? I didn’t see all of these listed.
  6. Living so far away, I was unable to attend other events but would have enjoyed many of them if I were closer
  7. Green Drinks is always great
  8. Green Drinks was great! An awesome opportunity to meet people.
  9. Getting pretty crowded at Spat’s, time to try a different venue with more space

Q7. Zero Waste Week

  1. Altho it depends on the amount of work /effort required for a full week of events.
  2. I think it’s fantastic to offer ZWW because it helps build the culture.
  3. YES, it is a very educational and inspiring week of Zero Waste events!!!
  4. If there are enough people participating in the other ZWW events besides RU. It’s hard for me to make the other events during the week, so for me only able to attend RU. Definitely think ZWYC over the weekend is a good event to sustain.

Q8. NCRA News

  1. Crazy busy
  2. I like to keep abreast of trends.
  3. Good content, but I get too many emails to stay on top of them all
  4. Didn’t know about it
  5. I am newly subscribed to NCRA News, but I’d like to read more of it!
  6. I am interested in the content.
  7. I don’t get it.
  8. I signed up on the FaceBook page immediately after the conference, and hope to stay more frequently updated that way.
  9. busy
  10. I don’t receive it, not a member
  11. I read the newsletter
  12. Updates, Jobs and events
  13. it’s very valuable material and perspective
  14. Keep up on lies, rumors and gossip
  15. I’m new. Not bored
  16. Good information to stay abreast of current events, but I really only read when I have time
  17. Great article topics and updates, helps keep me well informed.
  18. Just learned about NCRA prior to this event.

Q9. Membership

  1. The City of San Jose’s structure requires a staff rotation for memberships and conference attendance.
  2. Colleague is one, and NCRA topics don’t have enough composting/organics related topics for me to warrant membership
  3. No longer based in Bay Area but considering joining anyway again
  4. Just learned about NCRA prior to this event.

Q10. Member Satisfaction – 0 comments

Q11. NCRA Events Outside of ZWW

  1. none
  2. The traffic from South bay is too hard to overcome.
  3. N/A
  4. Hard these days due to family commitments.
  5. Haven’t been able to attend Bay Area events since I moved to San Luis Obispo
  6. I would attend a networking mixer located in the South Bay.
  7. I’m new. First event for me

Q12: Lunch

  1. I always go out for vegan food since I am in Berkeley and there isn’t much at the RU.
  2. I’m gluten-free, not meat-free, so I wind up taking a sandwich and throwing away the bread. Not ideal!
  3. Quinoa is great, but every year it seems the same recipe?
  4. The bread in vegan option was dry
  5. Why does the side salad always have to include quinoa? Yuck!
  6. Great food! Please let people know what’s on menu so we know whether to bring our own (for those with food allergies). You provided GF and vegan which was awesome! And I did bring my own lunch which wasn’t necessary.
  7. I really enjoyed having a vegan option and coffee creamers. The lunch and snacks were great.
  8. Cookies at lunchtime and/or breaks. Not at breakfast.

Q13: Profession or Affiliation

  1. I wear lots of “hats!”
  2. Staff for UC’s system wide Zero Waste Working Group
  3. University
  4. Student
  5. Family office

# # #

Tonight’s Board Meeting Details and Agenda

Board of Directors Meeting: 6/20/19, 6:30 pm

Location: John Moore’s office, 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor Oakland, CA

Check-in with security in the lobby.

Call 925 913-0143 if you need assistance calling in or getting into the building

Thanks!

Board Meeting Agenda, 6/20/19

6:30 pm Meeting called to order

6:30 pm Actions Requiring Discussion/Policy Decisions

      1. Request from Arthur Boone regarding Boone/Stein Lawsuit (20 mins)
      2. Anonymous RU Complaint (20 mins)
      3. International Zero Waste Conference with NRC (20 mins)
      4. Social Media Contractor (20 mins)
      5. RU Videos (10 mins)

8:00 pm Treasurer’s Report

      1. Financial reports – 2019 Year to Date
      2. 2019 Budget

8:15 pm Actions Requiring Expenditures

8:20 pm Report by Committee: (15-20 mins each)

      1. Membership, Engagement & Activities (Bradley/Dewey-Mattia)
      2. Zero Waste Advocacy (Brooms/Moore)
      3. Communications Committee (Bekkerman)

9:00 pm Adjournment

Request To Support the Boone/Stein O-MRF/MxWP Lawsuit

REQUEST TO THE NCRA BOARD AND MEMBERSHIP TO SUPPORT THE BOONE/STEIN O-MRF/MxWP LAWSUIT AND PROVIDE AN AMICUS BRIEF

By Arthur R. Boone, Center for Recycling Research (CRR) and former NCRA President and long-term Board Member, 6/13/19, arboone3@gmail.com. Antoinette Stein, Ph.D. also contributed to this article.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: For over 20 years, Waste Management of Alameda County has been planning to begin composting at their Davis Street Transfer Station (DSTS) near the bay in San Leandro. In the late 1990s an outdoor project was planned but due to worries about odors and equipment noise it was scrapped. In 2010 a second plan surfaced with indoor materials reception, prep and anaerobic composting envisioned. The City of San Leandro (CSL) approved that plan in 2011 and construction was completed on the building but not the inner workings. For some time, starting in late 2011, WMAC staff explored the idea of a mixed waste processing (MxWP) facility replacing the organics material prep space in the northeast building, which firmed up into a plan submitted in December 2016 to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA) with project review hearings in February and March, 2017.

Antoinette Stein, Ph.D., then a member of the Alameda County Recycling Board – a sibling agency to the ACWMA, and Arthur , former NCRA president, spoke at all three hearings of the project’s deficiencies as they saw them. In late March the ACWMA approved the project and Stein/Boone sought court review. At the Superior Court hearings, the judge agreed that substantial change was made to the project namely that it had tripled in amount of material being processed. She gave two tentative rulings in their favor only to reverse herself after hearing from attorneys on both sides of the issue. Since the middle of 2018, the matter has been before the court of appeals for this area and each of the parties have filed opening briefs and are in their final days of telling the court why they are right.

Stein/Boone are currently seeking persons and organizations (including NCRA) to endorse their side of the conflict and to file a document with the court known as an amicus brief which would state why NCRA supports the Stein/Boone position. NCRA president David Krueger has agendized the matter for the June 20, 2019 board meeting and all NCRA members are being given this briefing via the NCRA News for full enlightenment. Both the City of Oakland and the ACWMA are aware of this document and Stein/Boone think it only fair for NCRA members and boardmembers to hear and understand both sides of the issues being contended.

At the NCRA board meeting next Thursday, the board will be asked to approve of our lawsuit and to file an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals to explain how the WMAC/City of Oakland proposal to build a mixed waste processing plant (MxWP) in San Leandro, now known as an O-MRF, with an indoor composting facility and a separate anaerobic digestion (AD) facility and the ACWMA’s decision to approve the project were in error. Because of the way the matter is framed, the ACWMA is known as the respondent and the garbage company is spoken of as “a real party in interest.”

Ten Issues

  1. Measure D Issue: In its “Findings” section, Measure D 1990, now known as the Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Ordinance, calls for serious attention to source separation. Section E reads in part: “Each person discards materials and should therefore be involved in solving the problems caused by the disposal of such materials; this involvement must include changes in individual behavior resulting from each person’s awareness of her or his role in creating or finding solutions to environmental problems.” There was no consideration of these strictures by the ACWMA, the City of Oakland, or any other person involved in the matter in the record in regards to this project.
  2. Participation Impacts Issue: Mr. Peter Maass, a councilmember from Albany on the ACWMA, asked at the hearings what would be the effect be of starting a garbage sorting factory to separate organics and recyclables from regular garbage to the current collection of green and blue cart materials. We know that local governments in Alameda County spend up to $50 million a year on their green cart collections programs; how many persons will stop sorting their discards? The proposer had no answer but the agency pushed on.
  3. Compost Quality Issue: Teresa Eade has been the organics lead at the ACWMA for several years with over 20-years’ experience in promoting composting programs. She heard the WMAC representative talk about composting with organics sorted-out from mixed waste and asked him via e-mail to answer her questions about the quality of compost made from mixed waste materials. He replied in general terms but also sent along technical articles, especially one from the UK Environmental Agency, that explained in detail the difficulty and toxic contamination impacts of mixing metals and plastics with organics in anaerobic digestion that then resulted in certain heavy metals migrating into the compost and making it unsuitable for agricultural application. (A phenomenon well documented in Europe). In 2018, the European Union ruled that by 2020 all organics throughout the 26 countries should be collected using source-separated methods. The reports he sent to Ms. Eade are in the administrative record but the ACWMA appears never to have considered them.
  4. MxWP Failures Issue: Arthur Boone is a 35 year veteran of the recycling industry but with limited knowledge of mixed waste processing and anaerobic digestion, but was useful because of his extensive history in garbage/recycling interface. His first comment at the hearings asked for some third party statements about MxWP. What he learned later was that both the Recycling Industries Coalition and the National Recycling Coalition had both opposed mixed waste processing with policy statements issued six months before the hearings. There are numerous failed mixed waste projects around the US and the mistreatment of discarded papers in mixed waste which end up in the compost feedstock also creates compost quality problems; Boone’s concerns were ignored. The agency relied throughout the proceedings exclusively on what the proposers said about the project and got no third-party input.
  5. Emissions Issue: Ms. Antoinette Stein was a member of the Recycling Board when the proceedings began. An Air Pollution Research Scientist, she has an extensive background in toxics and dealing with gaseous emissions from industrial processes. Her major concern was that they substantially changed the project after the 2011 CEQA approval, and that the new impacts needed to be addressed and mitigated especially in regards to the nearby disadvantaged community. She opposed the tripling the amount of organic material processed in the same size building, and the added step of removing odorous and toxic AD digestate when such activities were not permitted in the 2011 CEQA approval.

WMAC’s lead staffer said that the large biofilter installed outside the processing buildings would capture all gasses created in the buildings and would solve any and all of these problems. What he did not suggest was careful monitoring of the perimeter of the facility before and after operations began to check for methane levels in the ambient air. Methane is an odorless gas and whether it escaped into the atmosphere or was broken down in the biofilter would only be known by careful perimeter monitoring, odors were a big concern to WMAC but not all gasses have odors.

  1. Prior Support Issue: In September, 2016, four months before the hearings began, Ms. Sommer as agency director had written a letter to CalRecycle commending the project. This letter was never discussed at the hearings but turned up in the administrative record. The WMAC’s lead staffer said at a hearing that he had spent 18 months before the hearings telling people about the project and presumably had asked Ms, Sommer for this letter. Although there was no knowledge of this letter at the hearings, as it was disclosed after the hearing, it called into question any objectivity that staff might have had and, in general, the fairness of the proceedings.
  2. Environmental Impact Review Issue: CEQA says that when a project is modified with significant environmental effects, a re-doing of the EIR is required. In the first plan for this project, approved by the CSL in early 2011, the northeast building was fitted with simple screen and grinders as are found in many commonly-constructed compost prep facilities around California that receive source-separated materials. In the 2017 plan the northeast building was now fitted with 220 moving parts that would separate recyclables and compostables from garbage “up to 61%”. This is a very different function with very different outcomes and requires a full Environmental Impact Review (EIR). See Stein above on AD with mixed waste feedstocks.
  3. European MxWP Experience Issue: Europe’s has extensive experience with MxWP and AD; WMAC’s lead staffer bragged of the many facilities in Europe whose features were copied in this plan. He either didn’t know or failed to disclose that the EU was at the point of banning all composting from mixed waste materials in agricultural applications, a matter finalized in the summer of 2017, six months after the hearings were closed but discussed for years before enactment.  It would appear that composting a “dirty” (i.e. contaminated) feedstock creates a less valued compost that would have questionable (and never considered) markets.
  4. SB 1383 Compliance Issue: State law enacted in 2016 has drastic requirements for 2020 and 2025 in getting organics out of landfill-bound materials. This issue was not raised by any of the parties at the 2017 hearings but is very important in assessing the project’s long-term viability. By allowing and encouraging buyers of disposal services in Oakland to bypass green cart collection services by relying on the OMRF facility, the City of Oakland loses its control over the ability of some accounts to contribute to the city’s overall organics diversion goal. Is this good?
  5. Traffic Issue: In his statements at the hearings, WMAC’s lead staffer was proud that composting on site would reduce outbound truck trips. Since composting reduces the volume of compostable materials by (usually) about 50%, if it takes 12 truck trips each day to haul away all of DSTS’s compostable materials, it will take only 6 truckloads to haul away the finished compost; that would clearly be a local gain. Later on, however, this same spokesperson told his audience that he expected to line up other trucks from other communities to drive in that would use the facility as a “state of the art/first of its kind” project but he never mentioned the untabulated and not discussed increase in truck traffic by these new customers. (FYI, DSTS operates at about 60% of its daily rated capacity; all recyclables now collected in Oakland and Hayward never enter DSTS.)

In conclusion, as moving parties in this process, we are not asking the appeals court to end the project, we are simply asking the court to find defects in the procedures that can be addressed by a more careful examination of the facts as they exist. We hope that NCRA will join us in asking this review and reconsideration and include such items as it chooses in its brief.

PS. I was given a copy of NCRA President David Krueger’s response to our Support Request. In the same way that he disagrees with my statements and conclusions, I disagree with his. Over the weekend I will respond with clarity and brevity, and as planned add footnotes and references to this Request. NCRA members interested in reading my reply and the longer version are welcome to request it at arboone3@gmail.com. All boardmembers will get a copy long before the Thursday meeting. I appreciate the tone of this discussion and I hope we can all keep to the matters at hand and reach good decisions; so far so good. ARB