-------
B. Ethylene Manufacturing
1. Production of Crude Oil and Natural Gas; A production well
is classified as a gas or oil well, based on the ratio of oil production
to gas production. The definition of an oil well will typically cover those
wells which produce at least one barrel of oil to each 100,000 cubic feet
of natural gas. The gas well would be defined as a well having a lower crude
to gas ratio.
Figure C-3 shows a flow diagram for the production of oil and
natural gas.
Field processing is required to separate the oil, gas, and water.
The natural gas generally follows three routes: (1) the gas can be flared;
(2) some gas is returned to the underground formation to assist in future
production; and (3) the gas is transferred to a natural gas processing plant.
The crude oil is treated in water separators, and oil-gas separa-
tors. The resulting crude is pumped to storage tanks and eventually to a
refinery.
With respect to drilling for oil and gas, information is limited
concerning the ways in which drilling fluids, drilling muds, well cuttings,
and well treatment chemicals may contribute to pollution. Studies have been
made of well blowout and mixing of fresh water aquifers and oil bearing
sands. Several publications are available discussing oil field brine dis-
posal by subsurface injection.
Materials added to the crude oil to assist in extraction represent
less than 2 percent of the oil produced.
Acids represent the major chemicals used in oil and gas well treat-
ment. The amount consumed yearly is shown in Table C-18 (Reference 35).
TABLE C-18
ACIDS USED FOR WELL TREATMENT
GalIons/Barrel
Gallons Per Year Crude Produced
8.7 x 10? 26.9 x 10"2
2.0 x 106 6.2 x 10"4
1.0 x 106 3.1 x 10"4
C-27
-------
o
1
0)
"o
3
1
Q_
O
0)
o c
~O ""
3 ttJ *-
^ 0 C
ฐ 2 -2
Z o_ a.
c
o
o
IS o
iZ 1/1
t
"53
VI
O
O
^
X
c
9)
t
o 0
(U g5
"i ฐ "c
{^) I/) ( -
*
1
v>
~ o
OP
0 Jl
^
0
*
- E
ซ 0
"a ฐ-
i i
0)
O
c
o
o
T3
O
lJ
a
U)
nj
00
VJ
3
iJ
t8
C
-o
c
to
-o
3
t-i
O
03
U
00
ซ
^
a
S
o
o
1-4
00
C-28
-------
Approximately 30 x 10 pounds of inhibitors and 37 x 10 pounds -
of additives are also used per year in well treatment. The total domestic
crude production in 1972 was 3,234,600,000 barrels, resulting in a use of
9.3 x 10~4 pounds of inhibitors and 11.4 x 10"4 pounds of additives per
barrel of oil. Since these products are injected into the subsurface reser-
voir, the amount of pollution to fresh water aquifers is probably very small
(Reference 111). The drilling muds used prior to production are usually ex-
pensive and, therefore, merit special handling to prevent excessive losses.
However, most spent muds are left in open slush pits to permit evaporation
of liquids. Most pits are earth filled when evaporation is complete. Some
remain in limited service to contain the effluents from well servicing.
are:
tion.
Several sources of pollution resulting from oil field operations
a. Well blowout - resulting in surface and subsurface contamina-
b. Dumping of oil-based drilling muds, oil soaked cuttings and
treatment chemicals.
c. Crude oil escape from pipeline leaks, overflow of storage ves-
sels and rupture of storage and transport vessels.
d. Discharge of bottom sediment from storage vessels.
e* Subsurface disposal of brine into a formation which would per-
mit migration of the brine into an area which could result in pollution of
fresh water or contribute toward other natural disasters.
f. Escape of natural gas containing hydrogen sulfide could pollute
fresh water supplies and local atmosphere.
Crude losses from production are estimated to be 0.13 percent
based on information in the 1971 Minerals Yearbook* This loss has been ac-
counted for by allocation to the energy of material resource and to environ-
mental pollutants. The energy content of the crude oil was 19,500 Btu per
pound. This assumes an average API gravity of 35 which is equivalent to a
weight of 297 pounds per barrel of crude oil (Reference 50). Therefore, the
total energy of material resource assigned to the production of 1,000 pounds
of crude oil is 19,525,350 Btu (19,500,000 Btu + 25,350 Btu for crude losses
in production). The process energy requirements were taken from the 1972
Census of Mineral Industries.
C-29
-------
Natural gas losses were derived from 1971 and 1972 census data.
The losses are estimated to be 3.81 percent as follows: (1) 0.36 percent
from vents; (2) 0.36 percent from flares; (3) 1.69 percent in lease opera-
tions; and (4) 1.4 percent in transmission to the consumer. In the produc-
tion of 1,000 pounds of natural gas, this loss has been charged as 853,109
Btu (38.1 pounds x 0.046 cubic feet x 1,030 Btu per cubic feet) of material
resource energy, producing 25.88 pounds of atmospheric emissions (crude pro-
duction was charged with 8.62 pounds of atmospheric emissions since about
25 percent of the natural gas produced comes from oil wells). The 0.36 per-
cent burned in flares was not included in the atmospheric emissions. The
total energy of materials resource assigned to natural gas production is
23,244,109 Btu (22,391,000 Btu for 1,000 pounds of natural gas + 853,109
Btu for the 38.1 pounds of natural gas lost in production).
The principal waterborne wastes in oil and gas production are
dissolved solids and oils. Approximately 2.5 barrels of brine are produced
for each barrel of crude extracted. The brine contains about 32 pounds of
dissolved solids (mostly chlorides) per barrel, and 0.59 pounds of oils
per barrel. Industry sources have estimated that approximately 10 percent
of the brine enters streams, rivers, etc., while 90 percent is disposed
of by methods which do not pollute water resources. Brine disposal methods
include evaporation ponds, subsurface injection, and brine water treatment
systems.
The 0.25 barrels of brine (containing 8 pounds of dissolved solids
and 0.147 pound of oils) which enter waterways include 6.0 pounds of dis-
solved solids and 0.11 pounds of oils charged to the production of 1,000
pounds of crude oil (3.367 barrels), and 2 pounds of dissolved solids and
0.037 pound of oil charged to the production of 1,000 pounds of natural
gas (75 percent allocated to crude oil production and 25 percent to natural
gas production).
Table C-19 contains the raw impact data for the production of
1,000 pounds of crude oil. Table C-20 contains the primary (raw) data for
natural gas production. The energy content of these hydrocarbon products
appear in the table. Crude oil and natural gas inputs are counted as their
energy equivalents rather than pounds of raw materials. Table C-21 shows
the raw impact data for the production of 1,000 pounds of distilled and
hydrotreated crude.
2. Natural Gas Liquids Processing; Light straight chain hydro-
carbons are normal products of a gas processing plant. Compression, re-
frigeration and oil absorption are used to extract these products. Heavy
hydrocarbons are removed first. The remaining components are extracted
and kept under controlled conditions until transported in high pressure
pipelines, insulated railcars, ships and barges. The primary nonsalable
residues from the natural gas stream are volatile hydrocarbons leaking into
the atmosphere. Figure C-4 shows a diagram of a natural gas processing plant^
C-30
-------
TABLE C-19
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF CRUDE OIL
Impact Category
Energy of Material Resource
Raw Materials
Quantities Sources
19.525 million Btu 19
\
19,35
Material Process Additions
(chemicals 0.29, cement 1.0,
muds 0.59)
Energy
Electric
Residual Oil
Gasoline
Natural Gas Internal Combustion
Water Volume
Solid Wastes
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne Wastes
Dissolved Solids
Oil and Grease
Transportation
Barge
Truck
Pipeline
1.88 Ib
6.18 kwhr
0.47 gal.
0.02 gal.
287.2 cu ft
72.0 gal.
0.60 Ib
8.62 Ib
6.05 Ib
0.11 Ib
28.0 ton-miles
10.0 ton-miles
110.0 ton-miles
17,18,19
19
19
19
19,28,29
19
a/ 1,001.3 Ib oil x 19,500 Btu/lb - 19.525 million Btu (includes 1.3 Ib for loices
C-31
-------
TABLE C-20
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF NATURAL GAS1
Impact Category
Energy of Material Resource
Energy
Electric
Fuel Oil
Gasoline
quantities
23.244 million Btu^
6.18 kw-hr
0.1 gal.
0.02 gal.
Sources
19,36
17,18
Natural Gas Internal Combustion 541.2 cu ft
Water Volume
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne Wastes
Dissolved Solids
Oil and Grease
Ib
29.0 gal.
25.88 Ib
2.0 Ib
0.037 Ib
Btu _
19
17,18,19
27,28,29
a/ 1,038.1 Ib NG + 0.046 LDe x 1,030 JC" = 23.244 million Btu (in-
' , , _ , ,, , cu rt cu It
eludes 38.1 Ib losses.
TABLE C-21
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF DISTILLED AND
HYDROTREATED CRUDE
Category
Raw Materials
Additives
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Water Volume
Quanti ties
1.0 Ib
40 kw-hr
340 scf
29 gal. '
Sources
19
17,18
19
I/ See comment No. 7 Appendix B, page 7.
C-32
-------
8
o
0>
8
CO
tit
s
5 2
o o
ZO
4
ง
n ปป
M
S> 2
ฃ 8.
V 0)
a: i/>
t
|M>
4)
^
Q
t
"5
0
-5 E
8 1
^ D
t
i
* -o
S-
0)
Oil
^^B
8
'c
o
_Q
0
t
anizer
&
f
ป
0
a
a>
Q
t
>_
0)
^N
O
_c
i
ฃ$
f
m
oo
c
H
(/)
Ul
a)
u
o
10
RJ
00
(fl
k
3
ffl
C
a
ง
U
00
(8
U
-------
Table C-22 contains a summary of production impacts. The process
energy values were obtained from the 1972 Census of Minerals Industries.
The amount of natural gas processed in 1972 was 18,530.8 x 109 cubic feet.
The total gas used as fuel was 632.1 x 10 cubic feet or 3.41 percent of
throughput.
TABLE C-22
DATA FOR PRODUCTION PROCESSING 1,000 POUNDS
OF NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS
Impact Category
Quantlties
Sources
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Water Volume
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
SOX
1.64 kwhr
753.0 scf
230.0 gal.
10.0 Ib
2.62 Ib
17,18,19
19
7,17,18,19
Transportation
Rail
Truck
Barge
Pipeline
42.0 ton-miles
14.0 ton-miles
14.0 ton-miles
70.0 ton-miles
19
This represents 742 cubic feet per 1,000 pounds of natural gas
processed or 753 cubic feet per 1,000 pounds of natural gas liquids (al-
lowing for 1.5 percent loss and by-product credit for the residue gas).
The 1971 Minerals Yearbook shows a loss of 0.36 percent (0.15 in flaring
or venting 4- 0.21 percent unaccounted for) in NGL production. Industry
sources report that losses in gas processing plants range between 1 and
2 percent. For this report, the total losses (processing, storage, and
transportation) are estimated to be 1.5 percent.
With reference to atmospheric emissions, the sulfur oxides emitted
from natural gas processing plants in 1971 were 1,036,000 metric tons or
2.62 pounds per 1,000 pounds of NGL produced (with by-product credit). Hydro-
carbon emissions are estimated to be 10.0 pounds per 1,000 pounds of NGL.
C-34
-------
3. Pollution Factors-Petroleum Refining; The solid waste result-
ing from petroleum refining (Table C-23) was assumed to consist of the
solids resulting from air and water pollution-control techniques. According
to Reference 30, the total residues from air and water pollution control
in 1975 is estimated to be 990 million kilograms (2.182 x 1012 pounds).
The United States petroleum refining capacity in 1975 was approximately 15
million barrels per calendar day, or 1.64 x 1012 pounds for the year 1975.
The quantity of solid wastes per 1,000 pounds of refinery products is cal-
culated to be 1.38 pounds (with 4 percent loss of throughput).
TABLE C-23
POLLUTION FACTORS FOR 1,000 POUNDS OF PETROCHEMICAL REFINING
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy 2 7
Electric 6.8 kw-hr
Industrial Solid Waste 1.38 Ib 19,30
Atmospheric Emissions
Particles 0.22 Ib 7
Sulfur Oxides 0.42 Ib 7
Carbon Monoxide 11.80 Ib 7
Hydrocarbons 3.77 Ib 5,7
Nitrogen Oxides 0.06 Ib 7
Waterborne Wastes 1
BOD 0.029 Ib
TSS 0.018 Ib
COD 0.169 Ib
Oil 0.009 Ib
Phenolic 0.0001 Ib
Ammonia (N) 0.017 Ib
Sulfide 0.0001 Ib
Chromium 0.0005 Ib
The atmospheric emissions present after pollution control treat-
ment are shown in Table C-23. The process emissions from petroleum refining
were assumed to result from three sources*
C-35
-------
The sources and emissions breakdown are shown below:
Pounds of Emissions Per 1.000 Pounds of Products
Source Particles SOX CO H-C NOx
1 - Catalyst Regeneration 0.22 0.42 11.8 0.18 0.06
2 - Storage Tanks -- -- 1.26
3 - Miscellaneous _--__ --_ -- 2.33
Total 0.22 0.42 11.8 3.77 0.06
These emissions do not include fuel combustion pollutants. Process
fuel emissions are secondary impacts and are added to the impact categories
during the computer calculations.
The waterborne waste values for petroleum refining were obtained
from Reference 1. The size factor used in the calculations was 1.04 (100
to 149.9 thousand barrels of feedstock per stream day). The process factor
used was 1.27 (process configuration of 6.75 to 8.74). A value of 300 pounds
per barrel was used for the weight of the incoming crude oil.
Table C-23. presents the solid wastes, atmospheric emissions and
waterborne waste for refining 1,000 pounds of products in a petrochemical
refinery. These values will be combined with the resource requirements
(virgin raw materials, energy, and water) for the various petrochemical
products in order to obtain the total resource and environmental impacts
associated with various petrochemicals.
4. Ethylene Manufacture and Profile Analysis: The primary proces-
ses used for manufacturing ethylene are ethane/propane pyrolysis, naphtha
cracking, and gas oil cracking. Presently, the pyrolysis of light gases ac-
counts for 75 percent of the ethylene produced.
Figure C-5 shows a flow diagram for the manufacture of ethylene.
The hydrocarbon feedstock enters the cracking unit where decomposition occurs
under the influence of heat and pressure. In the transition reaction that
follows, ethylene and by-products are formed. When ethane is the principal
feedstock, the final product distribution shows 80 percent ethylene and 20
percent by-products. For propane and naphtha feeds, ethylene represents 44
percent and 34 percent of the total reaction products (Hydrocarbon Proces-
sing. February 1974). Therefore, with the present feedstock mix (75 percent
ethane/propane, 25 percent heavier feeds), ethylene represents about 60 per-
cent of the total reaction products (assuming the light gas feed represents
62 percent ethane and 38 percent propane).
After cracking the feedstock, the products are sent through heat
exchangers for the recovery of furnace heat. The Btu recovery for ethane,
propane, and naphtha feeds can approximate 2,100, 3,300 and 4,000 Btu, re-
spectively, per pound of ethylene produced. After heat exchange, the reaction
products are purified and fractionated into methane, ethylene, propylene, etc.
I/ See comment No. 7 Appendix B, page 7.
C-36
-------
D
-------
The energy requirements for ethylene manufacture will depend upon
the type of fuel used and the amount of heat recovery experienced. Based
on Reference 21, the total process energy foi manufacturing ethylene and
coproducts in 1973 was 382.3 x 10 9 Btu. With an ethylene production in 1973
of 23 x 109 pounds, and assuming 60 percent of the total energy for ethylene
and coproducts manufacture was used in the ethylene manufacture, the energy
used to manufacture 1 pound of ethylene is 9.973 Btu (as an ethylene manu-
facturing process). This agrees closely with the value stated in the article
for ethylene manufacture corrected for by-products. Based on Reference 20,
the energy requirement for manufacturing ehtylene from aaphtha is about
8,700 Btu per pound. Reference 24 indicates that ehtylene can be manufactured
from ethane with an energy requirement of approximately 3,000 Btu per pound.
Confidential sources report that energy values of 5,000 to 7,500 Btu per
pound of ethylene are representative of many ethylene plants. Reference 34
gives an excellent account of ethylene manufacture. This report shows that
the fuel requirements for ethylene manufacture vary from 7,410 (from ethane)
to 11,400 Btu per pound (from gas oil). For this report, the manufacture of
ethylene has been charged with the following energy sources per 1,000 pounds
of ethylene in 1975: Electric = 100 kilowatt-hours and natural gas = 6,800
cubic feet. These values represent 11,200 Btu per pound of ethylene manu-
factured from naphtha and 7,200 Btu per pound for ethylene manufactured from
ethane or propane, resulting in a national average of 8,200 Btu per pound of
ethylene (75 percent ethane/propane pyrolysis and 25 percent naphtha cracking)
The raw impacts for producing 1,000 pounds of ethylene are shown
in Table C-24. The hydrocarbon feed requirements in the production process
are approximately 1,071 pounds of feed per 1,000 pounds of ethylene.1
The primary use of water in the cracking process is for dilution
steam requirements and for quench waters required in the cooling and primary
separation of the cracked gases. The major wastewater sources are the quench
tower effluents and acid gas scrubber effluents. A common practice is to send
the wastewater through a steam condensate stripper to remove hydrocarbons.
The effluent water from the stripper can be reused. Wastewater volume is
355 gallons per 1,000 pounds of ethylene. The EPA 1977 effluent limitations
are 0.058 pound BOD and 0.088 pound TSS per 1,000 pounds of ethylene. Atmo-
spheric emissions are reported to be 0.79 pound per 1,000 pounds of product.
The energy requirement for pollution control is 5.23 kilowatt-
hours per 1,000 pounds of ethylene, or about 0.7 percent of the total energy
requirements.
I/ See comment No. 1 Appendix F, page 1.
C-38
-------
TABLE C-24
DATA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF ETHYLENE
Impact Category
Quantities
Sources
Raw Materials
Process additions
(1,071 Ib hydrocarbon fuel)
5.0 Ib
19,24
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
77.23 kwhr
6,800 cubic feet
19,20,21,24,34
Wastewater volume
Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emission
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
Suspended Solids
335 gal.
18.0 Ib
0.01 Ib
0.09 Ib
0.01 Ib
0.67 Ib
0.01 Ib
0.058 Ib
0.088 Ib
4
30
8
C, Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) Resin Manufacture2
LDPE manufacture generally requires high pressures (1,500 atmo-
spheres) and temperatures around 380 F. Catalysts (oxygen, organic peroxides,
metal oxides, etc*) and ethylene are introduced into a reactor for polymeri-
zation* After reacting, the monomer and polymer are separated, with the un-
converted ehtylene being recycled. The polymer is extruded, chilled and
chopped into a granular product. Some catalysts can be used to produce the
full range of densities between 0.925 and 0.965 gram per cubic centimeter.
The raw data used to calculate the environmental impacts of LDPE
manufacture are shown in Table C-25. The values were taken from the actual
operating data of two plants producing LDPE.
-------
TABLE G-25
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF LOW DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
Impact Category
Raw Materials
(ethylene - 1,050 Ib)
Additives
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Water Volume
Process Solid Wastes
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
20.0 Ib
605.0 kw-hr
1,090.0 cu ft
1,000*0 gal.
4,5 Ib
0.87 Ib
5.0 Ib
0.2 Ib
2.00 Ib
0.55 Ib
Sources
11
11
19
19
19
80
D. Low Density PolYethylene Film Manufacture
A common method for fabrication of polyethylene film is an extru-
sion system using either a tubular air blow or water bath process. Typical
rates for an air blown process are 125 pounds of plastic per hour. The water
bath process has been demonstrated to produce in excess of 600 pounds per
hour. For this report, a process was simulated, using 245 kilowatt-hour per
1,000 pounds of film produced. Processes are described in the literature
using from 180 to 350 kilowatt-hour per 1,000 pounds of products* Water
usage is estimated to be around 1,780 gallons per 1,000 pounds of LDPE
film. Waste plastic scrap is estimated to be 5 pounds per 1,000 pounds of
product.
Environmental impacts for 1,000 pounds of LDPE film are shown in
Table C-26.
I/ See comment No. 3 Appendix F, page 1.
C-40
-------
TABLE C-26
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 POUNDS OF LDPE FILM
Impact Cat-gRory Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 19
LDPE Resin 1,005 lb
Energy
Electricity 245 kw-hr 19
Water Volume 1,780 gal. 19
Process Solid Wastes 5 lb 19
E. Acrylic Resin Manufacturing
1. Ammonia; Ammonia is produced primarily by steam reforming natural
gas. Natural gas is fed with steam into a tubular furnace where the reaction
over a nickel reforming catalyst produces hydrogen and carbon oxides. The
primary reformer products are then mixed with preheated air and reacted in a
secondary reformer to produce the nitrogen needed in ammonia synthesis. The
gas is then cooled to a lower temperature and subjected to the water shift
reaction in which carbon monoxide and steam are reacted to form carbon dioxide
and hydrogen. The carbon dioxide is removed from the shifted gas in an absorb-
ent solution. Hydrogen and nitrogen are reacted in a synthesis converter to
form ammonia.
In the ammonia manufacturing process, 7 pounds of natural gas will
theoretically produce 17 pounds of ammonia and 19 pounds of carbon dioxide.
The actual natural gas usage as process feed is 318 pounds per 1,000 pounds
of products from an ammonia (products being defined as 45 percent ammonia
and 55 percent carbon dioxide). The process data for ammonia manufacture are
presented in Table C-27.
2. Acrylonitrile Manufacture; The most widely used process for
the manufacture of acrylonitrile involves the reaction of propylene, ammonia
and air in a fluidized bed reactor. The basic chemical equation for the
process is;
2CH2= CH-CH
C-41
-------
The reaction is exothermic with recovered heat being used to generate steam
for use in the process. The effluent from the reactor is first sent to a
water quench tower where the excess ammonia is neutralized by sulfuric acid.
After rejection on inert gases, the mixture is fractionated to remove HCN,
and then acetonitrile is removed by extractive distillation. The acryloni-
trile product is dried and then distilled to produce a product which is
99 percent pure.
TABLE C~27
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF AMMONIA
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 39
Process Additions (natural
gas 318 Ib) 4.55 Ib
Energy
Electric 18.5 kw-hr 19
Natural Gas 2,363 cu ft . 19,38
Water Volume 5,000 gal. 19,41
Solid Waste 0.2 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions
Ammonia 1.0 Ib 19,40,44
Hydrocarbons 1.0 Ib 19,40,44
Waterborne Wastes
Ammonia (as N) 0.062 44
The REPA process data are shown in Table C-28. The atmospheric
emission values are significant but represent typical emission in 1975 for
plants without incineration. The emission per 1,000 pounds of acrylonitrile
from new plants will be 0.5 pound of hydrocarbons and 9.8 pounds of NOX.
The waterborne waste values represent Bert Practicable Control Technology
currently available as defined by EPA. The solid wastes associated with
the process is reported to vary from 0.3 to 8.0 pounds per 1,000 pounds
of acrylonitrile.
C-42
-------
TABLE C-28
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 POUNDS OF ACRYLONITRILE
Impact Category
Quantities
Source-s
Raw Materials
Process Additions (Ammonia
510 Ib, propylene 1,260 lb)
Energy
Electric
Water Volume
Solid Waste, Process
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
TSS
Acrylonitrile
Phenol
5.0 lb
70.0 kw-hr
505.0 gal.
0.8 lb
107.0 lb
6.7 lb
122.0 lb
0.88 lb
1.32 lb
0.0005 lb
0.02 lb
19,10
19
27
53
53
27
3. Acrylic Resin; Acrylic resins are generally copolymers of acry-
lonitrile. Acrylics contain more than 85 percent acrylonitrile. The comonomers
are added to improve dyeability and dissolving characteristics in commercial
solvents. Common names for acrylic fibers are Creslan, Acrilan, Zefran, Orlong,
Verel and Dynel.
Acrylonitrile is appreciably soluble in water and is usually poly-
merized in aqueous solution, using water-soluble, free-radial initiators*
The utility requirements are estimates based on the requirements for the
production of an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene resin.
Table C-29 presents the manufacturing data for production of 1,000
pounds of an acrylic resin. The polymer was assumed to be 100 percent acry-
lonitrile.
C-43
-------
TABLE C-29
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF AN ACRYLIC RESIN
Impact Category t Quantities Sources
Raw Materials . 11
(Acrylonitrile 1,020 Ib)
Catalysts and Chemicals 5.2 Ib
Energy 11
Electricity 74.0 kw-hr
Natural Gas
Water Volume 4,800.0 gal. 19
Solid Wastes 5.2 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions 19
Hydrocarbons 1.2 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 80
BOD 2.75 Ib
COD 13.8 Ib
Suspended Solids 1.1 Ib
Phenol 0.0083 Ib
F. Rayon Manufacturing
1. Carbon Disulfide Manufacture: Most of the carbon disulfide manu-
factured in the world, and all that is manufactured in the U.S., is produced
by reacting methane or natural gas with vaporized sulfur at elevated tempera-
ture (1200ฐF to 1300ฐF).
Molten sulfur is vaporized in a furnace and mixed with methane
(natural gas). The gases are transferred to a reactor containing activated
alumina or clay catalyst where carbon disulfide and hydrogen sulfide are
formed.
The reacted gases are transferred to a scrubber where unreacted
sulfur is removed and recycled. The carbon disulfide gas is then dissolved
in mineral oil in an absorption column while the hydrogen sulfide is sep-
arated and sent to a sulfur recovery unit.
C-44
-------
The carbon disulfide is purified (up to 99+ percent) by a series
of distillations and stored under water to prevent fire.
The environmental impacts generated by carbon disulfide manufacture
are not great and do not contribute greatly to the Rayon system. The most
important impact associated with C$2 manufacture is the energy consumption.
Data for manufacture of 1,000 pounds of carbon disulfide are con-
tained in Table C-30.
TABLE C-30
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF CARBON DISULFIDE
Impact Category
Raw Materials
(Natural Gas - 5,500 cu ft)
(Sulfur - 925 Ib)
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Material Resource
Water Volume
Solid Wastes
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrogen Sulfide
Particulates
Waterborne Solids
Sulfides
Transportation
Rail
Barge
Truck
Pipeline
Quantities
322.0 kw-hr
3,880.0 cu ft
9.396 million Btu
1,000.0 gal.
5.0 Ib
0.01 Ib
1.0 Ib
0.01 Ib
100.0 ton-miles
50.0 ton-miles
25.0 ton-miles
148.0 ton-miles
Sources
109
109
19
19
19
19
C-45
-------
2. Rayon Manufacture; Rayon is manufactured from woodpulp or cotton
linters raw materials. The fibers are first steeped in a solution of caustic
soda form alkali cellulose. The sheets of cellulose are crumbled and mixed
with carbon disulfide to form the xantrate crumb. The resulting mixture is
dissolved in a dilute caustic solution to form a thick, honey-colored liquid
known as viscose. The viscose is extruded through fine holes in a spinnoid
(into a sulfuric acid bath) to form rayon fibers. The fibers can now be spun
as continuous filament or cut into staple of desired length.
The raw impacts for rayon manufacture are shown in Table C-31.-
The process requires a relatively high quantity of energy when compared to
other manufacturing steps.
TABLE C-31
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 POUNDS OF RAYON
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials
Dry pulp 1,075.0 Ib
Caustic 650.0 Ib
Sulfuric acid 1,000.0 Ib
Carbon disulfide 340.0 Ib
Additive 17.0 Ib
Energy
Coal 2,220.0 Ib
Electricity 300.0 kw-hr
Natural Gas 5,180.0 set
Distillate 1.1 gal.
Residual 74.0 gal.
Water Volume 1,600.0 gal. 19
Process Solid Waste 41.0 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions
Odorous sulfur 6.1 Ib 19
Waterborne Wastes
BOD 4.8 Ib 80
COD 72.0 Ib
TSS 8.8 Ib
Zinc 0.534 Ib
C-46
-------
G. Poly (Ehtylene Terephthalate) Regin Manufacture
1. Ethylene Oxide and Glycol; Ethylerie oxic. -'< r., .factured by
reacting ethylene feedstock with oxygen in the pre.se <-- , << ... si, ^-.r-baia
catalyst. The reaction is highly exothermic, producii ^ ... j^uia h_iire steam
as a by-product. The reactor effluent is mixed with water to effect removal
of unreacted gases. The water rich stream of ethylene oxide is fed to a '
stripper where EO is recovered. For the production of eii! ; ,r ป % .; ol, the
ethylene oxide is conveyed directly to the glycol reacto, . e ^.he EO re-
acts with the required amount of water to form ethylene glycol.
Table C-32 contains the process data for manufacturing ethylene
glycol including the manufacture of ethylene oxide as an intermediate step.
TABLE C-32
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF ETHYLENE GLYCOL
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials
Process Additions (Ethylene 1.0 Ib 19,12
910 Ib, oxygen 1,200 Ib)
Energy
Electric 325 kw-hr 12
Water 602 gal. 4
Process Solid Waste 8.2 14,19
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons 28.0 Ib 4,53,54
Waterborne Wastes.-'
BOD 0.12 4
TSS 0.19 4
a/ The waste water from the ethylene oxide plant contains about 2 percent
glycols and is generally routed to the glycol plant for product re-
covery. Therefore, the wastewater output from the ethylene oxide
plant is assumed to be zero.
3-47
-------
2. Methanol; Methanol can be manufactured from gaseous and liquid
hydrocarbons by a steam reforming route. The hydrocarbons are first desul-
furized and then mixed with steam and carbon dioxide and reformed at about
840ฐC in the presence of a catalyst. The reforming reaction converts the
hydrocarbons into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The resulting gaseous mixture
is adjusted to obtain a ratio of about two volumes of hydrogen to one volume
of carbon monoxide. The mixture is reacted under pressure (50 to 80 atmospheres)
at a temperature of 250 to 260ฐC in the presence of a catalyst to form methanol.
The reaction is exothermic, producing 24,620 calories per gram mole of methanol.
The reactor gases are cooled in a heat exchanger, resulting in the condensation
of methanol. The unreacted gases are either recycled to the compressor or used
as fuel.
The impacts from manufacturing 1,000 pounds of methanol are shown
in Table C-33.
TABLE C-33
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF METHANOL
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Catalyst (natural gas
829 Ib)
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Water
Solid Wastes
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
TSS
Quantities
1.0
36.6 kw-hr
1,395 cu ft
50 gal.
0.5 Ib
5.0 Ib
0.058
0.088
Sources
19
47
19,43,47
4
19
19
27
C-48
-------
3. Oxygen; Oxygen is extracted from air by cryogenic separation.
The process is essentially one of liquifying the air and then collecting
the oxygen by fractionation. The oxygen is produced in the form of a liquid
which boils at 300 F below zero at normal atmospheric pressure. Most oxygen
plants are located close to their point of use tc minimise transportation
difficulties* Table C-34 contains the process information relevant to the
manufacture of oxygen.
TABLE C-34
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF OXYGEN
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy
Electric 208 kw-hr 19
Natural Gas 764 cu ft
Residual Oil 0.3 gal.
Distillate Oil 0.1 gal.
Gasoline 0.25 gal.
Water 2,800 gal. 19
4. Acetaldehyde; Acetaldehyde can be manufactured by the oxidation
of ethylene by palladium chloride in the presence of water.
C,H. + 1/2 00 catalyst CH0CHO
242 3
The reaction proceeds almost quantitatively and is very selective with re-
spect to product ouput. The catalyst solution is recycled after purifica-
tion and has a long life. In the process, ethylene and oxygen are fed to the
bottom of a reaction tower filled with the catalyst solution. The vaporized
reaction products are separated from the cata^jst solution by a demister.
Acetaldehyde is removed from unreacted gases by cooling and scrubbing with
water* The crude product is separated in an extractive distillation process*
The direct oxidation process produces a dilute waste stream ready for waste-
water treatment. In 1970, the ethylene oxidation process accounted for 56
percent of the U.S, acetaldehyde capacity.
Table C-35 presents the impacts for acetaldehyde manufacture. The
process additions consist of catalyst and hydrochloric acid. The process
solid waste value is an estimate based on the amount of sewage sludges formed
during waste wastewater treatment.
C-49
-------
TABLE C-35
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF ACETALDEHYDE
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials
Process Additions (ethylene 12.0 Ib 10,55
670 Ib, oxygen 397 Ib) 19,55
Energy
Electric 22.7 kw-hr 55
Natural Gas 1,631 cu ft 19,55
Water 793 gal. 55
Process Solid Wastes 1.8 Ib 19,27
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons 0.5 Ib 53
Waterborne Wastes
BOD 0.42 4
TSS 0.64 4
5. NapthaRe formingt The reforming processes are used to convert
parafinic hydrocarbon streams into aromatic compounds such as benzine, toluene,
and xylene.
The impact data for 1,000 pounds of naphtha reforming are shown in
Table C-36.
TABLE C-36
DATA FOR 1,000 POUNDS OF NAPHTHA REFORMING
Inpa.ct Category Quantities Sources
Energy
Electric 14.8 kw-hr 19
Natural Gas 502.0 scf
C-50
-------
6. Paraxylene Manufacture; Reforraate feedstock rich in xylenes is
fractionated to obtain a stream rich in the paraisomer. Further purifica-
tion is accomplished by heat exchange and refrigeration. The solid paraxylene
crystals are separated from the feedstock by centrifugation.
Table C-37 contains the raw impacts for separating paraxylene
from a reformate feedstock.
TABLE C-37
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 POUNDS OF PARAXYLENE
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials _ . 11
Crude Oil 1,035.0 Ib
Additives 1.0 Ib
Energy . 11
Electric 2.6.8 kw-hr
Natural Gas 2,651.0 scf
Residual Oil 39.0 gal.
Process Solid Waste 1.38 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates 0.22 Ib
Sulfur Oxides 0.42 Ib
Carbon Monoxide 11.8 Ib
Hydrocarbon 3.77 Ib
Nitrogen Oxides 0.06 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 19
BOD 0.029 Ib
COD 0.169 Ib
TSS 0.018 Ib
Oil 0.006 Ib
Phenol 0.0001 Ib
Ammonia 0.017 Ib"
Sulfides 0.0001 Ib
Chromium 0.0005 Ib
C-51
-------
7. Terephthalic Acid; Terephthalic acid (TPA) is manufactured
primarily by oxidation of p-sylene in the liquid phase.
The oxidation is carried out in an acetic acid medium in the presence of
manganese and cobalt bromides. Typical reaction conditions are 200ฐC and
400 psi. The reactor effluents are continuously removed from the reactor
and routed to a crystallizer, where they are cooled by flashing the reac-
tant liquids. The acetic acid used in the reaction is recovered by distil-
lation and then recycled. TPA of greater than 99 percent can be recovered
in the process.
The REPA data for the process are shown in Table C-38. Process
solid wastes were estimated from raw waste loads to the wastewater treat-
ment plant. The stoichemetry of the reaction indicates that 3.4 percent of
the incoming p-xylene is unreacted during the process and is either recycled
or emitted as waste. By-product credit was not given for the acetic acid
which can be produced at 0.55 to 1.1 pounds per pound of TPA. The source
data for the utilities required in the TPA process did not include the puri-
fication requirements to refine the acetic acid.
8. Dimethyl Terephthalate (DMT): DMT is produced by esterfication
of TPA. TPA and methanol are fed to a reactor at moderate pressure and tem-
perature. The reaction is:
C H.(COOH). + 2CH.OH > C,H.(COOCH,)0 + 2H.O
64 2 3 64 32 2
The ester is formed by replacing the hydrogen of the carboxyl group with
the methyl group of the alcohol. The crude DMT is purified in a distilla-
tion and recycled back to the reactor.
Table C-39 presents the process data for manufacture of DMT. About
1.6 percent of the TPA and 3 percent of the methanol are lost in the process.
The solid waste value represents primarily sewage sludges estimated from the
DMT process raw waste load.
9. Poly (Ethylene Terephthalate) (PET) Resin Manufacture; PET resin
is manufactured from dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) or terephthalic acid (TPA)
by an esterification reaction with ethylene glycol. The reaction produces
by product methanol which can be reused in the manufacture of DMT. The poly-
ester melt can be cooled and granulated or fed directly to a fiber spinning
machine.
C-52
-------
TABLE C-38
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF TEREPHTHALIC ACID (TPA)
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials . 11
Process Additions (p-xylene
660 Ib, acetic acid 890 Ib) 1.0
Energy 11
Electric 36.4 kw-hr
Residual Oil 15.0 gal.
Water 186 gal.
Process Solid Waste 1.5 19,27
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons 13.3 19., 53
Particles 0.18 19,53
Sulfur Oxides 0.16 19,53
Carbon Monoxide 7.7 19,53
Waterborne Wastes
BOD 0.12 27
TSS 0.19 27
C-53
-------
TABLE C-39
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF DIMETHYL TEREPHTHALATE (DMT)
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials
Process addition (TPA 870 Ib, 1.0 19
methanol 340 Ib)
Energy
Electric 40.8 kw-hr
Residual Oil 29.4 gal.
Water 270 gal. 27
Process Solid Waste 12.2 Ib 19,27
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons 15.7 19,53
Particles 0.22 19', 53
Sulfur Oxides 0.16 19,53
Carbon Monoxide 9.0 19,53
Waterborne Wastes
BOD 0.51 27
TSS 0.07 27
C-54
-------
The raw impacts for PET manufacture are presented in Table C-4Q.
TABLE C-40
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 POUNDS OF PET RESIN
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials . 11
DMT 1,020 Ib
Terephthalic Acid 888 Ib
Acetaldehyde 230 Ib
Oxygen 87.7 Ib
Methanol 12.2 Ib
Ethylene Oxide-Glycol 332 Ib
P-xylene 372 Ib
Energy 11
Electric 85 kw-hr
Natural Gas 819 scf
Residual Oil 19 gal.
Water Volume 950 gal 19
Process Solid Waste 5.5 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons 1 Ib 19
Waterhorne Wastes
BOD 0.78 Ib 80
COD 11.7 Ib
TSS 0.52 Ib
H. Conversion of Paper to Diaper
Rolls of paper are transported to converting sites for manufacture
into final products. In many cases the converting site is located quite close
to the papermaking site, but sometimes the rolls are transported for a long
distance. In any event, at the converting site, materials are assembled for
the converting operation.
C-55
-------
The converting process is a relatively simple operation where
the rolls of paper are unwound, with the product being cut to proper size,
decorated (if required), rewound on a core (if required) and packaged for
shipment. The impacts of converting to 100 diapers are shown in Table C-41.
TABLE C-41
DATA FOR CONVERTING - 100 DIAPERS
Impact Category Qjuantitles Sources
Materials
Fluffing Pulpi/ 89
Sulphate 7.92 Ib
Sulphite 0.020 Ib
Tissue' 89
Virgin 1.28 Ib
Deinked 0.22 Ib
PE Film 0.98 Ib
Non-woven Fiber 89
Rayon 0.45 Ib
Resin 0.19 Ib
Polyester 0.008 Ib
Crepe Wadding 0.110 Ib
Other 0.137 Ib
Other Materials 0.015 Ib 89
Total Materials 11.31 Ib 89
Packaging
Corrugated Containers 1.22 Ib 89
Cartons 1.57 Ib
Poly Wrappers 0.015 Ib
Energy 1.31 kw-hr 89
Solid Wastes 0.020 Ib 89
Scrap 0.781 Ib 89
a/ Includes approximately 5 percent moisture,
C-56
-------
IV, Nonwoven Bedding
The disposable bedding is made of paper tissue and LDPE film. The _
paper tissue manufacturing is identical to the tissue discussed in the diaper
section (Appendix C-III). Also, the steps for LDPE film are discussed in the
diaper section.
Information regarding the manufacturing step for the disposable
sheets was not submitted by industry for this study. Therefore, we have used
the disposable diaper manufacturing impacts to represent the impacts for
manufacturing the disposable sheets. The impacts are shown in Table C-42.
TABLE C-42
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 DISPOSABLE SHEETS
Impact Category
Virgin Materials
Tissue Paper
LDPE Film
Quantities
107.4 Ib
143.2 Ib
Sources
19
Energy
Electricity
Process Solid Waste
13.1 Iw-hr
0.002 Ib
19
19
Packaging
Corrugated Containers
Transportation
Rail
Truck
4.1 Ib
30 Ton-miles
30 Ton-miles
19
19
V. Containers
A. Cold Drink
1. Wax Coated Paper Cups; The major processes for producing wax
coated paper cups are: (1) pulpwood harvesting; (2) bleached kraft paper-
board; (3) salt mining; (4) chlorine manufacturing; (5) caustic manufactur-
ing; (6) limestone mining; (7) lime manufacturing; (8) sulfur mining; (9)
sulfuric acid manufacturing; (10) crude oil production; (11) distillation
and hydrotreating; (12) dewaxing heavy oils; (13) wax purification; and
(14) cup manufacturing.
C-57
-------
Roundwood
Harvesting
Wood
Residues
Salt Mining
Limestone
Mining
27302/
1314S/
1064 (fiber)V
958
115
Chlorine and
Caustic
Manufacture
68 Chlorine
74 Caustic
80
Lime
Manufacture
39
Sulfur Mining
10
Sulfuric Acid
Manufacture
29
Additives
and
Chemicals
Bleached Kraft
Cup and Plate
Stock
a/ As received, includes moisture.
b/ Dry fiber base.
Source: Based on data in (5).
Figure C-6 - Materials Flow for Bleached Paperboard Manufacture for
Cup and Plate Stock (in Pounds)
C-58
-------
TABLE C-43
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS (DRY BASIS) BLEACHED PAPERBOARD
FOR CUP AND PLATE STOCK
Impact Category
Materials
Roundwood (trees)
Wood Residues (sawdust, etc)
Chlorine
Caustic
Lime
Sulfuric Acid
Others
a/
Energy (purchased)
Electricity
Residual Oil
Coal
Distillate Oil
LPG
Natural Gas
Energy (self-generated)
Wood Wastes
Water - gal.
Industrial Solid Wastes (Ib)
Quantities
Sources
b/
Process Air Pollutants
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Nitrogen Oxides
TRS
- Ib
90,93
2,730 Ib (1,365 Ib dry
weight)
1,314 Ib (657 Ib dry weight)
68 Ib
74 Ib
39 Ib
29 Ib
75 Ib
143 kw-hr
14.2 gal.
304 Ib
0.078 gal.
0.046 gal.
5,532 cu ft
9.29 million Btu
10,700
142
0.32
0.89
0.46
0.72
94
90
96
90,93
Water Pollutants - Ib
Suspended Solids
BOD
93
4.49
3.61
ฃ/ Includes 1,031 Ib of steam (calculated at 1,400 Btu/lb) which is dis-
tributed among the fossil fuels.
b_/ See Table C-45 for more detail on sources of air pollution.
I/ See comment No, 11 Appendix J, page 39.
-------
TABLE C-44
EMISSIONS TO THE ATMOSPHERE FROM MILLS FOR MANUFACTURE
OF 1,000 POUNDS BLEACHED PAPERBOARD FOR CUP AND PLATE STOCK
Power Kraft
Source Process Tota1
Participates - Ib 1.67 2.32 3.99
Sulfur Oxides - Ib 13.92 0.89 14.81
Nitrogen Oxides - Ib 4.15 0.46 4.61
TRS-/ - Ib -- 0.72 0.72
Source: 93, except as noted.
af Estimated from 90.
TABLE C-45
ENERGY AND SECONDARY IMPACT FACTORS FOR FUEL PURCHASED AND CONSUMED ON-SITE
FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS BLEACHED PAPERBOARD
FOR CUP AND PLATE STOCK-/
Energy (total) - mil Btu
Fuel Oils (14.24 gal.) 2.418
Natural Gas and LPG (5.536 cu ft) 6.012
Coal (304 Ib) 4.Q43
Total 12.473
Solid Wastes (secondary) - Ib 58.8
Air Pollutants (secondary) - Ib
Particulates 0.68
Nitrogen Oxides 2.62
Hydr oca rbons 6.59
Sulfur Oxides 0.97
Carbon Monoxide 1.50
Water Pollutants (secondary)
Dissolved Solids - Ib 2.20
Source: 90.
a/ Energy is total energy from Table C-44. Pollutants are from secondary
sources which occur off-site such as refining the fuel oil. Primary
factors which occur on-site are in Tables C-44 and C-45.
C-60
-------
Processes 1 through 9 are discussed in Appendix C-I (Paper Towels).
Step 10 and 11 are covered in Appendix C-III (Diapers). Discussions of thej
remaining processes will follow.
a. Bleached Kraft Paperboard for Cups and Plate Stock; Paper
cups and plates are manufactured primarily from bleached kraft paperboard.
A discussion of the kraft process can be found in Section B and C, to which
the reader is referred. Figure C-6 illustrates the materials flow for this
process as applied to cup and plate manufacture, while Tables C-43, C-44,
and C-45 show the data used to calculate the impact profiles for paperboard
manufacture.
Paperboard used in the manufacture of plastic coated paper
hot drink cups is shipped to the converting plant as a plastic coated paper-
board. In order to estimate the effects of the coating, impacts for manu-
facture of 51 pounds of low density polyethylene resin were added per 1,000
pounds of paperboard required (Reference 95).
Impacts of manufacture of the chemicals shown in Figure C-6
are discussed elsewhere in this report.
b. Dewaxing Heavy Oils; Distillate or residual oils are used
as a stock material for dewaxing systems. The stock material is diluted,
chilled and filtered. The resulting products are dewaxed oils and a waxy
solution.
The raw impacts involved with 1,000 pounds of dewaxed oils
are shown in Table C-46.
TABLE C-46
DATA FOR 1,000 POUNDS OF DEWAXING OILS
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Virgin Material 11
Additives 0.07 Ib
Energy 11
Electric 39.6 kw-hr
Natural Gas 179.0 scf
Residual Oil 5.6 gal.
Water Volume 760.0 gal. 11
C-61
-------
c. Wax Purification; High oil wax materials are placed in
solution, cooled, filtered, then cooled and filtered again. The resulting
waxes are either parrafin waxes or microcrystalline waxes.
The impacts associated with deoiling 1,000 pounds of wax
are shown in Table C-47.
TABIZ C-47
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 POUNDS OF DEOILED WAX
Impacts Quantities Sources
Virgin Materials 11
Additives 0.07 Ib
Energy 11
Electric 29.7 kw-hr
Natural Gas 269 scf
Residual Oil 5.8 gal.
Water Volume 825 gal. ' 11
d. Conversion of Paperboard to Wax Coated Paper Cups; The
process of conversion of paperboard consists essentially of unwinding rolls
of paperboard, decorating, coating with wax (where required), forming mech-
anically into the proper shape and packaging for shipment. The primary im-
pacts result from energy use.
These data were based on a survey of cup and plate manufac-
turers by the Single Service Institute (SSI). The survey sample included
manufacturers of more than 50 percent of paper cups and paper plates manu-
factured in the U.S. (Reference 95). Environmental impact data are found
in Table C-48.
2. Thermofonned Polystyrene Cup; The processes necessary for manu-
facturing thermoformed polystyrene cups are; (1) ethylene manufacturing (dis-
cussed in Appendix C-III, Diapers); (2) reforming; (3) benzene extraction; (4)
toluene dealkylation; (5) styrene manufacturing; and (6) cup manufacturing.
a. Reforming, Benzene Extraction, and Toluene Dealkylation;
Reforming processes are used in converting parafinic hydrocarbon streams
into aromatic compounds such as benzene and toluene. The environmental im-
pacts associated with this procedure are shown in Table C-49.
C-62
-------
TABLE C-48
DATA FOR CONVERTING ONE MILLION 9-OUNCE WAX COATED PAPER COLD DRINK CUPS
Impact Category
Materials
Bleached Paperboard8-'
Wax
LD Poly Bags
Cartons
Corrugated
Inserts and Protectors
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Residual Oil
Solid Waste
Quantities
12,490 Ib
5,380 Ib
160 Ib
350 Ib
1,270 Ib
100 Ib
4,390 kw-hr
8,160 cu ft
75 gal.
170 Ib
Sources
95
95
95
a/ Includes approximately 6 percent moisture by weight.
TABLE C-49
DATA FOR 1,000 POUNDS OF REFORMED FUEL
Impact Category
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Quantities
14.8 kw-hr
902.0 scf
Sources
10
C-63
-------
The toluene produced in the reformer is treated in the toluene
dealkylation process to remove the methyl group and benzene* The benzene is
ซracted. The resource inputs associated with these processes are shown in
les C-50 and C-51.
TABLE C-50
DATA FOR 1,000 POUNDS OF TOLUENE DEALKYLATION
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy 10
Electric 40 kw-hr
Natural Gas 773 scf
Residual 5.3 gal.
TABLE C-51
DATA FOR 1,000 POUNDS EXTRACTED BENZENE
Impacts Category Quantities Sources
Virgin Materials 10
Additives 2 Ib
Energy 10
Electric 5.9 kw-hr
Natural Gas 1,126.0 scf
Distillate 7.8 gal.
The environmental outputs associated with benzene manufacture
are expressed in Table C-52. The impacts represent the pollutants resulting
from the total refining process from crude oil distillation to benzene puri-
fication. The energy value represents the energy used in treating the water-
borne wastes*
C-64
-------
TABLE C-52
BENZENE SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL OUTPUT^ FOR
1,000 POUNDS OF BENZENE
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy
Electric^/ 3.22 kw-hr 19
Water Volume 100 gal. 19
Solid Waste 4.64 bl 19
Atmospheric Emissions 7
Particles 0.24 Ib
Sulfur Oxides 0.55 Ib
Carbon Monoxide 14.60 Ib
Hydrocarbons 1.78 Ib
Nitrogen Oxides 0.06 Ib
Waterborne Waste 1
BOD 0.029 Ib
COD 0.169 Ib
Oil 0.009 Ib
Suspended Solids 0.018 Ib
Phenol 0.0001 Ib
Ammonia 0.017 Ib
Sulfides 0.0001 Ib
Chromium 0.0005 Ib
ฃ/ Raw impacts resulting from the refining processes (crude oil dis-
tillation, hydrotreating, reforming, benzene extraction, and
purification) used in the manufacture of benzene.
b/ Energy for processing wastes.
C-65
-------
b. Styrene Manufacture; Figure C-7 shows a flow diagram for
the manufacture of styrene. Dry benzene enters the alkylation reactor where
ethylene and benzene react in the presence of an aluminum chloride catalyst
to form ethylbenzene. Fractionation towers separate ethylbenzene from other
reaction products and unreacted feed components. The purified ethylbenzene
is then catalytically dehydrogenated to form styrene. Additional fractiona-
tion towers separate the high purity styrene from unconverted ethylbenzene
and reaction by-products. Ethylbenzene is recycled to the dehydrogenation
reactor and benzene to the alkylation reactor. Toluene (52 pounds per 1,000
pounds of styrene) and aluminum chloride (2 pounds per 1,000 pounds of sty-
rene) are produced as by-products. The aluminum chloride is used for water
treatment applications.
The raw impacts for producing 1,000 pounds of styrene are
presented in Table C-53. Chemicals for pollution control have been included
in process additions and the ethylene and benzene raw materials requirements
have been adjusted for a 6.1 percent by-product credit. Electricity use
of 43.8 kilowatt-hours includes 15.5 kilowatt-hours for pollution control.
The vent gases are treated for recovery of aromatics and removal of hydro-
chloric acid. Process condensate from the dehydrogenation step is stripped
to remove dissolved aromatics and then is used as boiler feed water.
c. Cup Manufacture; The 9 fluid ounce polystyrene cup is
manufactured by thermoforming a plastic sheet. Basically, the process con-
sists of heating the polystyrene sheet to a formable plastic state and then
applying air and/or mechanical assists to shape it to the contours of a
mold.
The raw impacts for manufacturing the cup are shown in Table
C-54.
B. Hot Drink
1. LDPE Coated Paper Cups; The paper manufacturing steps are iden-
tical to those discussed in Appendix C-I (Paper Towels) with the exception
of the paperboard manufacturing which was covered in the paper cold drink
section. The LDPE manufacturing processes are covered in Appendix C-III
(Diapers) .
A discussion of the manufacture of LDPE lined cups follows.
Conversion of Paperboard to Cups and Plates: The process of con-
version of paperboard consists essentially of unwinding rolls of paperboard,
decorating, coating with wax (where required), forming mechanically into the
proper shape and packaging for shipment. The primary impacts result from
energy use.
C-66
-------
I/I
-a
c
ง t
o .ฃ
T(
C
O
a
0>
88
c! **"
-------
TABLE C-53
DATA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF STYRENE
Impact Category
Quantities
Raw Materials
Process Additions
Pollution Control Chemicals
(289 Ib of ethylene and 773 Ib
of benzene are allocated to
the production of 1,000 Ib styrene)
13.0 Ib
7.0 Ib
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Residual Oil
Wastewater Volume
Solid Wastes, Process
Atmospheric Emissions, Process
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
Waterfaorne Wastes
BOD
Suspended Solids
43.8 kw-hr
2,489 cu ft
15.3 gal.
1,733 gal.
27 Ib
0.01 Ib
0.072 Ib
0.02 Ib
0.42 Ib
0.64 Ib
Sources
10
10,27
10
10
31
8
TABLE C-54
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING ONE MILLION 9-OUNCE THERMOFORMED CUPS
Impact Category
Virgin Material
PS Resin
Energy
Electric
Process Solid Waste
Packaging
LDPE Bags
Corrugated Containers
Quantities
14,120 Ib
8,350 kw-hr
190 Ib
120 Ib
1,020 Ib
Sources
123
123
19
19
C-68
-------
These data were based on a survey of cup and plate manufacturers
by the Single Service Institute (SSI). The survey sample included manufacturers^
of more than 50 percent of paper cups and paper plates manufactured in the
U.S. (Reference 95). Environmental impact data are found in Table C-55. Air
and water pollutants are negligible, and no process water is used.
TABLE C-55
DATA FOR CONVERTING ONE MILLION 7-OUNCE PAPER HOT DRINK CUPS (LDPE LINED)
Impact Category (Quantities
Materials - Ib .
a /
Bleached Paperboard (LDPE Coated)
Paper Bags
Cartons
Other
19,280^
390
1,550
60
Sources
95
Energy 95
Electricity 2,420 kw-hr
Natural Gas 10,940 cu ft
Solid Waste 380 Ib 95
a_/ Paperboard includes approximately 6 percent moisture by weight. The
coated paperboard is 5.1 percent coating (by weight), and 94.9 percent
paperboard.
2. Foam Polystyrene Cups; The manufacturing processes for the 7
fluid ounce foam polystyrene cup are the same as those for the 9 fluid
ounce thermoformed polystyrene cup with the addition of: (1) polystyrene
resin manufacturing; (2) isopentane manufacturing; and (3) cup manufactur-
ing.
A discussion of these three processes follows.
a. Polystyrene Resin Manufacture; Styrene is normally poly-
merized by either suspension or bulk methods. Suspension polymerization re-
fers to an aqueous system with the monomer as a dispersed phase, resulting
in polymer as a dispersed solid phase. The dispersion is maintained by &
combination of agitation and the use of water soluble stabilizers. In bulk
polymerization, inhibitor-free styrene is prepolymerized in a stirred vessel
C-69
-------
until the reaction mixture is approximately 30 percent polymer. The solution
is then transferred to a second reactor where the temperature is controlled
during final polymerization. The pure molten polymer is discharged through
spinnerets or into an extruder, producing small diameter rods which are
chopped into polystyrene pellets. Figure C-8 shows flow diagrams for both
suspension and bulk polymerization.
Table C-56 contains the raw impact data for manufacturing
polystyrene resin. The process additives include solvents, plasticizers,
etc. The energy category includes 3.67 kilowatt-hours for pollution control.
Wastewater volume and pollutants are 1977 EPA guideline values. Atmospheric
emissions represent the current estimate for the national average emissions
from polystyrene manufacturing plants.
TABLE C-56
DATA FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF POLYSTYRENE RESIN
Impact Category Quanti ties Sources
Raw Materials
Process Additions 24.0 Ib ' 25
(1,010 Ib styrene monomer
required)
Energy 19,25,27
Electric 53.67 kw-hr
Natural Gas 1,710 cu ft
Wastewater Volume , 650 gal.
'."'
Solid Waste, Process 9.0 Ib 19,33
Atmospheric Emissions, Process 8
Particulates 0.08 Ib
Sulfur Oxides 0.24 Ib
Hydrocarbons 4.00 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 3
BOD 0.13 Ib
COD 1.30 Ib
Suspended Solids 0.36 Ib
Chromium 0.001 Ib
C-70
-------
"8 8
3 0)
V)
1 g
3 4>
8 J>
- c
D>
c .ฃ
.2 .y
'IS "ฃ
E -2
.4 ซ
x eu
0)
O
u
o
0)
)
s
. J
a| -|
g s
1
o
3
CO
o.
Extrusion
Pelletizing
uge
Cent
Drye
D
O
X
J*
c
o
Reacto
ffl
s| hi
cu
0)
_
ป ซ
o .
zation
me
ฃ
c
o
v>
8.
M
I/)
CD
t-i
4J
O X-N
Cd CO
4-4 -a
3 c
C 3
cd o
-H
CO
a,
s c
CO 0)
ca
CO
s ฐ
5 OH
CO
I
00
C~71
-------
b. Isopentane Production (Blowing Agents); The hydrocarbon
blowing agents (isopentane, pentane, ซtc.) were assumed to be produced in
a natural gas liquids plant. In 1971, the total quantity of isopentane pro-
duced in NGL plants was approximately 5.6 million barrels (0.9 percent of
production). This can be compared with an ethane production of 80.5 million
barrels. The raw impacts for the production of 1,000 pounds of isopentane
are presented in Table C-57 and are identical to the impacts assigned to
NGL production.
TABLE C-57
DATA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF ISOPENTANE
Impact Category Quanti ties Sources
Energy 17,18,19
Electricity 1.64 kw-hr
Natural Gas 753 cu ft
Waterborne Wastes 280 gal. 19
Atmospheric Emissions 7,17,18,19
Hydrocarbons 10.0
SOX 2.62
c. Foam Cup Manufacture; Table C-58 contains the data sub-
mitted by the Single Service Institute for the polystyrene foam cup manu-
facturing steps.
C-72
-------
TABLE C-58
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING ONE MILLION 9-OUNCE FOAM CUPS1
Impact Category
Virgin Materials
PS Resin
Isopentane
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Residual
Distillate
Solid Waste Process
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Packaging
LDPE Bags
Corrugated Containers
Quantities
4,650 Ib
220 Ib
3,960 kw-hr
116,950 scf
50 gal.
800 gal.
90 Ib
150 Ib
225 Ib
1,850 Ib
Sources
123
123
19
19
19
VI. Plates
The processes necessary for the manufacture of paper plates are:
(1) pulpwood harvesting; (2) paperboard manufacturing; (3) salt mining; (4)
chlorine manufacturing; (5) caustic manufacturing; (6) limestone mining;
(7) lime manufacturing; (8) sulfur mining; (9) sulfuric acid; and (10) plate
manufacturing^
Processes 1 through 9 are covered in Appendix C-I (Paper Towels).
A discussion of process 10 follows.
1. Conversion of Paperboard to Cups and Plates; The process of
conversion of paperboard consists essentially of unwinding rolls of paper-
board, decorating, coating with wax (where required), forming mechanically
into the proper shape and packaging for shipment. The primary impacts re-
sult from energy use. For plates, this is electricity used to mold and trans-
port the product inside the plant.
_!/ Heading should be for "/--ounce cups.
073
-------
These data were based on a survey of cup and plate manufacturers
by the Single Service Institute (SSI). The survey sample included manu-
facturers of more than 50 percent of paper cups and paper plates manufactured
in the U^S. (Reference 95). Environmental impact data are found in Table
C-59. Air and water pollutants are negligible, and no process water is used.
TABLE C-59
DATA FOR CONVERTING ONE MILLION 9-INCH ROUND PRESSED PAPER PLATES
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Materials 28,165 Ib 95
Bleached Paperboardf/ 120 Ib
Poly Bags 120 Ib
Currugated 945 Ib
Energy 95
Electricity 1,800 kw-hr
Solid Waste 20 Ib 95
a/ Includes approximately 6 percent moisture by weight.
2. Transportation for Disposable Paper Plates and Cups; Table C-60
shows the significant transportation steps for the manufacture of disposable
paper plates and cups.
B. Foam Polystyrene
The production steps for foam polystyrene plates are identical
to those for foam polystyrene cups*
The manufacturing impacts for polystyrene foam plate production
represent industry averages submitted for the study by the Single Service
Institute. The data are shown in Table C-61.
C-74
-------
CO
to
O T(
to ?
H B
O
4J
0
1 CO
i co
m
CM
CO
O O r
CM t-i u
os
CO
co O
B u
0
H X
4J CO
U
O N
i-l O
1 ON
r-l O
CO 4J
Materi
perboard
co
OH
CO
a
u
ง
H
r-l
t-l
1-4
a
B
O
H
CO
to
onve
u
a
3
U
a
CU
4-1
CO
o
u
CO
jj
o
0
4J
X
CO
&
"8
4J
CO
O
O
i
N
O
1
OS
O
4J
CO
^4
4)
B
CO
4-1
B
O
H
a
a
rl
JS
CO
CO
a
3
U
B
O
H
r-l
t-l
H
B
O
CO
14
cup conve
CO
a
u
B
O
i-l
i-l
t-i
H
a
4J
eg
^5
rl
9
ง
0
4J
CO
a
3
U
0
eg
4J
CO
o
u
I
N
O
OS
CO
0)
4J
CO
r-l
a
B
o
H
!-(
i-l
i-l
B
0
i-l
CO
Q>
B
O
U
O
^J
CO
i-H
a
o
4J
perboard
CO
CO
eg
4-1
CO
t-<
a
B
O
H
r-l
r-l
H
C
O
H
CO
to
4)
^
B
O
u
eg
CO
i-i
a
o
4J
CO
to
B
t-1
co
4J
B
O
U
60
B
H
H
J^
CO
CO
eg
4J
co
1-4
a
B
O
H
r-l
i-*
1-1
s
4->
1
CO
O
4J
CO
CO
OH
a
3
U
o
eg
4J
s
u
B
9
N
O
l>>
O
4J
perboard
CO
OH
CO
a
u
B
O
i-l
r-l
r-l
H
B
conversio
o
3
ง
o
B
9
N
0
1
r
O
4-1
CO
to
<0
B
i-4
CO
4-1
B
O
00
B
H
a
a
H
JS
CO
CO CO
a a
3 3
u u
B B
0 0
i-l i-l
r-l r-l
r-l r-l
H -H
a a
4J
CU
X
to
B
O
4J
CO
a
3
U
B -O
O CU
H 4-1
CO CO
to O
0) U
B u
O PM
0 9
S1 N
U O
r~ป
CU
u
i
CO
C-75
-------
TABLE C-61
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING ONE MILLION FOAM PLATES
Impact Category
Virgin Materials
PS Resin
Isopentane
Energy
Electric
Process Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Packaging
LDPE Bags
Corrugated Containers
Quanti ties
26,610 Ib
1,040 Ib
20,200 kw-hr
460 Ib
270 Ib
350 Ib
3,600 Ib
Sources
123
123
19
19
19
C-76
-------
APPENDIX Dl>
REUSABLES
I. Towels
A. Cloth
The processes necessary for manufacturing cloth towels are: (1)
cotton growing (fertilizer); (2) cotton ginning; and (3) cotton cloth pro-
duction.
A brief discussion of the steps in each process will be given,
along with environmental impact data.
1,2
1. Cotton Growing; The main impacts generated by growing cotton
are due to the use of chemicals (pesticides and fertilizers) and the burn-
ing of petroleum derived fuels in farm machinery.
The amount of pesticides that is used in cotton is large. Cotton
receives approximately 50 percent of all insecticides used annually in the
U.S. To control insects, farmers must dust or spray the growing cotton many
times a season; the number and concentration is dependent upon the weather
conditions and degree of infestation. The pollution resulting from pesticide
use is extremely hard to measure due to the different methods of application,
types of chemicals used, and geographical nature of the farmland.
Fertilizer use also varies with the type of cotton grown, condi-
tions of the soil, and region of the country, etc. Although data on the
pollution attributable to fertilizer use are more readily available than
that associated with pesticide use, the amount of pollution depends upon
a wide number of variables, making an extremely accurate estimate of the
impacts difficult.
The frequent application of pesticides, fertilizers, and other
activities necessary in cultivating cotton, require a relatively large
amount of fuel for the machinery involved. This not only adds to the air
pollution of cotton growing, but also increases the energy requirement.
Table D-l lists the major impacts attributable to the growing of 1,000
pounds of finished cotton.
I/ See comment No. 3 Appendix B, page 5.
2/ See comment No. 4 Appendix B, pages 5-6.
D-l
-------
TABLE D-l
DATA FOR GROWING 1,000 POUNDS OF COTTON
Impact Category Quantities Soutees
Raw Materials 19
Fertilizer 152.5 lb
Pesticides 8.6 lb
Energy 59
Diesel 23.34 gal.
Gasoline 5.38 gal.
Atmospheric Emissions 19
Pesticides 2.2 lb
Hydrocarbons 4.2 lb
Waterborne Wastes 19
Pesticides 0.46 lb
Hydrocarbons 0.08 lb
Transportation
Diesel 1.2 gal. 59
2. NP Fertilizer Manufacturing; NP fertilizers are manufactured
from phosphate rock, nitric acid, ammonia, and carbon dioxide. The phosphate
rock reacts with nitric acid resulting in calcium nitrate and phosphoric
acid; the calcium nitrate is removed and ammonia and carbon dioxide are
added to control the ratio of N;P 0_.
The environmental impacts for 1,000 pounds of NP fertilizer pro-
duction are shown in Table D-2.
a. Phosphate Rock Mining; Phosphate rock is obtained chiefly
from deposits in Florida, Tennessee, and the western states. The deposits
are generally classified as residual, replacement and sedimentary. Residual
phosphate is derived from phosphatic limestone. Replacement phosphate is
phosphatized limestone formed by the reaction of phosphoric acid of organic
origin and limestone. Sedimentary phosphates, believed to be derived from
marine organisms, occur in irregular pockets of many sizes embedded in clay
or sand.
D-2
-------
TABLE D-2
DATA FOR 1,000 POUNDS NP FERTILIZER MANUFACTURE
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 10
Phosphate 430.0 lb
Nitric Acid 690.0 lb
Ammonia 230.0 lb
.Carbon Dioxide 160.0 lb
Energy 10
Electricity 43.5 kw-hr
Natural Gas 1,064.0 scf
Atmospheric Emissions >. 10
Particulates 9.0 lb
Nitrogen Oxide 0.4 lb
Ammonia 0.5 lb
Hydrogen Flouride 0.02 lb
Waterborne Wastes SO
Ammonia 0.0375 lb
Nitrogen 0.05 lb
The Florida and Tennessee phosphates are usually formed in
surface deposits and are worked by open-cut mining methods* Western phos-
phates are mined by underground methods*
Most commercial deposits of phosphate rock are amorphous,
impure varieties of the mineral fluorapatite, Ca^CFO^).^* The deposits
contain 18 to 90 percent available tricalcium phosphate, 033(PO^)-, known
as BPL (bone phosphate of lime). About three-fourths of the phosphate rock
marketed contains between 70 and 76 percent BPL*
The general practice in open-pit methods is to strip the
overburden with electric powered draglines and then remove the phosphate
rock* The rock is placed in a sluice pit where hydraulic monitors break
up the rock with 200 psi pressure. The slurry (40 percent solids) is pumped
through movable steel pipelines to the benefication plant.
D-3
-------
At the benefication plant, the first step is to separate
the coarse phosphate rock from clay, sand, and fine phosphate. The coarse
phosphate is removed and stocked as a marketable product. The fine mate-
rial is delimed to remove clays and sent to a flotation process to remove
fine phosphate. The sand tails and slimes, which contain 4 to 6 percent
solids, are pumped to slime ponds for settling. The slimes account for
about one-third of the total tonnage mined, and present a disposal problem.
The solids can be concentrated by settling, thickening with slow stirring,
freezing, and electrophoresis methods. The economics of rapid concentra-
tion are excessive at the present time.
The chief impurities in domestic phosphate rock are iron,
aluminum, and silicon oxides. Most of the impurities are removed during
the washing and sintering operations prior to phosphoric acid manufacture.
Elements that might be recovered as by-products from phos-
phate rock processing are fluorine, vanadium, uranium, scandium, and the
rare earths. Phosphorites contain about 3 percent fluorine. The fluorine,
released in part as a gas in the chemical processing, is a potential air
pollutant.
The total marketed production of phosphate rock products
in the United States was 38,739,000 long tons in 1970. The total amount
of mineral which must be mined to market this amount is about 454,408,470
long tons.
Table D-3 presents the raw data for mining 1,000 pounds
of phosphate rock.
b. Nitric Acid Production; The necessary raw materials for
the modern production of nitric acid are ammonia, air, water and platinum-
rhodium (a catalyst). The series of reactions are:
HNO
2NO + 0 > 2ND
The environmental impacts of manufacturing 1,000 pounds
of nitric acid are shown in Table D-4.
D-4
-------
TABLE D-3
DATA FOR MINING 1,000 POUNDS OF PHOSPHATE ROCK
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Raw Ore
Flotation Chemicals
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Residual Fuel Oil
Distillate Fuel Oil
Water Volume
Solid Wastes, Mining
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulate
Waterborne Wastes
Suspended Solids
Transportation
Barge
Rail
Truck
Quantities
2,920.0 Ib.
5.0 Ib
7.30 kw-hr
25.9 cu ft
0.04 gal.
0.8 gal.
902.0 gal.
1,523.0 Ib
21.0 Ib
376.0 Ib
15.3 ton-miles
10.2 ton-miles
9.0 ton-miles
Sources
108,114
103,108,
115
104
108,114
19,114,115
19,114
86,88
D-5
-------
TABLE D-4
DATA FOR 1,000 POUNDS OF NITRIC ACID PRODUCED
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials . 39
(Ammonia 292 pounds)-
Energy 39
Electric 5.0 kw-hr
Water Volume 3,125.0 gal. 39
Atmospheric Emissions 39
Nitrogen Oxide 1.5 Ib
&) Ammonia is discussed in the disposable diaper section in Appendix
C-III (Acrylic Resin).
c. Carbon Dioxide Manufacture; More than 60 percent of the
carbon dioxide manufactured in the United States is produced by steam re-
forming of natural gas and is actually a by-product from ammonia manufac-
ture. The gas is desulfurized, preheated, and reacted in a tubular furnace.
The hydrocarbon gases are converted to hydrogen and carbon oxides. The
primary reformer gas is reacted with air to produce a synthesis gas having
a hydrogen to nitrogen rating of about 3.0. The exit gas from the secondary
reformer is reduced in temperature (generating steam through the use of
heat exchanges) and reacted with steam to produce more hydrogen and also
carbon dioxide. The mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen is compressed in a
synthesis loop to produce ammonia.
The carbon dioxide produced in the carbon monoxide shift
reaction is removed by absorption with activated carbonate solution or
other absorbent.
The theoretical reaction for ammonia production from methane
shows that 7 pounds of methane (when reacted with steam and air) will pro-
duce approximately 17 pounds of ammonia and 19 pjounds of carbon dioxide.
Therefore, carbon dioxide represents 55 percent of the ammonia plant pro-
duction of useful products. The environmental pollutants are assumed to
be identical to these associated with ammonia plants.
The environmental impacts are shown in Table D-5.
D-6
-------
TABLE D-5
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF CARBON DIOXIDE
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 39
Chemicals (Natural Gas
494 lb) 455 lb
Energy 19,38
Electric 18.5 kw-hr
Natural Gas 2,363 cu ft
Water Volume 5,000 gal. 14,41
Solid Waste 0.2 lb 19
Atmospheric Emissions 14,40,44
Ammonia 1.0 lb
Hydrocarbons 1.0 lb
Waterborne Wastes 44
Ammonia (as N) 0.062 lb
3. Cotton Ginning: The primary job of a cotton gin is to take
raw seed cotton and separate the seed from the fibers* The amount of trash
(hulls, leaves, dirt, etc.) removed from the raw cotton to produce one 500-
pound bale of cotton fiber has increased from about 80 to 1,500 pounds due
to the increased use of mechanical harvesters*
*
The basic machinery components for a cotton gin processing mechan-
ically harvested cotton in the order of use are:
a. Suction unloading telescope.
b. Green boll trap.
c. Air line cleaner.
d. Bulk feed control unit.
e. Dryer, 3 million Btu, moisture sensitive control.
f. Inclined cleaner.
g. Burr machine.
h. Green leaf and stick machine.
i. Dryer, 3 million Btu. *
j. Inclined cleaner.
k. Extractor feeders.
D-7
-------
1. Gin stands.
m. Tandem saw-type cleaning.
n. Press.
The current disposal practice for gin wastes is to incinerate
37 percent, return 58 percent to land, and 5 percent is unaccounted for. The
trash is used on land for its fertilizer and humus value. The waste trash
will consist of about 36 percent hulls, 54 percent leaf trash and dirt,
and 10 percent sticks and stems. The seeds are reclaimed for use as fuel
or processing for valuable oils.
Table D-6 contains the raw data pertaining to the production
of 1,000 pounds of cotton from a cotton gin. Raw material inputs and water
pollution are assumed to be small and therefore were not researched.
TABLE D-6
DATA FOR PRODUCING 1,000 POUNDS OF COTTON FROM GINNING
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy 59
Electric 23.5 kw-hr
Natural Gas 154.0 scf
Solid Wastes 138 Ib 61
Atmospheric Emissions 57
Particulates 1.63 Ib
Transportation 62
Rail 250 ton-miles
Truck 150 ton-miles
In computing the impacts of growing and ginning cotton, credit
has been given for the cottonseed produced as a by-product of the cotton
lint. For every pound of cotton lint harvested, 1.65 pounds of cottonseed
is also harvested.
The total fertilizer, pesticide, fuel and waste quantities have
been allocated between cotton lint and cottonseed on the basis of weight.
For example, a total of 404.3 pounds of fertilizer, used to produce 1,000
pounds of cotton lint and 1,650 pounds of cottonseed, was multiplied by
D-8
-------
a factor of 0.3773 (1.00/2.65) to obtain the amount of fertilizer which
should be applied to the impacts of cotton lint (152.5 pounds). The quanti-
ties in Tables D-l and D-6 reflect the amounts allocated to cotton lint
only.
4. Cotton Cloth Manufacture; The conversion of raw cotton fiber
into the finished cloth involves a series of steps that can be classified
as either "dry" or "wet." The "dry" processes are involved with convert-
ing the raw cotton into cloth (spinning, weaving, etc.), while the "wet"
processes include chemical treatments such as bleaching, scouring, desiz-
ing, and mercerizing.
The dry processes contribute impacts to the cloth system through
the use of electrical energy that is required to operate the various weav-
ing and spinning machines. Approximately 2,706 kilowatt hours of electricity
are required to perform the dry processing of 1,000 pounds of finished
cloth. Also, there is a significant amount of natural gas (5,708 square
cubic feet) and coal (343 pounds) consumed per 1,000 pounds of cotton pro-
cessed.
The major impact of the wet processing steps is on the water
quality. The wastes characteristically have a high BOD, COD, phenols, sul-
fides, chromium, and inorganic salts. See Table D-7 for raw impact data.
MRI has determined that 132 pounds of cotton cloth are used to
manufacture 1,000 cloth towels (16 x 27 inches at 81 grams).2
B. Sponges
The required processes for producing sponges are: (1) natural
gas production; (2) natural gas processing; (3) sulfur mining; (4) carbon
disulfide; (5) wood harvest; (6) bleached kraft pulp paper manufacturing;
(7) sodium sulfate production; (8) salt mining; (9) caustic manufacturing;
and (10) sponge manufacturing.
Processes 1, 2, and 4 are discussed in Appendix C-I (Disposable
Diapers); processes 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are discussed in Appendix C-I (Paper
Towels). A discussion of processes 7 and 10 follows.
ซ-
1. Sodium Sulfate Manufacture} Sodium sulfate (NaoSO,) can be
produced by several processes. It is a by-product of hydrochloric acid,
rayon, phenol, dichromate and other manufacturing procedures* Glauber's
salt (NajSO, . lOH--.) and natural brines are other important sources for
the compound.
In this report we have used natural brines as the raw material
for sodium sulfate production. The Ozark-Mahoning plant, located close
to Monahans, Texas, was used as the source of raw production data.
I/ See comment No. 5 Appendix B, page 6.
2/ The correct weight is 60.0 grams, see Table 1. ,,
/' r I
D-9
-------
TABLE D-7
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF COTTON CLOTH
Impact Category
Quantities
Raw Materials
Material Cotton (1109.0 Ib)
Caustic
Sulfuric Acid
Additives
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Coal
Distillate Oil
Residual Fuel Oil
Water Volume
Solid Wastes
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Chromium
Phenol
Sulfide
,Transportation
Rail
Truck
510.0 Ib
30.0 Ib
42.0 Ib
2,706.0 kw-hr
5,708.0 cu ft
343.0 Ib
3.7 gal.
6.6 gal.
19,600.0 gal.
474.0 Ib
20.6 Ib
4.0 Ib
46.4 Ib
9.6 Ib
0.05 Ib
0.05 Ib
0.10 Ib
80.0 ton-miles
370.0 ton-miles
63
56,65
19
19
46,65
63,65
19
D-10
-------
The brine is removed from wells varying from 60 to 90 feet in
depth. It is transferred to a holding lake and then through a halite (NaCl
mineral) formation before entering the plant. The sulphate brine is satur-
ated with sodium chloride to reduce the solubility of the sodium sulfate
when the brine is chilled. The production steps are settling, chilling,
thickening, filtering, submerged combustion evaporation, and drying in
a rotary kiln (Figure D-l).
The Glauber's salt precipitates during the chilling stage. The
remaining solids are discharged with the spent liquor. About 1.5 pounds
of sodium chloride are required per pound of sodium sulfate produced. Most
of this is in the natural brine, with approximately one-third added during
the passage through the halite well. About 500 tons of refrigeration are
required for the chilling step, of which 200 are produced from waste heat.
The submerged combustion unit evaporates about 70 percent of
the total water load. Natural gas usage is 340 cubic feet per minute. A
200-horsepower compressor supplies air for the combustion. The final treat-
ment is drying in a gas fired rotary kiln. The energy requirements were
calculated from thermodynamic data.
Table D-8 contains the raw data for manufacture of 1,000 pounds
of sodium sulfate, 994- percent.
2. Sponge (Cellulose) Manufacture; The primary ingredients used
in manufacturing the cellulose sponge are wood pulp, sodium sulfate, sodium
hydroxide, and carbon disulfide. The wood pulp is used in the form of paper
sheeting.
In the sponge manufacturing process, the first step involves con-
verting the cellulose sheet into viscose. The cellulose is mixed in a solu-
tion of water, treated with carbon disulfide and sodium hydroxide until
the cellulose becomes the jelly-like substance called viscose. The second
step involves adding sodium sulfate crystals, vegetable or hemp reinforcing
fibers, and dyes to the viscose. Next, the mixture is poured in rectangular
block-shaped molds for cooking. After the cooking process (cellulose regenera-
tion), the sponge blocks are washed, processed, and cut into the desirable
size. The sponges are then packaged in plastic or cellophane wrapping and
shipped in corrugated containers.
The raw impact data for the manufacture of 1,000 pounds of sponges
is presented in Table D-9. The data are representative of the manufacturing
operations of a major supplier of cellulose sponges* The 1,000 pounds of
sponges represents approximately 16,925 sponges (6-3/16 x 3-11/16 x 1-1/8
inches per sponge).
D-ll
-------
O
a
ฃ
'I
' .0
-------
TABLE D-8
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF SODIUM SULFATE
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Brine (1,080 gallons)
Sodium Sulfate
Sodium Chloride
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Water Volume
Solid Wastes Mining
Waterborne Wastes
Dissolved Solids
Transportation
Rail
Truck
Quantities
1,264 Ib
1,483 Ib
10.0 kwhr
3,631,0 cu ft
1,000.0 gal.
100.0 Ib
75.0 Ib
450.0 ton-miles
50.0 ton-miles
Sources
117
19,117
19,117
19,117
19,117
D-13
-------
TABLE D-9
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 POUNDS OF CELLULOSE SPONGES
Impact Category Quantities
Raw Materials
Dry Pulp 830.0 Ib 19
Caustic 291.0 Ib
Carbon Disulfide 278.0 Ib
Sodium Sulfate 330.0 Ib
Energy
Electricity 3,130.0 kw-hr 19
Natural Gas 28,261.0 scf
Residual Oil 17.0 gal.
Water Volume 121,738.0 gal. 19
Process Solid Waste 174.0 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions
Sulfur Oxides 0.4 Ib 19
Odorous Sulfur 221.7 Ib
Waterborne Waste
BOD 21.7 Ib 19
COD 52.2 Ib
TSS 8.7 Ib
Packaging
LDPE Bags 85.0 Ib 19
Corrugated Containers 217.0 Ib
D-14
-------
The 1,000 pounds of sponges require 365 pounds of packaging (78
pounds of plastic wrap, 70 pounds of cellophane wrap, and 217 pounds of
corrugated shipping containers).
The sponges are transported an average of 600 miles, 40 percent
by truck and 60 percent by rail.
II. Napkins
A. Cloth-Home1'2
The processes needed for fabricating cloth napkins (50 percent
rayon, 50 percent polyester) for the home are: (1) ethylene manufacturing;
(2) PET resin manufacturing; (3) rayon manufacturing; and (4) napkin manu-
facturing.
Processes 1 through 3 are discussed in Appendix C-III (Dispos-
able Diapers). The impacts for cloth napkin manufacturing are shown in
Table D-10.
B. ClothCommercial
The prinicpal processes for the production of commercial cotton
napkins are: (1) cotton growing (fertilizer); (2) cotton ginning; (3) cotton
cloth napkin manufacturing; and (4) napkin working.
Process 1 through 3 are discussed in the cloth towel section
(Appendix D-I).
MRI determined that 100 pounds of cotton cloth would produce
1,000, 18 x 18 inch napkins. Therefore, only 10 percent of the impacts
discussed in the cloth manufacturing section of the cloth towel discussion
are applicable to the production of 1,000 napkins.
III. Diapers
The major processes for the manufacture of cloth diapers are:
(1) cotton growing (fertilizer); (2) cotton ginning; and (3) diaper cloth
manufacturing.
Processes 1, 2, and 3 are covered in the discussion of cloth
towels (Appendix D-I).
MRI has determined that 13.67 pounds of cotton cloth are needed
to produce 100, 21 x 40 inch diapers. Therefore, only 1.367 percent of
the impacts discussed in the cloth manufacturing section of the cloth towel
discussion are applicable to the production of 100 diapers.
I/ See comment No. 6 Appendix B, page 6.
2_/ See comment No. 7 Appendix B, page 7.
D-15
-------
TABLE D-10
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 HOME CLOTH NAPKINS
Impact Category
Quantities
Sources
Virgin Materials
Rayon
PET Resin
Caustic
Sulfuric Acid
Additive
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Coal
Distillate Oil
Residual Oil
Water Volume
Process Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
19
54.7 Ib
54.7 Ib
49.7 Ib
2.9 Ib
4.09 Ib
263.67 kw-hr
555.19 scf
33.4 Ib
0.36 gal.
0.64 gal.
1,909.8 gal.
46.2 Ib
2.01 Ib
19
19
19
19
Waterborne Effluents
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Chromium
Phenol
Sulfides
Packaging
LDPE Bag
Corrugated Container
80
0.39 Ib
4.52 Ib
0.94 Ib
0.005 Ib
0.005 Ib
0.01 Ib
2.0 Ib
2.0 Ib
19
D-16
-------
IV. Bedding
The processes necessary for manufacturing bedding made of 35
percent cotton and 65 percent polyester are: (1) ethylene manufacturing;
(2) PET resin manufacturing; (3) cotton growing (fertilizer); (4) cotton
ginning; and (5) sheet manufacturing.
Processes 1 and 2 are discussed in Appendix C-III (Disposable
Diapers)j processes 3 and 4 are covered in the discussion of cloth towels
(Appendix D-I). The impacts for sheet manufacture are shown in Table D-ll.
V. Containers
A. Cold Drink
1. Glass; The processes needed for the fabrication of glass
tumblers are: (1) limestone mining; (2) lime manufacturing; (3) soda ash
mining; (4) glass sand mining; (5) feldspar mining; and (6) tumbler manu-
facturing.
Processes 1 and 2 are discussed in Appendix C-I (Paper Towels).
A discussion of the remaining processes follows.
a. Natural Soda Ash Mining; Soda ash, which is the common
name for sodium carbonate, is used in glass manufacture as a fluxing agent.
Under the temperature conditions of a glass furnace, the carbonate is con-
verted to sodium oxide which lowers the melting and working temperature
and decreases the viscosity of the melt. Sodium oxide is the second most
abundant material in finished glass, constituting about 15 percent of the
finished glass weight.
Soda ash is obtainable in either its natural form or in
a manufactured form. The glass industry has utilized manufactured soda
ash in the United States for most of this century. However, in the late
1950's, large beds of natural soda ash (trona) were discovered in Wyoming.
It is also mined in California. Since the 1950's, trona has achieved con-
siderable market penetration; until 1973, trona accounted for 38 percent
of the soda ash used by the glass industry.
Since 1973, a combination of market, energy, and environ-
mental pollution factors have acted together to force the closing of numer-
ous synthetic ash plants, thus increasing the penetration of trona in the
market. There is general agreement that in the near future, the manufacture
of synthetic soda ash will practically cease in this country, and the glass
industry will be using only trona as a source of soda ash. We estimate that
by 1977, all of the soda ash used to manufacture glass will be trona.
-------
TABLE D-ll
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 CLOTH SHEETS
Impact Category
Virgin Materials
PET Resin
Cotton
Caustic
Sulfuric Acid
Additives
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Coal
Distillate Oil
Residual Oil
Water Volume
Process Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Chromium
Phenol
Sulfides
Packaging
LDPE Bags
Corrugated Containers
Quantities
818.0 Ib
440.0 Ib
571.2 Ib
33.6 Ib
47.04 Ib
3,031.0 kw-hr
6,393.0 scf
384.2 Ib
4.14 gal.
7.39 gal.
21,952.0 gal.
530.9 Ib
34.1 Ib
4.48 Ib
52.0 Ib
10.75 Ib
0.056 Ib
0.056 Ib
0.112 Ib
23.4 Ib
23.4 Ib
purees
19
19
.19
19
19
80
19
D-18
-------
Table D-12 shows that natural soda ash mining produces rela-
tively low environmental impacts compared to the other operations in glass
manufacture. However, the substantially greater use of energy as compared
to the other mined minerals leads to higher atmospheric emissions than
experienced by other mineral mining operations.
TABLE D-12
DATA FOR MINING OF 1,000 POUNDS NATURAL SODA ASH (TRONA)
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy
Natural Gas 2,900 cu ft 119
Water Volume 600 gal. 104
Mining Wastes 60 Ib 118
Process Atmospheric Emission 119
Particulates 5 Ib
b. Glass Sand Mining; Glass sand is the predominant raw
material for glass manufacture. It comprises 53 percent by weight of the
raw materials used in the production of glass and is the source of almost
all of the silicon dioxide present in finished container glass. Silicon
dioxide is the major chemical constituent of glass and amounts to approxi-
mately 70 percent by weight of the finished container glass.
Glass sand is a high purity quartz sand which usually con-
tains less than 1 percent other minerals or foreign materials. These strin-
gent purity restrictions prevent the use of most of the sand available
in this country. However, sizable deposits of glass sand do exist in New
Jersey in the form of unconsolidated sand banks, and as sandstones found
in the Alleghenies and the Mississippi River Valley. In addition, there
are smaller deposits of glass sand located in various other sections of
the country.
The mining operations chosen depend on the nature of the
deposit at each location. The mining operations range from simply scoop-
ing sand from a pit or bank and loading it into a truck, to quarrying hard
sandstone in a fashion similar to the procedures used to extract limestone.
In the latter event, extensive crushing, washing and screening may be neces-
sary.
D-19
-------
Data pertaining to the mining of 1,000 pounds of glass sand
are shown in Table D-13 along with the sources of each number.
TABLE D-13
DATA FOR MINING OF 1,000 POUNDS GLASS SAND
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy 103
Coal 5.8 Ib
Distillate 0.15 gal.
Residual 0.05 gal.
Gas 216 cu ft
Gasoline 0.041 gal.
Electricity 2.0 kw-hr
Water Volume 900 gal. 104
Waterborne Wastes 119
Suspended Solids 0.5 Ib
c. Feldspar Mining; Feldspar is an aluminum, silicate min-
eral which is used in glass manufacture to obtain aluminum oxide. This
oxide acts as a stabilizer and improves the stability and durability of
the glass microstructure. It is added in small quantitites and generally
makes up less than 3 percent of the total glass weight.
Feldspar is mined in 13 states but North Carolina and
California produce 65 percent of the nation's total. Hence, transportation
expenses to bring feldspar to glass plants may be quite high. Feldspar is
mined primarily by open pit quarry techniques. Usually drilling and blast-
ing are required although this is not always so.
The data pertaining to the raw impacts associated with feld-
spar mining are listed in Table D-14. The dominant impact is the consider-
able mining waste associated with feldspar mining. More solid waste is
associated with this operation per ton of material than any other operation
for glass manufacture. Also, there is a significant amount of air pollu-
tion which is primarily dust produced by mining and crude ore processing.
D-20
-------
TABLE D-14
DATA FOR MINING OF 1,000 POUNDS FELDSPAR
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Virgin Raw Materials 1,025 Ib 103
Energy
Distillate 30.0 gal.
Gasoline 0.12 gal.
Electricity 28.0 kw-hr
Water Volume 2,250 gal. 104
Mining Wastes 2,300 Ib 84
Atmospheric Emissions 7.5 Ib 19
Transportation 19
Rail 765 ton-miles
d. Glass Tumbler Manufacture; The glass tumbler manufactur-
ing process consists of three primary steps: (1) melting the raw materials;
(2) pressing or forming the product; and (3) annealing.
Around 8 to 9 million Btu are required to melt 1 ton of glass.
The reject rate of molten material is about 10 percent. The press plant has
a total connected power of around 300 horsepower per line, producing 15 to
20 tons per day. The furnace requires some electrical energy. Fuel oil is
used as a stand by energy source. The total energy requirement per ton of
glass tumblers is 10 to 12 million Btu. The manufacture of glass beverage
containers is less energy intensive, generally requiring 8 to 9 million
Btu per ton.
The impacts for manufacturing 1,000 pounds of glass tumblers.
are shown in Table D-15. Data for 1 million glass tumblers are presented
in Table D-16.
2. Polypropylene Tumbler; The processes required for the produc-
tion of polypropylene tumblers are: (1) propylene manufacturing; (2) pro-
pylene resin manufacturing; and (3) tumbler manufacturing.
D-21
-------
TABLE D-15
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 POUNDS OF GLASS TUMBLERS
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Glass Sand
Limestone
Lime
Feldspar
Soda Ash
Addi tive
Quantities
660.0 Ib
263.0 Ib
46.0 Ib
75.0 Ib
216.0 Ib
10.0 Ib
Sources
124,19
Energy 124,19
Electricity 125.0 kw-hr
Natural Gas 4,680.0 scf
Residual Oil 1.8 gal.
Water Volume 125.0 gal. 19
Process Solid Waste 13.0 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions 19
Sulfur Oxides 0.8 Ib
Particulates 1.0 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 19
Suspended Solids , 0.07 Ib
D-22
-------
TABLE D-16
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1 MILLION GLASS TUMBLERS
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Glass Sand
Limestone
Lime
Feldspar
Soda Ash
Additives
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Residual Oil
Water Volume
Process Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Sulfur Oxide
Particulates
Waterborne Wastes
Suspended Solids
Packaging
Corrugated Containers
Quantities
192,063.0 lb
76,534.0 lb
13,386.0 lb
21,825.0 lb
62,857.0 lb
2,910.0 lb
36,375.6 kw-hr
1,361,903.4 scf
523.8 gal.
72,751.3 gal.
3,783.0 lb
232.8 lb
291.0 lb
20.4 lb
117,000.0 lb
Sources
124,19
124,19
19
19
19
19
D-23
-------
We have assumed that all the environmental impacts associated
with propylene manufacturing are identical to those associated with ethyl-
ene manufacturing (refer to Disposable Diapers, Appendix C-III). A discus-
sion of processes 2 and 3 will follow.
a* Polypropylene Resin Manufacture; The propylene monomer
is fed into a polymerization reactor containing catalyst and alkyl alumi-
num activator suspended in a hydrocarbon solvent. The reaction occurs at
10 atmospheres pressure and 60 C. The polymer slurry is extracted with
alcohol to deactivate and remove catalyst residues. The solvent is recov-
ered for reuse. The polypropylene product is dewatered and then dried with
hot air. The polymer is obtained in the form of a powder which can be used
for molding purposes.
The process data for manufacturing polypropylene are shown
in Table D-17.
TABLE D-17
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF POLYPROPYLENE POWDER
I mp a c t C a te go ry Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 10
Solvents (Propylene
1,060 Ib) 41.0 Ib
Energy 10
Electric 200.0 kw-hr
Natural Gas 4,540.0 cu ft
Water Volume 2,520 gal. 3
Process Solid Wastes 7.0 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions 53,54
Hydrocarbons 19.7 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 3
BOD 0.42 Ib
COD 2.10 Ib
SS 1.16 Ib
D-24
-------
b. Polypropylene Tumbler Manufacture; Polypropylene tumblers
can be manufactured by injection molding, blow molding, etc. The injection
mold temperature would run 400ฐF to 475 F. A typical machine would use 650
to 750 tons of clamp force, requiring a motor with 110 horsepower.
The impacts associated with the manufacture of 1,000 pounds
of polypropylene tumblers are presented in Table D-18.
TABLE D-18
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1 MILLION 9-OUNCE POLYPROPYLENE TUMBLERS
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Virgin Materials 19
Polypropylene Resin 88,626 lb
Energy 19
Electricity 21,600 kw-hr
Water Volume 157,000 gal. 19
Process Solid Waste 441 lb 19
Packaging 19
LDPE Bags 833 lb
Corrugated Containers 8,333 lb
B. Hot Drink
1. Ceramics; The necessary processes for manufacturing ceramic
cups are; (1) clay mining; (2) plaster (gypsum mining); (3) silica (flint
and glaze) mining; (4) feldspar mining; (5) nepheline syenite mining; (6)
bauxite mining; (7) alumina manufacturing; and (8) cup manufacturing.
A brief description of the processes and their respective en-
vironmental impacts will be discussed.
a. Clay Mining; There are several types of clay: kaolin,
bentanite, fire clay, Fuller's earth, and ball clay. The primary clays
used in the production of china are kaolin and ball clays; the respective
percentages are 40 percent and 60 percent.
I/ See comments Appendix J, pages 3, 19, 21.
D-25
-------
Kaolin clay is mined using conventional surface-mining tech-
niques and is processed via an air-floating or a water-washing procedure.
Air-floating involves primary crushing, drying, grinding, classifying,
bleaching, filtration, dewatering, drying and packaging (Reference 83).
in Table D-19.
The energy use breakdowns for these two processes are shown
TABLE D-19
KAOLIN: AIRFLOATED (per 1,000 pounds)
Mining
Primary Crushing
Drying
Grinding and Classifying
Packaging
Diesel Fuel Oil
Electricity
Electricity
Natural Gas
Electricity
Electricity
KAOLIN: WATERWASHED (per 1,000 pounds)
Mining
Degritting
Centrifying and
Blending
Filtration and Dewatering
Drying
Packaging
Diesel Fuel Oil
Electricity
Electricity
Natural Gas
Electricity
Electricity
Natural Gas
Electricity
1.2 gal.
1.69 kw-hr
7.89 kw-hr
890.0 scf
14.26 kw-hr
3.06 kw-hr
1.2 gal.
1.4.45 kw-hr
15.7 kw-hr
315.0 scf
12.86 kw-hr
9.06 kw-hr
951.0 scf
3.06 kw-hr
Source: Reference 83.
Of the kaolin used in the U.S. in 1973, 29 percent was pro-
cessed using air-floating, with the remaining 71 percent processed by water-
washing (Reference 83). The combination of these valves and the energy
use figures in Table D-19 were used to help calculate the energy impacts
shown in Table D-20.
Also used in these calculations were the energies involved
in processing ball clay. We know that the average energy consumed per ton
of ball clay processed is 0.95 x 10 6 Btu (Reference 82). We assumed that
the processing and energy types consumed are the same as the air-floated
kaolin; further, the quantities of each type of energy is the same ratio.
D-26
-------
TABLE D-20
DATA FOR PROCESSING 1,000 POUNDS OF KAOLIN CLAY
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Virgin Raw Materials 19
Clay 1,089 Ib
Energy 83
Diesel Fuel Oil 0.74 gal.
Electricity 23.64 kw-hr
Natural Gas 656.88 scf
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates 68.2 Ib 46
Transportation 450 ton-miles 19
Table D-19 also shows the amount of emissions associated
with the drying, grinding and storage of ceramic clay (Reference: Marshall
Sittig, 1975). It was assumed that 70 percent of the processing facili-
ties use cyclones only, 10 percent use cyclones and scrubbers and 20 per-
cent have no controls. The air emissions are primarily particulates.
To estimate the transportation involved in shipping the
processed kaolin the following information was used: (1) 89 percent of
the kaolin processed in 1973 came from Georgia and South Carolina (Refer-
ence 82)i and (2) most of the china produced in the U.S. is made in the
Northern Atlantic states.
The significant impacts are the large amount of natural
gas consumed, the large quantity of particulate air emissions, and the
long transportation distance*
b. Gypsum (Plaster) Mining; Plaster is used to make the
molds for chinaware. Plaster is dehydrated gypsum. Of the gypsum used in
1973, 13.9 percent was mined from Michigan, 12.5 percent from Texas, 12.4
percent from California, 11.2 percent from Iowa, and 9.7 percent from
Oklahoma. The major states where gypsum is calcined are Texas (10.7 per-
cent), California (10.4 percent), New York (9.8 percent), Iowa (7.7 per-
cent) and Georgia (5.5 percent).
D-27
-------
The major processes involved in obtaining gypsum are: min-
ing, crushing, grinding, drying and calcining. Underground mining or quar-
rying techniques are generally used} then, the gypsum is ground and dried
into a fine powder. The calcining process removes approximately 75 per-
cent of the water of hydration.
The types and quantities of energy used to accomplish the
above process are shown in Table D-21. The major portions of all the energy
categories are used in the calcining step.
TABLE D-21
DATA FOR PROCESSING OF 1,000 POUNDS OF GYPSUM
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Material 19
Gypsum 1,077 lb
Energy 82
Natural Gas 1,282.0 scf
Heavy Fuel Oil 1.87 gal.
Electricity 36.5 kw-hr
Diesel Oil 0.68 gal.
LPG 0.29 gal.
Gasoline 0.05 gal.
Atmospheric Emissions 46
Particulate 26.6 lb
Transportation 683 ton-miles 19
Also, Table D-21 shows the amount of emissions associated
with the drying, grinding, and calcining of the gypsum. It was assumed
that 70 percent of the processing facilities use fabric filters, 10 per-
cent use cyclones and electostatic precipitator, and 20 percent have no
controls. All of the air emissions are particulates.
The processing of gypsum is very energy intense; therefore,
all the energy impacts of natural gas are of significant quantity. Also,
the particulate air emissions and impacts associated with transportation
are important considerations*
D-28
-------
c. Silica Mining: Silica is a quartz (SiO . It is known
that flint is merely a hard quartz and that glaze is made primarily of
silica. Therefore, we are using the impacts associated with silica for the
processing of flint and glaze. The flint is used as a bonding/hardening
agent in the manufacture of chinaware.
Silica is extracted using surface mining techniques or quar-
rying from limestone. In the latter case, crushing, washing and screening
may be necessary. The types of energy used and their respective quantities
per thousand pounds of silica are shown in Table D-22.
TABLE D-22
DATA FOR MINING 1,000 POUNDS OF SILICA
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Virgin Raw Material 19
Silica 1,005 lb
Energy 68
Coal 5.8 lb
Distillate 0.15 gal.
Residual 0.05 gal.
Gas 216.0 cu ft
Gasoline 0.04 gal.
Electricity 6.9 kw-hr
Water Volume . 900.0 gal. 68
Waterborne Wastes 46
Suspended Solids 0.5 lb
Transporation
Rail 45 ton-miles 14
Barge 2 ton-miles 13
Truck 14 ton-miles 52-1
There are significant amounts of natural gas and water used
in the mining and processing of silica.
d. Feldspar Mining; Feldspar is an aluminum silicate mineral
which is used in ceramic manufacture to act as a fluxing agent.
D-29
-------
Feldspar is mined in 13 states but North Carolina and
California produce 65 percent of the nation's total. Hence, transportation
expenses to bring feldspar to ceramic plants may be quite high. Feldspar
is mined primarily by open pit quarry techniques. Usually drilling and
blasting are required, although this is not always so.
The data pertaining to the raw impacts associated with feld-
spar mining are listed in Table D-23. The dominant impact is ihe consider-
able mining waste associated with feldspar mining. More solid waste is
associated with this operation per ton of material than any other opera-
tion for glass manufacture. Also, there is a significant amount of air
pollution which is primarily dust produced by mining and crude ore proces-
sing.
TABLE D-23
DATA FOR MINING OF 1,000 POUNDS FELDSPAR
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 1,025 lb MRI
Energy 103
Distillate 30.0 gal.
Gasoline 0.12 gal.
Electricity 28.0 kw-hr
Water Volume 2,250 gal. 104
Mining Wastes 2,300 lb 120
Atmsopheric Emissions 7.5 lb 19
Transportation 19
Rail 765 ton-miles
Nepheline syenite, a refractory ingredient, is a type of
feldspar* Therefore, the impact data from feldspar will be used.
e. Bauxite Mining; Aluminum is the most widely distributed
metal in the earth's crust, with only the nonmetallic elements oxygen and
silicon surpassing it in abundance. However, bauxite ore is at the present
time the only commercially expolited source of aluminum. Although other
types of earth, including ordinary clay, contain aluminum, industry eco-
nomics favor bauxite as the preferred ore.
D-30
-------
Bauxite is formed by the action of rain and erosion on mate-
rials containing aluminum oxide (alumina). The heavy rainfall and warm
temperatures of the tropics provide the most nearly ideal conditions for
this process, and most of the world's bauxite is mined in these regions.
Although the United States is the world's largest consumer of bauxite,
nearly 90 percent of the bauxite used here is imported.
Most bauxite is mined by open-pit methods. In Jamaica, the
leading producer of bauxite, the ore lies close to the surface, and only
the vegetation and topsoil need to be stripped. In Arkansas, the top do-
mestic producing region, open-pit mining is also used, with stripping ratios
of 10 feet of overburden to 1 foot of ore considered minable. Underground
mining is employed at one location in Arkansas, and this method is the
most common in Europe.
TABLE D-24
DATA FOR THE MINING OF 1,000 POUNDS OF BAUXITE ORE
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy 103
Distillate 0.061 gal.
Residual 0.0378 gal.
Gasoline 0.082 gal.
Natural Gas 199 cu ft
Electric 3.52 kw-hr
Water Volume 7.85 gal. 103
Atmospheric Emissions 121
Particulates 3.35 gal.
Transportation - 19
Truck , 5 ton-miles
Barge- 975 ton-miles
ji/ Domestic transportation of imported ore.
Table D-24 presents the data relating to the mining of 1,000
pounds of bauxite ore, based on domestic data.
D-31
-------
Mining solid wastes which are often associated with ore
mining are not included here, but are instead counted in the refining opera-
tion, where they show up either as suspended solids in wastewater effluents
or as solid wastes*
f. Refining of Alumina; Before it can be used in the manu-
facture of ceramics as a refractor ingredient, bauxite ore must be refined
to nearly pure aluminum oxide, Al_0_, usually called alumina. The method
used to accomplish this is called the Bayer process, which is used almost
exclusively. The bauxite is crushed and dissolved in digesters, using strong
caustic soda and lime solutions. The undissolved residue, known as red mud,
is filtered out and constitutes a major disposal problem for alumina refiners.
Sodium aluminate remains in solution, where it is hydrolyzed and precipitated
as aluminum hydroxide, which is then calcined to alumina, generally in a
rotary kiln.
Waterborne wastes and solid wastes constitute the largest
parts of the environmental profile. Both of these categories consist largely
of mining wastes, the roughly 45 percent of bauxite that is discarded after
the sodium aluminate is removed in solution. The manner in which wastes are
handled determines whether they show up as waterborne wastes or as solid
wastes. If these red muds are simply discharged into a river, they are of
course a major water pollutant. In some cases, however, they are impounded
in settling ponds, where they end up as solid wastes on land. The figures
used in the present study are based on data reflecting current practice.
It should be noted, however, that there is an increasing tendency, in some
cases required by legislation, to impound the red muds as solids. Current
industry projections call for reductions of as much as 97 percent in the
waterborne wastes of alumina plants by mid-1975 (U.S. EPA).
The virgin raw materials category reflects only that portion
of the bauxite ore which is mined domestically. The most recent data put
this amount at about 10.4 percent of domestic consumption. Impact data
for alumina refining are presented in Table D-25.
g. China Cup Manufacture; During the manufacturing process
the raw materials are first blended in mixing tanks and then prepared for
use in the dinnerware manufacturing line. The cups are molded and baked
in a kiln for the required amount of time. The final manufacturing steps
include decorating and firing to the final finish.
At the current time, manufacturing wastes are being land-
filled. According to tests conducted at the Buffalo Testing Labs, Buffalo,
New York, in March 1972, the ceramic wastes from the china industry can
be used in many applications involving; (1) decorative cement panels for
architectural work; (2) swimming pool construction, construction type con-
crete? and (3) commercial and home garden shops and hobbies.
D-32
-------
TABLE D-25
DATA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF REFINED ALUMINA
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Bauxite
Other
uantities
1,523 Ib
70 Ib
Sources
19
Energy
Coal
Distillate
Residual
Natural Gas
Electric
Water Volume
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
Solid Waste Mining
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Chemicals
Metal Ions
Fluorides
Oil and Grease
Penols
Transportation
Rail
Barge
Truck
107
140.0 Ib
3.28 gal.
6.1 gal.
2,700 scf
350.0 kw-hr
240 gal.
12.2 Ib
3,722.0 Ib
0.82 Ib
19.9 Ib
198.5 Ib
5.8 Ib
76.5 Ib
0.245 Ib
0.0349 Ib
0.0178 Ib
378 ton-miles
378 ton-miles
43 ton-miles
19
121
122
19
D-33
-------
The data for manufacture of 1,000 pounds of china cups are
shown in Table D-26, and for 1 million cups in Table D-27.
2. Melamine Cup; The principal processes for the production of
melamine (plastic) cups are: (1) natural gas productionj (2) natural gas
processing; (3) ammonia manufacturing; (4) carbon dioxide manufacturing;
(5) urea manufacturing; (6) methanol manufacturing; (7) formaldehyde manu-
facturing; (8) melamine resin manufacturing; (9) wood harvesting^ (10)
bleached pulp manufacturing; (11) melamine molding composite manufactur-
ing; and (12) cup manufacturing.
Processes 1, 2, 3, and 6 are discussed in the Disposable Diapers
section (Appendix C-III). Process 4 is covered in the cotton growing sec-
tion of Cloth Towels (Appendix D-I). Processes 9 and 10 are covered in
the Paper Towel section (Appendix C-I). The remaining processes will follow.
a. Urea Manufacture; Urea is colorless crystalline compound
which is very soluable in water and has a melting point of 132.7ฐC. Urea
is used in the manufacture of fertilizers, varnishes, dyes, flameproofing
materials, resins, and other products.
Commercially, urea is manufactured by reacting ammonia and
.carbon dioxide at high temperature and pressure to form ammonium carbamate,
which is then dehydrated to form urea and water. The reactor effluent is
stripped with carbon dioxide. In the stripper, the nonconverted carbamate
is decomposed into ammonia and carbon dioxide and recycled back to the
high pressure condenser where partial conversion into ammonium carbamate
occurs. This carbamate and the noncondensed gases are fed to the reactor
to begin another cycle.
Urea plants normally have these areas of pollution: urea
dust, gaseous ammonia, and wastewater containing urea and ammonia. The
particulate contamination from pulling dust is estimated to be 0.24 pound
per 1,000 pounds of urea. These particles will probably fall from the air
in the vicinity of the urea plant and add to the waterborne waste load.
Solid wastes are estimated to be 0.05 percent of production. The atmos-
pheric ammonia emissions come from the urea concentrator and represent
estimates based on open literature sources. The waterborne wastes repre-
sent EPA effluent guidelines for 1977.
The environmental impacts for 1,000 pounds of urea are shown
in Table D-28.
D-34
-------
TABLE D-26
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 POUNDS OF CHINA CUPS
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Clay
Nepheline Syenite
Alumina
Flint
Glaze
Plaster
Bauxite
Feldspar
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Water Volume
Process Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Quantities
437.5 Ib
156.2 Ib
156.2 Ib
328.1 Ib
62.5 Ib
46.9 Ib
260.0 Ib
93.8 Ib
375.0 kw-hr
13,438.0 scf
4,000.0 gal.
281.25 Ib
3.5 Ib
1.21 Ib
2.4 Ib
2.26 Ib
Sources
19
19
.19
19
19
19
D-35
-------
TABLE D-27
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1 MILLION CHINA CUPS
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Clay
Nepheline Syenite
Alumina
Flint
Feldspar
Glaze
Plaster
Bauxite
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Water Volume
Process Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
DOC
Suspended Solids
Packaging
Corrugated Containers
Quantities
280,000 Ib
99,968 Ib
99,968 Ib
209,984 Ib
60,032 Ib
40,000 Ib
30,016 Ib
166,400 Ib
240,000 kw-hr
8,600,320 scf
2,560,000 gal.
180,000 Ib
2,240 Ib
774.4 Ib
1,536 Ib
1,446 Ib
54,000 Ib
Sources
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
D-36
-------
TABLE D-28
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF UREA
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Ammonia
Carbon Dioxide
Process Addition
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Water Volume
Solid Wates
Atmospheric Emissions
Ammonia
Particulates
Waterborne Wastes
Ammonia (as N)
Organic Nitrogen (as N)
Quantities
575 Ib
763 Ib
2.0 Ib
71.0 kw-hr
1,359 cu ft
1,720 gal.
0.5 Ib .
2.0 Ib
0.24 Ib
0.05 Ib
0.50 Ib
Sources
45
19
10,44,45
10,46
19
46
19,44
44
b. Formaldehyde Manufacture; About 90 percent of the formal-
dehyde manufactured in the United States comes from the oxidation of meth-
anol. The oxidation process will use either a silver catalyst or iron-
molybdenum oxide catalyst.
With the silver catalyst, methanol, air, and water are super-
heated and sent to the reaction vessel. The reaction proceeds upon contact
with the catalyst. At the catalytic bed outlet, the reaction gases are cooled
in a boiler which produces steam. Gases from the boiler are sent to an ab-
sorption tower. Absorption tower bottoms go to the distillation tower where
the formaldehyde is purified.
In the iron-molybdenum oxide catalyst process, methanol
is mixed with air and preheated before entering the reactor. As the re-
action proceeds the heat of reaction is removed by heat transfer fluids
and used to prevent the incoming feed, and produce superheated steam. The
reactor effluent is sent to an absorption tower where the proper formal-
dehyde-water concentration is obtained.
D-37
-------
The total direct costs are generally higher for the silver
process; however, the iron-molybdenum process becomes less competitive
in the 20,000 to 25,000 metric tons per year capacity range.
The impacts for formaldehyde manufacture shown in Table
D-29 are a combination of the silver and iron-molybdenum processes. The
iron-molybdenum process is a net producer of 4.9 x 10" Btu of steam per
metric ton of 100 percent formaldehyde, while the silver process? uses
6.78 x 10^ Btu. The net steam requirement when averaging the valoes for
the two processes are 0.43 x 10^ Btu per thousand pounds of formaldehyde.
TABLE D-29
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF FORMALDEHYDE (100% BASIS)
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 19
Chemicals (Methanol -
1,168 Ib) 1.0 Ib
Energy 10,42
Electric 74 kw-hr
Natural Gas 417 cu ft
Water Volume 262 gal. 4
Solid Wastes 1.0 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions 8
Hydrocarbons 10.8 Ib
Carbon Monoxide 40.0 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 4
BOD 0.058 Ib
TSS 0.088 Ib
The wastewater volume is estimated to be 131 gallons per
1,000 pounds of 50 percent formaldehyde. The process wastewater streams
are intermittent and generally occur during washing of the absorber, re-
generation of the nonexchange units and effluents from an aqueous slip
stream exiting the bottom of the feed vaporizer. The waterborne wastes
represent EPA 1977 guidelines.
D-38
-------
The atmospheric emissions represent present-day quantities
being released. The new formaldehyde plants coming on stream will have
almost zero atmospheric emissions*
The solid waste value is an estimate based on the quantities
of chemicals used and sludges produced during water pollution control.
c. Melamine Manufacture; Melamine is formed from reacting
urea in a fluidized bed reactor with an aluminia catalyst. The first step
in the process involves heat exchange between the reactor gases and urea.
The molten urea enters the reactor and vaporizes spontaneously. The gaseous
urea reacts to form melamine, ammonia and carbon dioxide. The conversion
rate is approximately 95 percent. The reaction products contain around
35 percent melamine, 37 percent carbon dioxide, and 28 percent ammonia.
The product gases are cooled in stages to remove cyclic
polymeric by-products (melem and melon) and to condense the melamine gas
which is ultimately recovered as finely divided crystals.
Part of the off-gas products remain in the urea cycle and
serve to heat the incoming urea and then cool the hot reaction gases. The
rest of the off-gases are returned to the urea plant and used as raw mate-
rials. By-product credit was not given for the off-gases.
The environmental impacts for 1,000 pounds of melamine are
shown in Table D-30.
d. Me_lami.ne_ Molding Compound; The melamine molding compound
used in the manufacture of melamine dinnerware is generally produced at
other locations. The materials profile diagram in Chapter 5 shows that urea
is manufactured from ammonia and carbon dioxide raw materials. The urea
is then reacted in a catalyst bed to form melamine.
In manufacturing the melamine molding compound, chemical
melamine is mixed with alpha cellulose (wood pulp), formaldehyde, and a
catalyst. The mixture is reacted, requiring around 500 Btu per pound of
melamine molding compound. The reaction product is dryed, chopped, and sent
through a ball mill to produce the mcflding compound used in the manufacture
of melamine dinnerware.
The raw impacts associated with manufacturing 1,000 pounds
of the molding compound are shown in Table D-31.
e. Melamine Cup Manufacture; Melamine cups are typically
manufactured at the rate of 480 cups per hour. The molding powder is first
preheated with microwave heaters and then subjected to pressure in the com-
pression molding machines. Preheating requires approximately 10 percent
D-39
-------
TABLE D-30
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF MELAMINE
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 37
Catalyst 1.8 Ib
Energy 19,37
Electric 603 kw-hr
Natural Gas 2,913 cu ft
Residual Oil 45 gal.
Water Volume 160 gal. 3
Solid Waste (Process) 1.0 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons 5.0 Ib
Waterborne Wastes
BOD 0.06 Ib
COD 0.30 Ib
Suspended Solids 0.04 Ib
D-40
-------
TABLE D-31
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 POUNDS OF MELAMINE MOLD COMPOUND
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 19
Natural Gas 890 Ib
Carbon Dioxide 1,170 Ib
Ammonia 881 Ib
Urea 1,533 Ib
Methanol 272 Ib
Formaldehyde 233 Ib
Dry Pulp 273 Ib
Additive 0.9 Ib
Energy 19
Electricity 303 kw-hr
Natural Gas 1,956 scf
. Residual Oil 22.7 gal.
Water Volume 80.8 gal. 19
Process Solid Waste 5.5 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions 19
Hydrocarbons 2.53 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 19
BOD 0.031 Ib
COD 0.152 Ib
Suspended Solids 0.02 Ib
D-41
-------
of the total energy, while the molding step accounts for around 60 percent.
Preforming, conveyors, and mold heaters account for the rest of the energy.
melamine cups.
Table D-32 contains the data for manufacturing 1 million
TABLE D-32
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1 MILLION MELAMINE CUPS
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Melamine Mold Comp
Energy
Electricity
Water Volume
Process Solid Waste
Packaging
Corrugated Containers
Quantities
266,953 lb
100,000 kw-hr
1,435,000 gal.
531 lb
26,043 lb
Sources
19
19
19
19
19
VI. Plates
A. Ceramic
The processes needed for manufacturing ceramic plates are identical
to those discussed in the ceramic hot cup section (Appendix D-V). The plate
manufacturing process is similar to the cup manufacturing process* Table
D-33 and D-34 contain the impact data for the manufacture of china plates*
B. Melamine Plates
The processes required for the production of melamine (plastic)
plates are identical to those discussed in the melamine hot cup section
(Appendix D-V). The plate manufacturing process is similar to the cup manu-
facturing process* The molding powder is preheated and subjected to pres-
sure in the compression molding mcahine* Approximately 240 plates per hour
are produced by the machine* The manufacturing impacts for 1 million mela-
mine plates are shown in Table D-35.
D-42
-------
TABLE D-33
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 POUNDS OF CHINA PLATES
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 19
Clay 457.0 Ib
Nephetine Syenite 139.1 Ib
Alumina 15.23 Ib
Flint 317.9 Ib
Feldspar 106.0 Ib
Glaze 59.6 Ib
Plaster 53.0 Ib
Bauxite 260.0 Ib
Energy 19
Electricity 364.2 kw-hr
Natural Gas 12,980.0 scf
Water Volume 3,947.0 gal. .19
Process Solid Waste 291.39 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions 19
Particulates 3.5 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 19
BOD 1.28 Ib
COD 2.17 Ib
Suspended Solids 2.3 Ib
D-43
-------
TABLE D- 34
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1 MILLION CHINA PLATES
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Clay
Nepheline Syenite
Alumina
Flint
Feldspar
Glaze
Plaster
Bauxite
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Water Volume
Process Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulates
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Packaging
Corrugated Containers
Quantities
690,070.0 Ib
210,041.0 Ib
229,973.0 Ib
480,029.0 Ib
160,060.0 Ib
89,996.0 Ib
80,030.0 Ib
392,600.0 Ib
549,942.0 kw-hr
19,599,800.0 scf
5,959,970.0 gal.
439,999.0 Ib
5,285.0 Ib
1,932.8 Ib
3,276.7 Ib
2,473.0 Ib
75,000.0 Ib
Sources
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
D-44
-------
TABLE D-35
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1 MILLION MELAMINE PLATES
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Melamine Mold Comp
Energy
Electricity
Water Volume
Process Solid Waste
Packaging
Corrugated Containers
Quantities
455,391 Ib
198,208 kw-hr
2,440,000 gal.
873 Ib
26,042 Ib
Sources
19
19
19
19
19
D-45
-------
APPENDIX E E
DISHWASHING AND CLOTH LAUNDERING PROCESSES
I' Disw_ashing: In this report, only commercial dishwashers
were considered in deriving the impact associated with washing dishes,
cups, glasses, etc.
The capacity of commercial dishwashing machines can vary widely.
The small capacity machines will wash around 800 dishes per hour while
the larger widetrack conveyor units will process up to 14,250 dishes
per hour. In this study, the operations parameters for a single tank-
rack conveyor dishwasher, having a capacity of 150 racks per hour (2,700
plates, 5,400 tumblers, or 2,400 cups per hour) are used in calculating
energy, water, and detergent requirements for washing reusable dinnerware.
The dishwasher requires approximately 20 gallons of water for
filling the wash tank (140ฐF) and 426 gallons per hour (continuous opera-
tion) for the final rinse water. The wash tank water is heated to and
maintained at 160ฐF by electric immersion heaters. The final rinse water
is heated from 140ฐF to 180ฐF by booster heaters. In commercial foodservice
establishments, 94 percent of operations use natural gas to heat water
to the 140ฐF temperature. Regarding booster heaters, 36 percent are gas
and 64 percent are electric. The detergent concentration in the wash
tank is maintained at 0.3 percent. Some of the final rinse water is routed
to the wash tank to help maintain the 160ฐF temperature, and to purge
or skim the wash water in the tank of food particles and grease which
may accumulate on the surface of the water.
In preparation for the washing process, the plates and cups
are scraped, rinsed, and placed on the conveyor racks. Each rack will
hold around 18 plates or 16 cups. At 150 racks per hour, the machine
will wash 2,700 plates, 2,400 cups, or 5,400 tumblers per hour. Energy
requirements for washing 2,700 plates are presented below in Table E-l.
Regarding water pollution, EPA guidelines have not been estab-
lished for the waterborne wastes associated with commercial dishwashing.
In this study, the waterborne wastes were assumed to be comprised entirely
of the detergent components present in the wastewater. Municipal treat-
ment was assumed to reduce the quantity of detergent (expressed as dis-
solved solids) by 80 percent.
The impacts assigned to dishwashing are presented in Table E-2.
The energy and water requirements come from excellent data sources. The
waterborne waste values are rough estimates only. Both the National Restaur-
ant Association and the National Sanitation Foundation were contacted for
E-l
-------
TABLE E-l
ENERGY DATA FOR WASHING 2,700 CHINA PLATESCOMMERCIAL DISHWASHER
(one hour of operation)
Heat
Wash
Water
20 gal.
55-140ฐF
Heat
Wash
Water
20 gal.
140-160ฐF
Emersion
Heaters
Heat
Rinse
Water
426 gal.
55-140ฐ F
Heat
Rinse
Water
426 gal.
1 40-1 80ฐ F
Booster
Heater
Power For
Dishwasher
Motor
Totals
Natural Gas,
Cubic Feet
Killowatt-
hour
17.25
0.26
0
1.0
367.5
5.4
66.3
27.1
1.14
451.0
34.9
Note: The above energy values represent one hour of continuous operation.
The same energy is assigned to washing melamine plates (2,700 per
hour), china and melamine cups (2,400 per hour), and glass and poly-
propylene tumblers (5,400 per hour). The energy .lost in heating the
" dinnerware is assumed to come from the rinse water. The final ef-
fluent rinse water is generally routed through the dishwasher to
accomplish some heat recovery. This heat recovery is assumed to
offset the energy required to heat the dinnerware. For example:
to heat 2,700 china plates from 75ฐF to 160ฐF requires approximately
70,000 Btu (specific heat of china plate ==0.2 cal per ฐC per gram).
The rinse water contains about 467,000 Btu. Therefore, using the
rinse water to heat the china plate represents an energy recovery
factor of 15 percent. The above figures are based on 75 percent
efficiency for gas water heaters and 98 percent for electric water
heaters.
E-2
-------
information regarding water pollution resulting from commercial dishwashing;
however, no data were available for submission to the study. Also, the food
residues removed from the plates during the washing cycle were not considered.
(The food residues remaining on the disposable plates were not considered
when calculating the postconsumer solid waste attributable to disposable
dinnerware.)
TABLE E-2
DATA FOR WASHING ONE MILLION OF EACH
REUSABLE DINNERWARE PRODUCT
Impacts
Raw Materials
Detergent,
Thousand Pounds
Energy
Electric, Thous-
and kilowatt hour
Natural Gas, Thous-
and Cubic Feet
Water Volume, Thousand
Gallon
Waterborne Dissolved
Solids, Pounds
Dinnerware Product
Glass
Polypropylene
Tumblers
1.44
6.472
83.517
79.0
288.0
China
Melamina
Cups
3.4
14.562
187.912
178.0
860.0
China
Melamine
Plates
3.02
12.944
167.030
158.0
604.0
Source: MRI calculations based on data submitted by industry sources.
E-3
-------
Energy reduction through use of chemical sanitation rather than
180ฐF water, would reduce the total energy tor requirements of the dishwashing
system by around 42 percent. This would reduce the energy per tumbler from
160 to 93 Btu, per cup 360 to 210 Btu and per plate 321 to 186 Btu (Table
E-3).
TABLE E-3
ENERGY DATA COMPARISONS FOR HOT WATER
AND CHEMICAL SANITIZATION
Dinnerware Hot Water Chemical
Item Sanitization Sanitization
Tumblers 160 93
Cups 360 210
Plates 321 186
Source: MRI,
1
2. Commercial Laundering; The primary trade association for
the textile maintenance companies in this country is the Linen Supply
Association of America (LSAA). The LSAA has a membership of around 855
companies. Most of the textile laundering information contained in this
report was furnished by the LSAA or member companies.
The typical commercial laundering facilities utilize washers
having 800 pounds of textile capacity (dry weight) per load, and dryers
which process 400 pounds per load. The smaller on-premise laundry would
use washers with approximately 60 pounds of capacity, and dryers with
50 pounds of capacity per load. The resource and environmental data in
this report are based on the larger commercial laundering companies.
Table E-4 presents a typical laundering schedule for kitchen
towels. The flushing operation is an initial rinse to remove readily
loosened soil. The suds operation emulsifies the oils and greases and
loosens most or all of the remaining soil.
I/ See comment No. 2 Appendix B, page 10.
E-4
-------
TABLE E-4
LAUNDERING SCHEDULE FOR KITCHEN TOWELS, 100 PERCENT COTTON
Operation
1. Flush
2.
^ *
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Flush
Break/
Suds
Carry-
over
Carry-
over
Bleach
Rinse
Rinse
Rinse
Rinse
Sour
Water
Level
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
Few
Water
Temperature
Hot
Hot
190ฐ 'F
160ฐF
160ฐF
160ฐF
Hot
Hot
Split
Split
100ฐF
Time,
Minutes
2
2
15
5
5
10
2
2
2
2
5
Supplies/1,000 Pounds Towels
40 pounds detergent
5 pounds, 20 percent ble
1.3 pounds sour
The carryover is an extension of the suds operation since much
of the detergent still remains in the material. Carryover is followed
by bleaching, rinsing and sour treatment. A sour is an acid chemical
added to neutralize any remaining alkalinity.
The laundering schedules for napkins, sheets and diapers will
differ slightly from the schedule in Table E-4. The many different launder-
ing formulations, coupled with the many different types of soil contained
on the textiles, will cause the raw wastewater to be highly variable
with respect to type and concentration of waterborne wastes.
Table E-5 presents the detailed calculations used in deriving
the energy requirements for heating the wash water for laundering napkins,
sheets, and diapers in a commercial laundry. We used the assumption that
100 percent of the waste water is heated by natural gas with an efficiency
of 76 percent.1 The energy assigned to heating water for the various products
is heavily dependent upon the gallons of water used in the washing process.
The energy varies from 3,168 Btu per pound for napkins to 4,726 Btu per
pound for diapers. In some commercial laundry establishments, the water
use will be much different than shown, and therefore will require more
or less Btu per pound of laundry.
I/ Waste should be wash.
E-5
-------
r*
Q
<
"
jj
^J
O
M
ง
ys
o
1
g
H
m 3
(d O
z
W M
pj) ฃH
** ง
ctf
Q
1*4
CO
H
ง
s
OS
H
D
0
bl
cd
O
ฃ
IS
55
in
c
2
a
m
in
D
C
1
O
o
o
r-4
^
CJ
04
U
CJ
JJ
C3
U)
C
O
14
r-4
eg
o
O
in
VO
en
CO
1
p.
z
-
CM
ง
J-l
a o
3 c
ฃ
o
eg u o
3 < **
H
O X4 14-1
JJ CJ U_i
4J (.j
3 co
s *g
o
r-4
ฃj
II
H)
U
g
4J
^j
cj
CJ
H
OC
c
1
u
c
t-1
1
01
3
JJ
Rt
r4 C* CJ
3 o a
u c g1
CO (U O
U ปj H
o n H
-4 3
n u-c ^ ov en
CT^ oo en CO O \o
O en vo *^ *^ n
ซv
rH
en งv 5 S ฃ ง
O i-1 en O ป \o
r-4 r-4 r-l CO r-l -O 1-4
CM r-l r l-l
o m o o o o
vo *^ n in \o co ov
CM cn p*- m ซ
c
0
r4
10
r-4
U
r-4
O
r-4
*
CJ
U
3
O
CO
E-6
-------
Table E-6 contains a summary of the primary energy consuming
steps in a commercial laundry. The data are broken down into the various
steps to permit the reader to substitute alternative values and test
the effect of the new value on the total energy required per pound of
laundry. The scope and funding of the study did not permit an indepth
analysis of the commercial laundry industry to pinpoint the low energy
requirements of the more efficient laundries, or the high energy require-
ments of the inefficient laundries. The values in this report represent
averages found in the open literature.
The energy requirement of the gas dryer amounts to about 1,200
Btu per pound of laundry. The energy for drying primarily depends upon
the amount and temperature of the water left in the linen after the ex-
tractor step.
Regarding waterborne wastes, EPA has not set 1977 guidelines
for the commercial laundry industry. At the present time, EPA is planning
to study 21 industries concerning 65 classes of compounds (124 organic
chemicals and 15-20 inorganic chemicals). Laundries are among the 21
industries. The studies are projected to begin in late 1977. The results
will be included in the 1983 guidelines.
For this study we have used proposed iiPA guidelines as follows;
BOD-30 milligrams per liter, suspended solids-30 milligrams per liter,
oil and grease-10 milligrams per liter, and tnetals-2.2 milligrams per
liter. These concentrations were used to calculate the waterborne wastes
for the various product categories, based on the volume of water discharged.
The REPA impacts for 1,000 pounds of napkin, sheet and diaper
laundering are shown in Tables E-7, E-8 and E-9.
3. Home Laundering!>2
a. Cloth Diapers; Industry data submitted for this study
indicate that 4.264 pounds of cloth diapers are washed in the average
load, requiring 0.185 pounds of detergent and 0.064 pounds of bleach
and softener. During the washing process, the washing machine uses 0.35
killowatts per hour of electricity and requires 25 gallons of hot water
and 23 gallons of cold water. The drying process requires 1.91 killowatts
per hour and 3.12 cubic feet of natural gas (at the 67 percent electric
and 33 percent gas national average).
The impacts for washing diapers are calculated for 100 changes
or diaperings. Industry data show 8.56 diapers used per day for 5.82
changes per day, resulting in 1.47 diapers per change. Due to double
and triple diaperings, the 100 changes will result in 147 diapers being
washed (20.09 pounds or 4.71 washer loads). Table E-10 contains the im-
pact data for laundering 100 changes (147 diapers).
I/ See comment No. 8 Appendix B, page 7.
2/ See comment Appendix H.
3_/ See comment No. 9 Appendix B, pages 7-8.
E-7
-------
H
*ปN^
flj I
s^
g
s
3
j
*N
n
c?
OS
1
O
o
I Q
w
W
w a
03 ^5
t
4J fclO
O fc O
H Q) JB
W fo
u
i i ^*ป 3
Q) 00 1 *
4J Jj FQ
O >
H JJ
1 ._ J
*-M 1-1
O
CU to
^f
i
,0 -o
CM CM CM C
0 3
41 O
H CU
"a. o
CU 0
HI
J3
(0
eg
^1
01 ปC
rt ,ง
^i
0)
o.
^
3 *
in
a
cfl c
O O O 4J as
O 43 cu rO
H in JJ CM
en cQ co
ซ 3 cu
43 43 ซ
00 JJ )-j X!
(3 ^4 Q) ^j
^-1 O JJ "O
?3
4J\O
ซ o
0) i-l
JJ
o
3
a
o
(Xl
45
O
i-i
0
in to CB C
3 Cu 3 ฃ
CO &
C O 4J 8<
CO 00 >45 O C ซ
\o r-- CM -H T3
-------
TABLE E-7
DATA FOR LAUNDERING 1,000 POUNDS OF NAPKINS-COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY1
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Soap
Detergent
Bleach
Sour
Softener
Starch
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Water
Solid Waste
Quantities
5.6
6.9
1.2
1.0
1.2
3.8
23.8 kwhr
4, 3 SQ ft3
3,650 gal.
52.0 Ib
Source
75
75
75
75
75
75
72
72
Waterborne Wastes 73
BOD 0.9
COD
Suspended Solids 0.9
Dissolved Solids
Oil and Grease 0.3
Metal Ion 0.07
J_/ See comment No. 15 Appendix B, page 9.
E-9
-------
TABLE E-8
DATA FOR LAUNDERING 1,000 POUNDS OF SHEETS-COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY1
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Soap
Detergent
Bleach
Sour
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Water
Solid Wastes
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Solids
Oil and Grease
Metal Ion
Quantities
5.07
6.18
1.20
1.00
23.8 kwhr
3,880 ft3
3,140 gal
48 Ib
0.8
0.8
0.26
0.06
Sources
73
73
73
72
73
I/ See comment No. 15 Appendix B, page 9.
E-10
-------
TABLE E-9
DATA FOR LAUNDERING 1,000 POUNDS OF CLOTH DIAPERS (COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY)1
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Soap
Detergent
Bleach
Sour
Softener/Sanitizer
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Water
Solid Wastes
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Solids
Oil and Grease
Metal Ion
Quantities
9.0 Ib
11.0 Ib
2.5 Ib
0.9 Ib
1.2 Ib
23.8 KWHR
5,500 gal
78.0 Ib
1.4 Ib
1.4 Ib
0.46 Ib
0.10 Ib
Sources
72, 75
72, 75
72, 75
72, 75
72, 75
72
72
I/ See comment No. 15 Appendix B, page 9.
E-ll
-------
TABLE E-10
DATA FOR HOME LAUNDRY OF DIAPERS (100 CHANGES)
I tnp a c t C a te g o r y
Raw Materials
Detergent
Bleach
Softeners
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Residual Oil
Water
Solid Waste
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
SS
Oil and Grease
Metal Ion
Quantities
0.87 Ibs
18.3 fl oz
4.58 fl oz
23.93 kwhr
97.64 ft3
0.15 gal
220 gal
1.5 Ib
0.12
0.085
0.01
0.002
Sources
19, 75
19, 75, 79
79
19, 72
19, 78
E-12
-------
The energy requirements in Table E-10 are expanded into more
detail in Table E-llซ The latter table presents the energy requirement
for one washer load and for 100 changes (4.71 washer loads) according
to the energy source. The energy required per diapering change is 4,020
Btu.
TABLE E-ll
ENERGY ANALYSIS FOR HOME LAUNDRY OF DIAPERS
Heat Water
(58% Nat. Gas Dryer Heat
27% Electric Washer Dryer (33% Nat. Gas Total
Energy Source 15% Fuel Oil) Motor Motor 67% Electric) Energy
Per Washer Load (31.2 Diapers)
Electric, kwhr 18.21 0.35 1.0 1.91 5.08
Nat. Gas, Cu Ft 17.61 3.12 20.73
Fuel Oil, gal 0.031 0.031
Total Btu 85,350
Per 100 Changes (147 Diapers)
Electric, kwhr 8.57 1.65 4.71 9.0 23.93
Nat. Gas, Cu ft 82.94 14.7 97.64
Fuel Oil, gal 0.146 0.146
Total Btu 402,000
The water requirements (hot and cold) for home laundry repre-
sent average usage for washing machines currently on the market as re-
ported by Consumer Reports.
Solid waste from the home laundering of diapers is primarily
sewage sludge formed during municipal waste treatment.
Typical BOD and suspended solids values from home laundry waste
are 184 and 233 milligrams per liter respectively. For this report, we
assumed that 65 percent of the BOD and 80 percent of the suspended solids
are removed in sewage treatment plants. Oil and metal ion quantities
are estimates based on open literature values. Each water pollutant cal-
culation is based on 220 gallons of waste water.
Table E-12 contains the impacts, based on 100 diaperings, which
pertain to diaper treatment prior to laundering. Industry data show
that 55 percent of the changes result in a rinse in, and flush of, the
I/ The number should be 1.82.
E-13
-------
toilet. At 5 gallons per flush, 275 gallons of water are used to rinse
the 55 changes of diapers. Also, in each rinse approximately 2.96 grams
of feces are flushed to the sewer. At 65 percent removal efficiency and
assigning one pound of BOD to each pound of feces flushed, 100 changes
will result in 0.126 pounds of BOD entering receiving waters. The sus-
pended solid load was assumed to be 80 percent of the BOD load or 0.1
pounds per 100 changes. The solid wastes value is calculated from the
BOD level by assigning 20 percent of the BOD removed to sewage sludges
or 0.07 pounds per 100 diaper changes (2.96 x 55 x 0.2)/454 = 0.07 pounds
sewage sludge). The "use" impacts in Table E-12 are part of the home
diaper REPA profile and are added to the total system impacts during
the computer calculations.
TABLE E-12
IMPACTS FOR CLOTH DIAPER USE (100 CHANGES)
Impact Category Values Sources
Water Volume 275 gal
Solid Waste 0.07 Ib
Waterborne Waste
BOD 0.126 Ib
Suspended Solids 0.10 Ib
Table E-13 contains the impact data for home laundry of cloth
towels, cloth napkins, and sponges. The washer load for linen used in
this report is 12 pounds. The energy values are based on the energy to
wash diapers in the home laundry with the heavier load of linen taken
into account. The water volume, solid waste, and waterborne wastes are
also based on industry data used in calculating the diaper washing impacts.
E-14
-------
TABLE E-13
DATA FOR HOME LAUNDRY OF 1,000 POUNDS OF LINENS
(Towels, Sponges, Napkins)
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Detergent
Bleach
Softener
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Water
Solid Wastes
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
SS
Oil
Metal Ion
Quantities
15.42 Ib
333 fl oz
83 fl 02
423 kwhr
1,727 ft3
2.55 gal
4,003 gal
27.3 Ib
2.15 Ib
1.56 Ib
0.3 Ib
0.07 Ib
Sources
75
19, 75, 78
78
19, 72.
19, 78
E-15
-------
Table E-14 compares the total REPA summary data for Cloth Towels
(U100, L5) and Cloth Napkins Home Use (UlOO) with the laundering component
of the profile represented by data from 8 pound loads and 12 pound loads*
The older washing machines (home) would encourage the use of 8 pound loads
while the newer 18 to 20 pound capacity machines would probably result in
wash loads of 12 pounds and heavier. The values in Table E-14 represent
the total profile summary and not just the laundering component.
The values in Table E-14 show a total system energy increase of
25 percent for the cloth towel system, and 29 percent for the home cloth
napkin system when decreasing the wash load from 8 pounds to 12 pounds.
A similar decrease in energy would be expected for those households using
16 pound loads rather than 12 pounds per load.
E-16
-------
sf
r-l
1
3
<]
j*-4
%
3
*
W
*
P*
a
JZJ
3
g
S
CJ
@
5
_J
w
g
a;
U
&
P
S
ffi
t-H
s
i *
o
U
B
/Y]
e
CO
w
H
! ^
Z 0)
0,1
o
O H
z
H >
CO W
JD -H
W
co <0
se
H
CO
;*
CO
h
0
H
s*.
13
#
o
o
1-1
D
s.
M
PH
1
t-t
o
C
ง
n
P-I
CM
r-l
*T3
c
ง
O_.
rM
oo
>
PH
CM
-o
C
O
CM
i I
o
c
00
ฃ*
^
O
(U
4J
(Q
O
-U
o
(Q
S
g
H
^O f***
VD ,H
-* O
CO CM
O CO
* 0
r-4 fป
ON fM
CM O
CO vO
CM CO
CO O
^ซ,
3
^~v 4J
43 PQ
< 1
s.^ c*
o
W 9r4
r-H 1-4
CQ i 4
1-1 -H
^ S
QJ V^
4J
S 00
^
*? C?
CO (*
P5 W
O r-l
r-4 O
O O
5 2
O O
m oo
o o
oo in
CM O
o o
r-4 O
O 0
O vO
CM O
o o
^-^
JJ
14-1
3
u
s1** ^s
a>
c
43 CO
U i-l
^ JJ
r-l (0
^ 3
-------
APPENDIX F F
DETAILED COMPUTER TABLES FOR PROCESS AND PRODUCT SYSTEMS
This appendix section contains the computer data for the master
systems, comparing the scenarios in each product category, and computer
tables showing the resource and environmental impacts for 1,000 pounds
of selected primary processes.
F-l
-------
TABLE F-l
RESOURCE AWO ENVMONMENUL PROFILE ANALYSIS
ONE THOU SKILLS EACH SYSTEM
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
COTTON
HATERIAL SOL FATE BRINE
MATERIAL MOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL (ปLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE OftC
MATERIAL SULrUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
E*ERปY SOURCE NAT 8AS
CNEftSY SOURCE COAL
ENERSY SOURCE MISC
ENER6Y SOURCE MOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HYOROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ABO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENER8V TRANSPORT
ENER8Y OF NATl RESOURCE
WATER VOi.U>ซr
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOW* -3f
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SCLIO HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICIPATES
ปTHOS NITR06EN OXIDES
ATKOS HYDROCARBONS
ATKOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS H.DEHYDES
ATHOS OTHER ORfiANICS
4TKOS OSOROUS SULFUR
*TMO$ AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROSEN FLOURIQE
ATMOS UEAO
ATHOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATEHSORNC DIS SOLI OS
HATEBBCRNJ FLUORIDES
HATCReORNC DISS SOLIDS
KATERBORNE BOO
HATERflORNE PHENOL
HMEHSORNl SULFIOES
HATER80RNE OIL
HATCปeORNฃ COO
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
MATER80RNE ACID
KATERBORUE METAL ION
HATEH80KNE CHEMICALS
SATERBORNE CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
HATERBORNE CHROMIUM
ปATฃRBORNE IRON
XSTERBORNE ALUMINUM
HปTER30ซNE NICKEL
UATER30RNE MERCURY
WATCRBORNE LEAD
XATERI90RNE PHOSPHATES
KATEH9QRNE ZINC
HATEHBORNE AMMONIA
HtirKtSttHl NฃTR08EN
kATERBOIINE PESTICIDE
-kVl'
-------
TABLE F-2
RESOURCE ANO EWVIRONKtWTAL PROPIU ANALYSIS
ONE THOU NAPKINS HOME USE
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ODE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SANO
MATERIAL NAT SOOA ASM
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERSY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT 8AS
ENERSY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE MISC
ENERSY SOURCE HOOD FIBER
ENER6Y SOURCE HYOROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS AOO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERSY TRANSPORT
ENERSY OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLIO HASTES MINING
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORGANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYOK06EN FLOUR1DE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
SATERSOBNE DIS SOLIDS
WATERjORNE FLUORIDES
HATERBORNE DISS SOL!OS
HATEHBORNE BOO
HATERBORNE PHENOL
HATERBORNE SULFIOES
HATER80RNE OIL
HATER80RNE COD
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
HATERBORNE METAL ION
HATERBORNE CHEMICALS
HATERBORNE CYANIOE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
HATERBORNE CHROMIUM
HATEffBORNE IRON
HATERBORNE ALUMINUM
WATERSORNE NICKEL
HATERBORNE MERCURY
HATERBORNE LEAD
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNE ZINC
HATERBORNE AMMONIA
HATER60RNC NITR09EN
HATERBORNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL STU
MILL 8TU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU 8AL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
UNITS
RAH MATERIALS POUNDS
ENERGY MIL BTU
HATER THOU SAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMMISSIONS POUNDS
HATERBORNE HASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE CUBIC FT
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM MIL 8TU
ENERSY SOURCE NAT 6AS MIL 8TU
ENERGY SOURCE COAL MIL ซTU
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPHR MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD HASTE MIL 8TU
CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH PAPER
NAPKIN NAPKIN NAPKIN NAPKIN NAP HOME NAP HOME NAPKIN
HOME HOME HOME HOME CLD HASH CL0 Hซ5H HCMK
USC1 LI USE2T LI USE!* LI USE100L! USE S'.Ll USE108L1 'HEl
0.003
.66S
48.848
4.T04
fl.OO*
75.803
.291
.257
0.008
OeOOO
20.144
3.568
3.383
4.503
.521
.SOS
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.900
13.611
11.366
.299
.816
4.317
76.236
19.221
68.378
1.913
0.000
9.911
9.759
7.842
24.388
4.163
.ซ4S
.123
.377
.085
0.000
.003
.000
.384
.00%
0.01)0
1.860
1.377
.906
.011
.034
8.486
2.323
1.456
.267
.002
0.800
.000
.005
0.000
0.01)0
0,000
.000
.060
.eeo
.029
aOOC*
ซ OQfc
.ปปป
jo*, it*
IX. 484
4.311
2*213
ST. 801
15.863
1.913
3.368
3.383
4ซ3Q3
52A
.KM
F~3
0.000
.665
1.787
.172
0.000
3.601
.291
.257
0.000
0.000
.810
.265
.400
.377
.067
.019
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
.780
1.082
.011
.03*
.513
5. 554
1.959
5.948
.071
0.000
.642
.942
.662
2.135
.241
.003
.007
.015
.001
0.000
.000
.000
.022
.005
0.000
.189
.257
.000
.000
.030
..119
.240
.120
.033
.000
0.000
.000
.060
0,060
OoOOO
C..09C
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.001
8.362
1.128
.553
.182
4.470
i.iw
.071
.265
a4$0
.3TT
ซ$$?
"*'*
0.000
.665
.893
.086
0.00,1
2.222
.291
.257
0.000
0.000
.443
.202
.343
.298
.058
.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.535
.886
.006
.019
.482
4.201
1.629
4.776
.035
0,000
.465
.774
.525
1.710
.166
.002
.004
.008
.001
0.000
.000
.000
.015
.005
0.000
.157
.235
.000
.000
.029
.163
.200
.094
.028
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
9.000
.000
.900
.000
.001
.000
.001
.000
5.391
.911
.482
.143
3.671
.916
.035
.202
.343
.!ป
.OS8
.08*
0.000
.665
.488
.047
0.009
1.592
.291
.257
0.000
0.000
.277
.173
.317
.262
.054
.005
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.oeo
.423
.797
.003
.013
.449
3.582
1.478
4.232
.019
0.000
.384
.697
.463
1.517
.132
.002
.003
.005
.001
0.000
.009
.000
.011
.005
0.000
.142
.225
.000
.000
.029
.092
.182
.083
.624
.060
0.000
.009
.00$
0.000
0.000
0.000
.080
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
4.039
.812
.449
.125
3.215
.788
.019
.173
.317
.262
.054
.005
0.000
.665
.893
,086
o.c&o
2.222
.291
.257
o.eoo
0.000
.443
.128
.156
.221
.041
.009
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.535
.530
.006
.019
.474
4.201
1.166
3.539
.035
0.000
.359
.498
.299
1.214
.124
.001
.003
.008
.001
0.000
.000
.000
.015
.005
0.000
.101
.235
.000
.000
.029
.163
.200
.071
.022
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.090
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.001
.000
5.391
.555
.474
.120
2.521
.630
.035
.128
.156
.221
.041
.009
0.000
.665
.488
.047
o.ooe
1.592
.291
.257
0.000
0.000
.277
.098
.130
.185
.037
.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.423
.439
.003
.013
.441
3.582
1.014
2.995
.019
0.000
.278
.421
.236
1.018
.089
.001
.002
.005
.001
0.000
.000
.000
.011
.005
0.000
.086
.225
.000
.000
.029
.092
.1R2
.059
.020
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
4.039
.455
.441
.102
2.063
.702
.019
.098
.130
.185
.037
.005
0.000
0.090
3.S63
?89
0,000
.349
3.000
0.000
0,300
0.000
.036
.055
.0*5
.022
.004
.042
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.401
.149
.013
.007
.098
.781
.164
.336
.089
0.000
.088
.135
.086
.225
.059
.001
.013
.003
.000
0.000
.000
.000
.002
0.000
0.000
.034
.064
.000
.goo
.000
.001
.071
.007
.002
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.osa
.000
.000
0.000
o.eoo
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
4.659
.168
.098
.017
.651
.179
.089
.055
.045
.022
.004
.042
-------
TABLE F-3
RtSBUBCt AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
ONE THOU NAM INS COMMERCIAL USE
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SANO
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE MAT OAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE DISC
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HYDROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SH 1C*
MATERIAL PROCESS ปOD
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
MATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID BASTES FUEL COM8
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITROOEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORSANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLDURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATERBORNE DIS SOLIDS
HATERBORNE FLUORIDES
HATERBORNE OISS SOLIDS
HATERBORNE BOO
HATERBORNE PHENOL
HATERBORNE 5ULFIDES
HATERBORNE OIL
HATERBORNE COO
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
HATERBORNE METAL ION
HATERBORNE CHEMICALS
HATERBORNE CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
HATER80HNE CHROMIUM
HATERBORNE IRON
HATER80HNE ALUMINUM
HATERBORNE NICKEL
HATERBORNE MERCURY
HATERBORNE LEAD
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNE ZINC
HATERBORNE AMMONIA
HATERBORNE NITROGEN
HATERHORNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
UNITS
POUNO
POUN!)
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
MILL 8TU
MILL BTU
HILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
CUBIC FT
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUMO
UNITS
RAH MATERIALS POUNDS
ENERGY MIL BTU
HATER TMOU SAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMMISSIONS POUNDS
HATERBORNE HASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE CUBIC FT
ENERSY SOURCE PETROLEUM MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE COAL MIL BTU
ENERSY SOURCE NUCL HYPHR MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD HASTE MIL BTU
CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH PAPER ZP
NAPKIN NAPKIW NAPKIN NAP COMM NAPKIN
COHMCR CONNER COMMER CLO HASH COMMCR
USE1 LI USE2T LI USES* LI USE Z7L1 USE1
119.034
.395
1.39*
O.ซ*0
c.ooa
*2.S42
.162
.1*3
0.000
o.oo*
1.050
1.BZ1
Z.19*
2.2*1
.36*
.012
0.000
0.000
.023
P. 000
0.000
0-S06
7. 6*3
6.219
.28*
.10*
I. S3*
86.386
11.585
34.981
1.962
.262
5.BT1
6.723
4.1T9
12.001
3.ป9ซ
.0*1
.1ST
.OOB
.02ซ
.0*0
.006
.000
.218
.006
0.000
1.02*
.550
.006
.011
.031
*.69S
4.045
.625
.158
.011
.00
.too
.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
.00*
.000
.101
o.ปoo
.801
.011
.815
IT1.2TT
6-. 652
2.584
1.T95
33.201
11.237
1.962
1.821
2.194
2.2*1
.384
.012
4.411
.305
.052
a. ซeป
O.ซ00
2.550
.162
.1*3
0.090
0.000
.073
.0*0
.553
.100
.018
.000
0.000
0.009
.001
c.ooa
0,050
0.000
.573
.732
.913
.007
.463
8,552
.528
1.603
.073
.010
.251
.533
.612
.549
.210
.003
.009
.008
.007
.000
.000
.000
.017
.006
0.000
.143
.123
.000
.000
.030
.216
.253
.029
.01*
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.001
0.000
.000
.010
.062
8.270
.752
.463
.144
2.208
.829
.073
.080
.553
.100
.01*
.060
2.206
.305
.026
0.000
0.090
1.792
.162
.143
0.000
0.000
.054
.047
.521
.059
.011
.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.438
.627
.007
.005
.*22
7.056
.316
.962
.036
.005
.1*3
.*!*
.544
.329
.143
.002
.006
.008
.006
.000
.000
.000
.013
.006
0.000
.127
.115
.000
.000
.030
.130
.180
.018
.011
.000
0.0*0
.000
.00*
0.00*
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.001
o.oeo
.000
.010
.001
5.116
.638
.422
.113
1.612
.628
.036
.047
.521
.059
.011
.000
4.411
.305
.052
0.000
0.000
2.5SO
.162
.143
0.000
0.000
.073
.080
.21*
.100
.018
.000
0.000
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.573
.398
.013
.007
.457
B.552
.528
1.603
.073
.010
.244
.357
.296
.5*5
.172
.002
.007
.008
.007
.000
.000
.000
.017
.006
0.000
.085
.123
.000
.000
.030
.216
.253
.029
.01*
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.001
0.00*
.000
.010
.002
8.270
.*1T
.457
.144
1.665
.770
.073
.080
.218
.100
.016
.000
0.000
8.000
8.380
.752
0.000
.912
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.095
.114
.098
.051
.010
.101
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.933
.359
.013
.002
.251
1.925
.354
.794
.221
0.000
.171
.297
.162
.492
.116
.002
.017
.007
.000
0.000
.000
.000
.004
0.000
0.000
.067
.139
.000
.000
.000
.001
.171
.017
.004
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.0*0
0.000
0.000
0.000
11.072
.374
.251
.041
1.269
.40*
.221
.11*
.098
.051
.010
.101
F-4
-------
TABLE F-4
RESOURCE AMD
PROFILE AHM.V91S
ONE THOU SNfETS CซCH SYSTEM
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL MOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL 6LASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERSY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENEMY SOURCE NAT 9A5
ENEMY SOURCE COAL
ENER8Y SOURCE MISC
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD FIBER
ENEROY SOURCE MYOROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL SYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERSY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
MATfB VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOL 10 HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES XIKING
SOLID HASTE PQST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PAUTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CAHBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER OR8ANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDH06EN FLOURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATERBORNE OIS SOLIDS
"ATERBOHNE FLUORIDES
HATERBORNE OISS SOLIDS
BATERBORNE BOO
HATERBORNE PHENOL
HATER60RNE SULFIDES
HATEMeORNE OIL
HATERBORHE COD
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
HATERBORNE METAL SON
HATERBORNE CHEMICALS
HATERBORNE CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
HATERBORNE CHRONIUM
HATERBOHNE IRON
HATERBORNE ALUMINUM
HATERBORNE NICKEL
HATER8CRNE MERCURY
HATER80RNE LEAD
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNE ZINC
HATERBORNE AMMONiA
MATERBOftNE NITROOEN
KA1ER80RNE PESTICIDE
SUNMAMY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
NIL ITU
MIL BTU
THOU SAL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
PO'JNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
UNITS
RAH MATERIALS POUNDS
ENEMY MIL ITU
HATER TNOU SAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMMISSIOWS POUNDS
HATERBORNE HASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL KASTE CUBIC FT
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NAT SAS MIL 3TU
ENERSY SOURCE COAL NIL BTU
ENEMY SOURCE NUCL HYPKR MKt 8TU
ENERGY SOURCE HOOO HASTE MIL BTU
CLOTM <
SHEETS
2NST
USE 1 LI I
STT.66S
3.0T3
16.110
o.o*ซ
0.800
469.765
1.63S
l.**5
0.000
8.009
u.roa
34.63*
32.343
26.33*
*.98Z
.13*
0.000
o.ooo
.111
0.000
0.800
0.000
8ป.T66
10.631
3. 97*
13.*22
2*. 32*
808.258
138. 223
411.6**
21.990
1.271
65.650
79.434
94.473
196.0ซ2
53.879
.sos
i.sai
.OS*
.1ปB
.002
.050
.003
2.3*2
.026
3,009
17.43*
6.792
.066
.125
.3ปT
S2.630
2T.01S
r.3งป
1.8S4
.064
8.000
.002
.056
0.000
0.000
a. ooo
.000
.001
,eป5
0.000
.012
.IfS
.2&a
m*.*Tป
98,91*
29.329
IS. 335
455.40*
114.214
21.WO
34,63*
32.343
26,338
4,5ซ2
-J38
:LOTH (
SMEETS
NST
isrss LI i
11.S42
3.0T3
.326
0,000
0.000
13.442
1.63S
1.44S
0.000
0.000
.579
.820
5.451
.6*9
.128
.003
0.000
0.000
.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.363
6.714
.091
.297
4.190
72.013
3.753
11.299
.440
.025
1.647
4.4T3
6.550
4.15*
l.ซ20
.021
.060
.084
.061
.000
.00]
.000
.087
.026
0.800
1.423
(.ISO
.001
.003
.296
1.488
).58ป
.206
.116
.001
0.000
.002
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.005
0.000
.009
.101
.006
36.908
7.102
4.190
1.175
18.988
6.445
.440
.820
5.451
.699
,126
.003
:LOTH <
SSICSTS
MST
JSElQOLl I
S.YTT
3,073
.263
0.000
0.000
.291
.635
.445
.000
.000
.465
.475
5.177
.438
.083
.002
0.000
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.543
5.960
.OSS
.154
3.933
6*. 503
2.38)
7.21*
.220
.013
.994
3.700
5.653
2.607
1.284
.01*
.04$
.08*
.059
.000
.001
.000
.0(S3
.026
0.000
1.268
1.123
.001
.001
.29$
.966
1.330
.133
.098
.001
0.000
.002
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.005
0.000
.000
.101
.003
25.39*
6.174
3.933
1.000
14.532
5.3*6
.220
.475
5.177
.438
.083
.002
:LOTM i
IHCETS
IKST
JSE30CL1 I
l.ปJS
3.073
.054
0.000
o.ซoe
6.188
1.635
1.445
0.000
0.000
.389
.245
4.994
.2*3
.052
.001
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.996
5.457
.032
.067
3.762
59.493
1.466
4.489
.073
.004
.558
3.198
5.054
1.573
.934
.an
.035
.084
.058
.000
.001
.900
.948
.026
0.000
1.151
1.0R5
.000
.000
.294
.618
1.157
.084
.086
.000
0.000
.002
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.005
0.000
.000
.101
.001
17.708
5.555
3.762
.88*
U.SAO
*.613
.073
.2*S
*.99*
.263
.052
.001
HSi'OSBL
SHEETS
:IST
JSES
0.000
.;jซ
76.7*9
7.429
S.fifio
8.637
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.oto
.921
2.025
5.768
1.207
.267
.793
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
13.00*
5.907
.*92
3.659
2.325
18.803
7.335
19.275
3.737
0.000
2.375
6.325
9.ซ15
8.071
2.168
.022
.ISO
.066
.001
0.000
.002
.000
.0*2
0.000
0.000
l.ซ2S
.923
.000
.000
.009
.291
1.22*
.386
.092
.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
106.680
10.059
2.325
.613
28.637
4.35*
3.737
2.025
5.768
1.20T
.267
.793
F-5
-------
TABLE F-5
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENT PROFILE ANALYSIS
lit CHAM6CS EACH DIAPERING SYS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SANO
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASh
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT OAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENEROY SOURCE MISC
ENERGY SOURCE KOOO FIBER
ENERBY SOURCE HYOROPOWCR
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE HOCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL 6YPSUN
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADD
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORGANIC;
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIOC
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATERBORNE DIS SOLIDS
HA1ฃRBORNE FLUORIDES
HATERBORNE OISS SOLIDS
HATERBORNฃ BOO
HATERBORNE PHENOL
HATERBORNE SULFIDCS
HATERBORNC OIL
HATER80RNE COO
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
HATERBORNE METAL ION
HATERBORNE CHEMICALS
HATERBORNE CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
HATERBORNE CHROMIUM
HATERBORNE IRON
HATER80RNE ALUMINUM
HATERBORNE NICKEL
HATERBORNE MERCURY
HATERBORNE LEAD
ATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNE ZINC
HATERBORNE AMMONIA
HATEftBORNC NITROGEN
HATERBORNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAMC
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
MILL. BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
TMOU OIL
UNITS
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
UNITf
RAH MATERIALS POUNDS
ENER8Y MIL BTU
HATER TNOU GAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMMISSIONS POUNDS
HATERBORNE HASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE CUBIC FT
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE COAL MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPHR MIL BTU
ENfRSY SOURCE HOOD HASTE MIL BTU
CLOTH
DIAP SY
H LAUN
USE 109
.236
.3BS
.06
0.60*
8.000
.286
.us
.1*9
0.000
0.00*
.046
.OB*
.16*
.131
.02*
.000
o.oto
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.166
.410
.001
.003
.510
1.B10
.T71
2.133
.00*
.001
.178
.362
.231
.7*6
.09B
.001
.002
.001
.001
.000
.000
.000
.002
.001
0.00*
.074
.zปซ
.000
.000
.010
.013
.1*6
.041
.012
.006
o.eoo
.000
.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
.000
.000
.000
0.600
.600
.Ml
.166
1.44S
.413
.510
.064
1.602
.601
.004
.064
.16*
.131
.01*
.600
CLOTM
OIAP JT
H LAUN
use so
.476
.365
.011
0.00ซ
o.ooo
.372
.166
.149
0.000
o.ooo
.046
.068
.172
.135
.030
.000
0.000
0.090
.089
0.000
0.000
0.0ซซ
.181
.422
.001
.003
.514
l.ปT3
.795
2.203
.008
.001
.190
.375
.238
.790
.063
.001
.002
.001
.001
.000
.000
.000
.003
.001
o.ooo
.076
.250
.000
.000
.010
.023
.20ซ
.042
.012
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.000
.001
.000
1.792
.426
.914
.067
1.664
.623
.008
.066
.172
.13S
.MO
.666
CLOTH
DIAP SV
H LAUN
USE 25
.957
.385
.S23
0.000
0.000
.539
.14*
.149
0.000
0.000
.052
.095
.17*
.144
.032
.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
O.OAO
0.000
.211
.448
.002
..004
.523
2.299
.041
2.342
.016
.002
.213
.401
.253
.838
.074
.001
.002
.001
.001
.000
.000
.000
.003
.001
0.000
.080
.252
.000
.000
.010
.041
.222
.049
.013
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.000
.001
.000
1.483
.450
.523
.074
1.769
.666
.016
.095
.179
.144
.032
.600
CLOTH
DIAP SY
C LAUN
USE 190
<233
.098
.006
0.000
0.000
.224
.052
.046
0.000
0.000
.013
.007
.136
.008
.001
.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.101
.iso
.001
.001
.125
1.825
.044
.137
.004
.001
.020
.090
.135
.046
.026
.000
.001
.003
.002
.000
.000
.000
.002
.001
0.000
.032
.037
.000
.000
.009
.023
.043
.003
.003
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
o.ooo
.000
.003
.000
.773
.152
.125
.027
.326
.155
.004
.007
.136
.006
.001
.000
CLOTH
OIAP SY
C LAUN
USC 50
.478
.098
.011
0.000
0.000
.307
.052
.046
0.000
0.000
.015
.010
.139
.013
.002
.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.116
.162
.001
.001
.129
1.988
.067
.207
.006
.001
.032
.103
.142
.070
.032
.000
.001
.003
.002
.000
.000
.000
.002
.001
0.000
.034
.038'
.000
.000
.009
.033
.051
.004
.003
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.000
.003
.000
1.124
.164
.129
.031
.386
.177
.008
.010
.139
.013
.001
.000
CLOTM
OIAP SY
C LAUN
use i
24.680
.098
.564
0.000
0.000
8.484
.052
.046
0.000
0.000
.215
.347
.471
.450
.077
.005
0.000
0.000
.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.589
1.291
.034
.024
.562
18.147
2.335
7.033
.388
.055
1.19T
1.361
.646
2.425
.572
.008
.027
.003
.006
.000
.001
.000
.043
.001
0.000
.205
.133
.001
.002
.010
.948
.854
.126
.032
.003
0.000
.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.000
.003
.011
35.932
1.350
.562
.371
6.543
2.331
.388
.347
.471
.450
.077
.005
DISPOS
DIAPER
SYSTEM
0.000
0.000
9.219
.873
0.000
1.498
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.265
.092 .
.109
.061
.008
.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.033
.322
.013
.035
.166
1.581
.394
.854
.190
0.000
.191
.261
.184
.437
.090
.001
.015
.010
.000
0.000
.000
.000
.006
0.000
0.000
.058
.103
.000
.000
.000
.040
.129
.020
.004
.001
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
12.889
.371
.166
.038
1.196
.356
.190
.092
.109
.061
.008
.100
F-6
-------
TABLE F-6
RESOURCE ANO ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
out NIUION 9FLO* COLO OHINK SYS
INPUTS TO SYSTEM
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SANO
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT 6AS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE MISC
ENERGY SOURCE WOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HYDROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENER6Y PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOL 15 HASTES MINING
SOLID HASTE P05T-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARSON MONO*IDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATHOS OTHER OROANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIOE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATERBORNE CIS SOLIDS
TER80RNE FLUORIDES
HATER80RNE PISS SOLIDS
HATERBORNE BOO
UATERBORNE PHENOL
HATERBORNE SULFIDES
HATERBORNE OIL
HATERBORNE COD
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
HATERBORNE METAL ION
HATERBORNE CHEMICALS
HATERBORNE CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
HATERBORNE CHROMIUM
HATERBORNE IRON
HATERBORNE ALUMINUM
HATERSORNE NICKEL
HATERBORNC MERCURY
HATERBORNC LEAD
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNC ZINC
HATERBORNE AMMONIA
HATERBORNC NITR08CN
HATCRBORNC PCSTICIOE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAMC
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
UNITS
RAH MATERIALS POUNDS
ENEMY K1L BTU
HATER TNOU SAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMMISSIONS POUNDS
HATERBORNC HASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL KASTC CUBIC FT
ENER6Y SOURCE PETROLEUM MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE COAL ซ!L BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPHR NIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD XASTE MIL BTU
LASS
TUMBLED
ซFL02
USK 10*
0.000
43T.OS*
BIS. 4*0
267.720
0.000
64.246
278.488
144.150
2*3. 7*6
0.000
T1.93T
I9.BT9
126.872
16.964
Z.930
4.962
0.000
0.000
o.oo*
0.000
0.0*0
0.000
3*4. S48
1*7. 4ป9
1.82ป
4.2*1
ปป.60l
239.565
132.935
Bซซ.61T
18.333
0.00*
84. US
US. 399
139.930
152. 038
33.255
.482
10.310
1.1B4
.B43
0.00*
.01*
.002
.323
0.000
0.0*0
T3.B8T
2ซ.0ซ1
.004
.008
.074
6.40*
20.254
4.0TT
1.14T
.B9*
0.000
151*. 380
.0*0
0.004
0.0*0
0.0*0
.000
.9*0
.074
ป.***
.00*
J.42T
,006
1949.341
173.607
89.6*1
16.76ซ
537.92*
16*8.714
18.333
19.87*
126.872
16.94*
2*930
ป,**ซ
8LASS
TUMBLE*
9FLOZ
USE 1*0*
0.000
637.056
81.549
26.772
0.090
64.246
278.488
246. ISO
22.371
0.000
71.937
11.24S
107. 40S
11.917
2.S19
.798
0.000
0,000
O.(<00
0.000
0.000
0.000
244. 64B
129.097
.497
4.291
85.722
113.041
T3.0ซl
308.654
1.833
0.000
26.18?
82.074
111.649
77.338
21.449
.282
1.579
1.184
.824
0.000
.007
.001
.323
o.ooo
0.000
63.663
4.444
.002
.003
.074
6.362
9.169
5.027
.884
.098
0.000
1510.380
.0*0
0.00*
0.000
0.0*0
.000
.00*
.074
0.000
.005
1.427
.0*8
1673.21*
133.884
85.722
6.679
322.893
1603.660
1.833
11.249
1*7.4*5
11.917
2. 519
.798
POLYPRQP
TUMBLER
9FLOZ
use too
0.000
637.056
53.081
0.000
0.930
64.2*6
278.488
24*. 150
0.000
0.000
71.937
40.757
141.830
14.098
3.042
.601
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
280.624
I42o705
50.750
26.872
93.112
132.291
97.194
289.844
14.127
0.000
31.517
152.089
230.392
103.044
376.499
ซ.4T1
16.564
1.184
.957
0.000
1.013
.001
.323
0.000
0.000
93.618
6.270
.026
.033
.144
8.510
10.017
5.767
1.069
.072
0.000
1510.380
.000
0.000
0.00*
0.000
.000
.000
.074
0.000
.005
1.427
.008
1436.5*2
220.327
93.112
7.011
918.05*
1637.421
14.127
60.757
141.83*
14.0*8
3.042
.601
POLYPROP
TUMBLER
9FLOI
USE. 1000
5. 000
637,056
5.808
0.000
0.000
64,246
278.486
246.150
0.000
O.COO
T1.93T
IS. 333
108.900
11.630
2.531
.162
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
238.255
126.619
5.389
6.S49
86.073
102.314
69.487
250.679
1.413
0.00*
20.920
85.743
120.696
72.439
55.774
.661
2.204
1.184
.835
0.000
.106
.001
.323
0.000
0.000
65.6S7
4.28S
.004
.005
.080
6.573
8.146
4.996
.877
.015
0.000
1510.380
.00*
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.074
0.000
.0*5
1.427
.008
1541.94*
138.59*
86.073
5.703
3*0.907
16*2.53*
1.413
15.333
1*8.9*0
11.63*
2.531
.162
PAปER
HAK COAT
ปF|_1Z
i i i
o.eoo
o.ooa
"SOO.OIO
943.720
0.090
l*ซa,168
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
121.931
218.085
1:8.186
97.619
9.789
119.845
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
0.000
0.000
1181.983
420.288
31.290
112.347
145.481
2280.102
1031.031
775.091
241.357
0.000
191.414
293.470
260.464
568.344
261.969
2.231
20.364
8.593
.152
0.000
.314
.006
7.042
0.000
0.000
103.746
70.317
.032
.041
.713
1.593
68.699
16.901
3.592
.965
0.000
0.000
.003
0.00*
0.000
0.000
.000
.0*3
9.000
0.000
.091
0.000
0.000
13229.863
563.925
145.481
55.164
1614.363
2*6.696
241.357
218.085
118.586
97.619
9.789
119.845
PLASTIC
THESM PS
USE i
9.C30
9.. "'0
. '8.4*0
3, 300
o.eso
9.000
o.oto
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
375.810
243.11*
59.260
12.T35
5.970
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
773. Z75
309.643
43.401
343.926
50.908
920.298
396.239
942.584
186.750
0.000
129.110
365.459
573. J46
480.840
394.869
2.557
17.466
0.000
.218
0.000
.228
.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
164.863
29.539
,0*to
.058
1.807
21.492
24.406
17.789
4.447
.775
0.000
0.000
.023
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.2*0
0.000
0.000
1484.215
696.789
50.908
30.498
1963.398
265.984
186.750
375.810
243.114
59.160
12.735
5.970
F-7
-------
TABLE F-7
WtOUUCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
ONE MILLION 7FLOZ HOT ORINK STS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL CLASS SANO
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERSY SOURCE NAT SAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE MISC
ENERGY SOURCE 100O FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HYOROPOVER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENERSY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
MATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID PASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICIPATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARSON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER OROANICS
ATMOS OOOHOUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIDE
ATMOS .LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATERBORNE UIS SOLIDS
MATERBORNE FLUORIDES
HATERBORNE DISS SOLIDS
HATERBORNE BOO
HATERBORNE PHENOL
HATERBORNE SULFIOES
MATERBORNE OIL
MATERBORNE COO
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
MATERBORNE ACID
MATERBORNE METAL ION
MATERBORNE CHEMICALS
MATER80HNE CYANIDE
MATERBORNE ALKALINITY
MATERBORNE CHROMIUM
MATER80RNE IRON
HATERBORNE ALUMINUM
MATERBORNE NICKEL
HATERBORNE MERCURY
MATERBORNE LEAD
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
MATERBORNE ZINC
MATERBORNE AMMONIA
kATERBORNE NITROGEN
HATERSORNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL 8TU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
NIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
TMOU SAL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
UNITS
RAH MATERIALS POUNDS
ENERGY MIL BTU
HATER THOU GAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMMISSIONS POUNDS
KATERBORNE HASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL MASTE CUBIC FT
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE COAL MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPHR MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD HASTE MIL BTU
CHINA
CUP
7FLOZ
USE toe
0.000
1504.160
752.760
9.000
0.000
151.691
6ST.S41
581.107
1640.000
3194.833
169.BS2
158. 63T
346.922
45.965
9.030
6.5B9
0.000
0.000
0.000
3049.200
323. 2TZ
2512.339
69T.009
441.306
US. TOT
10.131
24T.46T
2106.069
323.991
B2B0.411
32.640
0.000
376.14*
425.955
4BT.243
351.000
B35.7B6
10.291
43.167
2.796
2.288
0.000
2.188
.004
.763
0.000
.245
235.930
40.479
.085
.086
.297
50.979
243.599
16.812
79.800
6.639
0.000
3400.898
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.174
0.000
.012
3.368
.018
15233.845
5*7.144
2*7.467
144.591
2337.624
4079.421
32.640
158.437
346.922
4S.965
9.030
6.M*
CHINA
CUP
7FLOZ
USE 1000
0.000
1504.160
75.276
0.000
0.000
1S1.69J
657.541
581. 1S7
164.000
319.483
169.852
37.361
249.054
27.854
5.962
.900
0.090
0.000
0.000
304.920
32.327
251.234
565.989
298.668
12.312
10.131
198.140
420.945
168.374
1337.483
3.264
0.000
78.305
202.556
270.136
176.902
125.119
1.563
5.565
2.796
1.974
0.000
.231
.003
.763
0.000
.024
154.848
12.684
.012
.013
.185
18.606
41.226
11.847
9.T30
.682
0.000
3400.898
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.174
0.000
.012
3.368
.018
4777.661
321.130
198.140
26.012
865.911
3654.330
3.264
37.361
249.054
27.854
5.962
.900
MELANIN!
CUP
7FLOZ
USE 100
0.000
1504.160
769.640
58.303
0.000
220.398
657.54]
581.187
0.000
0.000
177.180
49.770
331.649
39.870
8.604
7.907
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
664.186
362.872
10.380
64.549
254.280
355.982
245.069
789.212
35.169
0.000
79.920
270.881
409.325
276.303
114.693
1.066
5.191
3.320
15.643
0.000
.052
.004
1.097
0.000
0.000
168.354
20.225
.013
.017
.272
15.517
29.070
IS. 636
2.992
.218
0.000
3400.898
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.001
.174
0.000
2.602
3.368
.018
4632.594
437.801
254.280
18.769
1177.494
3659.375
35.169
49.770
331.649
39.870
8.604
7.907
MEL AM I NE
CUP
7FLOZ
USE 1000
0.000
1504.160
76.964
5.830
0.000
158.562
657.541
581.187
0.000
0.000
170.585
26.474
247.526
27.244
5.920
1.032
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
562.707
290.845
1.779
15.572
198.821
245.936
160.482
588.363
3.517
0.000
48.683
187.048
262.344
169.432
53.010
.640
1.767
2.848
3.310
0.000
.017
.003
.796
0.000
0.000
148.090
10.659
.005
.007
.182
15.060
19.774
11.729
2.049
.040
0.000
3400.898
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.174
0.000
.271
3.368
.018
3717.536
308.196
198.821
13.430
729.898
3612.326
3.517
26.474
247.526
27.244
5.920
1.032
PAPER
LDPE CTO
TFLOZ
USE 1
0.000
0.000
43*16.065
1357.720
0.000
2091.272
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
175.583
93.999
172.393
119.306
9.115
173.696
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1616.460
526.131
18.804
23.575
191.687
3432.039
1354.949
770.655
236.913
0.000
244.466
304.650
246.962
632.648
142.323
1.276
23.919
12.482
.076
0.000
.139
.006
10.133
0.000
0.000
72.387
'103.109
.018
023
.083
2.055
101.034
17.424
3.446
1.521
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
19057.119
568.510
191.687
75.028
1619.080
301.104
236.913
93.999
172.393
119.306
9.115
173.696
PLASTIC
FOAM PS
TFLOZ
USE 1
0.000
0.000
1289.450
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
297.713
225.706
30.917
5.832
10.828
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
365.573
405.391
42.343
123.263
29.639
436.591
279.156
486.300
761.200
0.000
133.002
366.499
571.082
446.026
306.660
ป.<>22
24.559
0.000
.502
0.000
.435
.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
166.982
41.033
.091
.117
.724
8.326
23.251
8.874
2.219
1.406
0.000
0.000
.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.079
0.000
0.000
1655.023
570.997
29.639
16.228
1853.689
253.111
761.200
297.713
225.706
30.917
5.832
10.828
F-8
-------
TABLE F-8
RESOURCE AMD CMVIHONMEttTAL PROFILS ANALYSIS
0*E MILLION ttNCH PLATE SYS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IKON ONE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENEROY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS
ENERST SOUHCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE MISC
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HYOROPWER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE POCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ปOD
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOL 10 HASTES MINIMS
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICIPATES
ATMOS NITROBEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORGANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYOROOEN FLOURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS' MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
UATERBORNE DIS SOLIDS
HซTEซ80RNE FLUORIDES
KATERBORNE OISS SOLIDS
HATERBORNB BOO
HATER80RNC PHENOL
HATERBORNE SULFIOES
UATER80RNE OIL
HATER80RNE COO
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
HATERBORNE METAL ION
HATERBORNE CHEMICALS
H*TERBORNE CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
MATERBORNE CHROMIUM
HATERBODNE IRON
VATERBORNE ALUMINUM
HATERBORNE NICKEL
HATER80RNE MERCURY
HATERBORNE LEAD
HATERBORNE PMOSPNATES
HATERBORNE ZINC
VATERBORNE AMMONIA
HATERBORNE NITROGEN
KATERflORNt PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
RAH MATERIALS
ENERGY
HATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES
ATM EMMISSIONS
HATERBORNE HASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPHK
ENERGY SOURCE HOOO WASTE
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
Ml,. BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
CHINA
PLATES
* INCH
use 100
0.609
1336.048
SBZ.750
o.ooo
0.000
13*. T3ป
584.051
516.231
3793.333
7ปปซ.11ป
130.668
329.993
483.311
64.308
12.805
4.628
0.000
0.000
0.000
TSI4.862
861.923
S728.7S1
T03.282
586.333
271.513
8.9*8
{.4*3
4687.828
454.172
18229.246
77.010
0.000
770.331
TOT. 680
762.263
469.939
1892.341
23.230
S.210
2.483
2.524
0.000
5.138
.006
.677
o.oa*
.3*1
330. 62S
4*. 323
.18*
.190
.43*
93.308
518.673
21.960
160.639
13.927
0.800
3020.7*6
.0ซ0
ซ.0ป0
0.000
9.000
.tea
.000
.154
0.000
.018
2.9*2
.ซu
mซS,lS*
ซ6T.ซ44
298.423
315.033
4741.822
4230.412
TT.018
319.993
435,31!
64.30*
12.Bซf
4.628
CHINA
PLATES
9 INCH
USE 1000
0.808
1336.048
32.275
0.000
0.0ปป
134.738
384.051
516.231
379.354
744.612
150.868
52.036
236.091
26.9*8
5.754
.677
0.000
0.900
0.000
751.486
66.1*2
572.875
511.149
284.767
27.809
8.9*6
183.761
652.613
165.63*
2273.369
7.701
0.000
113.066
212. 7S5
272.999
174.446
226.12*
Z.T9T
9.630
2.463
1.803
0.000
,*25
.003
.677
o.oec
.056
149.671
12.223
.022
.023
.182
21.349
66.86*
11.196
19.611
1.409
O.ซ00
3020.7*6
.6*8
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.154
0.600
.010
Z,ป92
.016
5820.07*
321.375
183.761
41.740
1017.315
1306.586
7.701
32.096
236.091
26.9*8
S.7S4
.677
CHINA
PLATES
ป INCH
USE 6ป08
0.000
1336.048
7.380
0.0*0
0,000
134.738
584.031
316.231
33.01*
106.022
150.866
23.633
215.266
23.453
5.084
.302
0.000
0.000
0.000
108.990
12.501
83.086
492.897
256.101
4.636
8.996
172.869
272.132
13S.251
756.218
1.117
0.000
SO. 628
14S.73*
226.521
144.477
47.843
.836
2.450
2.483
1.734
0.000
.086
.002
.677
6.000
.008
132.481
9.060
.006
.007
.137
14.494
23.930
10.173
4.314
.220
0.0*0
3020.7*8
.000
0.006
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.134
0.000
.010
2.992
.016
35*0.031
2*ป.T37
172.869
IS. 776
663.4**
3218.825
1.117
25.633
215.266
23.453
3.0*4
.302
MELAMINC
PLATES
* IMCH
USE 100
0.000
1336.048
1184.789
99.457
0.013
251.443
534.051
516.231
0.000
0.000
163.370
57.707
371.100
47.717
10.385
12.193
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
669.278
387.776
9.495
101.630
275.618
403.527
292.350
897.679
59.994
0.000
92.931
300.012
490.630
336.635
136.161
1.01T
5.496
3.378
23.076
0.000
.038
.005
1.248
0.000
0.000
1*3.434
22.677
.016
.020
.318
14.1S6
32.495
17.764
3.595
.216
0.000
3020.796
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.900
.001
.154
0.000
4.429
2.992
.016
4805. 16B
494.102
273.618
21.313
1392.830
3283.262
59.994
37.707
371.100
47.717
10.385
12.193
MtLANSNC
PLATES
9 INCH
USE !?90
0.999
1336.046
118.47*
9.9*6
0.000
146.456
584.031
516.231
o.ooc
0.000
133.118
24.827
227.670
25.339
5.512
1.434
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
507.749
264.892
1.608
18.281
181.481
227.182
149.477
540.812
5.999
0.000
45.328
171.988
245.836
159.137
50.511
.576
1.659
2.573
4.038
0.000
.015
.003
.733
0.000
0.000
132.952
9. 959
.005
.006
.169
13.414
18.231
10.778
1.907
.036
0.000
3020.798
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.154
0.000
.452
Z.992
.016
3371.0*0
284.781
161.481
12.386
682.416
3211.673
3.99*
24.827
Z27.670
23.339
3.312
1.434
PAPER
HHT PRES
9 INCH
me i
0,000
3.100
1'6*7.715
ZOS5.050
0.900
3i34.23i
e.cot
0.000
4.003
O.OOi)
267.114
131.026
193.632
161.351
10.602
251. S10
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2192.474
706.688
38.322
3.112
288.653
4502.651
1883.405
857.020
367.730
0.000
272.221
391.424
273.740
782.303
253.422
Z.418
20.984
19.062
.122
0.000
.360
.OOS
IS. 414
0.000
0.000
92.537
' 1)5.213
.026
.034
.0*5
.546
129.794
21.080
3.887
.718
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
27346.583
748.122
288.635
97.782
2031.477
363.867
367.730
131.026
1*3.632
161.351
10.602
231.310
PLASTIC
FOAM Pป
9 INCH
USE 1
c.ooo
9.000
2S34.200
0.300
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,300
0.000
0.000
785.784
502.870
140.091
29.417
21.071
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1578.018
660.427
142.908
675.898
101.547
1951.801
977.773
2226.373
4582. 520
0.000
345.244
893.661
1480.313
1153.517
987.784
7.886
54.933
0.000
.583
0.000
.930
.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
355.741
90.189
.11ป
.152
3.4ป9
41.133
63.194
41.637
10.410
8.736
0.000
0.000
.043
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.432
o.aoo
o.ooo
4087. 218
1479.233
101.547
69.605
4923.869
609.305
4582.520
785.784
502.870
140.091
29.417
21.071
F-9
-------
TABLE F--9
RESOURCE MO ENVIRONMENT*!, PHOF1LE ANALYSIS
OISP PปP PROO THOU LS EA w/fx Pi
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL WOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL CiLASS SANO
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELOSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENER9Y SOURCE NAT GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE MISC
ENER8Y SOUHCE WOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HYDROPOwEB
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADD
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
WATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID WASTES PPOCESS
SOLID WASTES FUEL COMB
SOLIO HASTES MININh
SOLID ซASTE POST-CONSUM
AT-lOSPHEWIC PEiTICIuE
ATHOS PARTICULATES
AT-OS NITBOfiEN OXIRES
AT"OS HYDROCARBONS
ATHOS SULfUR OXIDES
ATIปOS CAPBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATHOS OTHER ORGANICS
ATMOS OOOKOOS SULFUR
ATMOS AMปOMA
ATMQS HYOHOGEN FLOUKIDE
ซTMOS LEAO
ATWOS MEfcCUHY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
WiVTEPHOKnE OlS SOLIi'S
ปATER*OWNE FLuOHIDEi
tATEBRJP'Nt OISS SOLIDS
WATFRBOk-vt' BOO
KATERflOBNt PHENOL
KATERBORNt SU|.F1DFS
WATERHOBNE OIL
WATEHBOWNE COO
ATFBBOfiNE SUSP SOLIDS
WAIEHBOHME ACID
WATERBORNE METAL ION
KATERBOUNE CHEMICALS
WATERBOSNE CYANIDE
WATF.RRURNE ALKALINITY
WATFRBO^Nh CHROMIUM
ATERBORNE I-*ON
WATEHBOPNE ALUMINUM
WATERBOKNt NICKEL
WATERBOkNE MERCURY
WATEPBORNt LEAD
WATERROKNE PHOSPHATES
WATFHBO"NE ZINC
WATER90RNL AMMONIA
WATERBORNE NITROGEN
WATERBOONE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
RAW MATERIALS
ENFIISY
ATfw
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
4TM ^MISSIONS
WATERPORN* WASTES
POST-CONSUMt" SOL WASTE
ENERGY SOUKCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOUKCE NAT GAS
ENEPGV SOUKCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPWR
ENERGY SOURCE WOOD WASTE
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL 8TU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUWO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
ฐOU>'D
POUND
POUND
POUNH
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
MIL flTU
MIL 8TU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
PULPWOOD
HARVEST
0.00009
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.13896
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.13896
0.00000
.ooeoi
0.00000
.03232
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.15353
.13768
.14000
.03355
.92676
.0110*
.03960
0.00000
.00036
0.00000
.00267
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000 ,
0.00000
.06880
.00018
.00006
.00008
.00009
.00071
.00044
.00014
.00003
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.12896
.00801
.00043
1.44518
.07053
0.00000
.13896
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TRANSPOR
WOOC
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.03097
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.03097
0.00000
.00178
0.00000
.00715
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
.00467
.07238
.02638
.01430
.06050
.00122
.00238
0.00000
.00008
0.00000
.00009
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.01527
.99004
.00001
.00002
.00002
.00016
.00010
.00003
.00001
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.03097
.00178
.00010
.18201
.01566
0.00000
.03097
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
S/"4 DRY
PULP
MtNUF
0. 00600
0,00000
807.0QOOQ
0.00000
0.00050
C, 00000
0,00000
a. ooooo
0,00000
0.00000
0.09000
.47515
.47957
1.15362
.26078
8.39000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
(1.00000
C. 00000
'5.00000
10.75912
0,00000
0.00000
13.4375T
89.00010
6.78470
18.17560
0.00000
0.30000
3.50650
2.4*730
.97240
7.20270
.30940
.00420
.00553
.T2000
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
.00011
0.00000
o.coooo
0.00000
.13667
7.50035
.00012
.000 If.
.0001A
.00141
10.400ป8
.35387
.08847
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
S/S DRY
P'JLP
SYSM
0,00008
0,00000
807.00000
80.00000
0,1)0100
94.?7600
0.00000
0,00000
0,00000
0,00000
10.05550
4.72530
3.79462
1,81753
.37612
8.39000
0,00000
0.00000
0,00300
u.OCOOO
0.00000
0.00000
^9, 10844
18.M370
,16987
0.00000
13.H9327
110.72209
11.10721
28.74690
0.00000
0.00000
7.85578
13.1P995
5,76945
17.06733
2.26883
.02227
.06189
.72000
.00076
0.00000
.00352
.00025
.45920
0.00000
0.00000
2,67908
r. 00684
.00031
, 00040
.00045
,003'5T
10.45592
.74102
.13320
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.000?!
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
S/S SLSH
PULP
SYSM
0,00000
0.00000
807,00000
40.00000
0.00000"
94.27600
G. 00000
0.00000
0.00000
a. ooooo
10.05550
3.58515
2.89492
1.50252
.30532
8.39000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
79,108*4
16.S0805
.16987
0.00000
13.48307
110.72209
9.01951
23.73080
0.00000
a. ooooo
7.20218
11.09225
4.45515
14.49769
2.34362
.02113
.06039
.72000
.00076
0.00000
.00352
.00022
.45920
0.00000
0.00000
2.02367
7.00675
.00028
.00036
.00040
.00313
10.45568
.64495
.10918
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00021
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
882.000001070.439941070.43994
10.75912
13.43757
1.54251
15.21813
17.98211
0.00000
.47515
.47957
I.l*i362
.26078
8.39000
19.10357
13.49327
2.03278
47.41924
21.02100
0.00000
4.72530
3.79462
1.81753
.37612
8.39000
16.67791
13.48307
1.93688
40.55612
20.24466
0.00000
3.58515
2.89492
1.50252
.30532
8.39000
S/S DRY
PULP
SYSM
TRANSPOR
0.00000
0.00909
0.00000
O.'OOOO
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.19397
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
.19397
0.00000
.01110
0.00000
.04464
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.02792
.42267
.15345
.10788
.40423
.00802
.01483
0.00000
.00049
0.00000
.00064
0,00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
.09533
.000i?5
.00009
.00011
.00012
.00099
.00062
.00019
.00005
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.19397
.01110
.00060
1.14013
.09774
0.00000
.19397
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
DIAPER
TISSUE
PAPER-
MAKING
0,00000
0,00000
686,37100
68.24000
0,00000
80.41743
0.00000
0,00000
0,00000
0,00000
8.57734
S. 67099
9.89368
3.91114
.85457
7.15667
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
83.47950
27.34215
.14490
0.00000
16.34890
134.34594
23.49758
62.33497
0.00000
0.00000
9.84226
19.69798
12.50706
28.85904
3.2H342
.04528
.09336
.61416
.00265
0.00000
.00302
.00045
.39170
0.00000
0,00000
3.85752
7.45856
.00087
.00112
.00124
.00993
10.16320
1,35711
.29487
0.00000
O.DOOOO
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00018
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
929.08527
27.48704
16.34890
2.97106
75.34038
23.14461
0.00000
5.67099
9.89368
3.91114
.85457
7.1S667
DIAPER
CONVERT
(HUNDRED
DIAPERS)
0.00000
0.00009
0,00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00282
'. Q'0284
.00684
.00155
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
.00001
.01404
0.00000
0.00000
.00022
.02000
.04022
.10952
0.00000
0.00000
.00851
.01480
.00576
.037",0
.00183
.00002
.00003
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
0.00000
0.00900
0.00000
.00081
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00001
.00001
.00219
,000'i2
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
O.ooono
0.00000
0.00000
.00001
.01404
.00022
.00229
.06857
.00345
0.00000
.00282
.00284
.004X4
.00155
0.00000
F-10
-------
TABLE F-10
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PftOHLC
DISC PAP PROO THOU LB E* ป/ฃx P2
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAMF
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATEDIAL "000 FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL t>LASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SOOA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERSr SOURCE NAT GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE MISC
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HYOROPOKER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL !'20
.00130
.00029
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00258
.00539
,00013
.00252
.00026
.00233
.00768
.020P2
0.00000
0.00000
.00178
.00500
.00762
.00767
.00086
.00001
.00002
0.00000
.00000
0.00000
.00(100
.00000
o.coooo
0. 00000
0.00000
,0010*
,00003
.03000
,00000
,00001
.00020
.00007
.000*0
.00010
0.00000
0.03000
0.00000
0.00300
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.35000
0,00000
9.00000
.00258
.00803
.00026
.00042
.02296
.00183
0.00000
.00124
.00520
.00130
.09029
0.00009
NAPKIN
CONVERT
(Tuou
2 r>
O.C-'iO 1C
O.ft0003
0. JCOOO
o.oooco
0,0'IQOO
O.OC'OOO
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.oocoo
0,00000
,001*0
,003*2
,00339
.00077
0.00000
0.00000
0.00003
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.01397
0.00030
0.00000
.00023
0.00000
.01992
.05*26
3.00000
0.00000
.00*35
.01102
.009*9
.01870
.00171
.00003
.00005
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00163
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
,00000
.0010*
.00026
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.01397
.00023
.00100
.0*535
.00294
0.00000
.00140
.00842
.00339
.00077
0.00000
PAP8D
FOR CU&S
4N3 p; ป?
,.:-tl
l.OOOOC
,'13,00030
30000
0 . 0 " :" > 0
O.OBOJO :
0. ilf 003
0 .00000
o.oococ
c. .ocooo
0.00030
2.725*5
6.32231
4.78946
,1687*
9.29100
0.000.00
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
75.00000
?3. 29696
0.00000
0.00000
10,72431
1*2.00000
62.69010
11.95480
0.00000
0.00000
5.59950
8.84590
7.21920
19.88410
1.70020
.00272
.00357
.72000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00007
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
2.28843
3.61023
.00008
.00010
.00011
.00092
4.*9057
.22897
.05724
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
PA.- 80
F0ป CUPS
SND HiT
'ICO
'13 ~j 0 J 0 0
78,. i"JO'.<
o <> u o o
1 1 ? l -i - ; j
c-ooo ;o
.',00000
r . o o n o o
-'.00 "00
13.08310
3,3*219
6. 913*3
S. 61635
.31516
9. 29100
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
80.10392
25.30382
.17631
O.OOOGO
10.78851
166.81137
67.002B2
2ซ. 91637
0.00000
0.00000
8. 2*7*1
10.84*17
8.333?*
2*. 969*2
3.24103
.022*0
.06309
.72000
.00090
0.00000
.00365
.OOOJS
.58220
O.OOCOO
0.00000
2.59*69
3 . 61685
.00031
.00039
.000**
.00350
ป.55S5*
.6*419
.11381
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.OOOP7
0.00000
o. ooono
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
793.000001005.42322
23.29696
10.72431
2.92471
43.97526
10.67666
0.00000
2.72545
6.32231
4.78946
.16874
9.29100
25.48013
10.78851
3.492B6
57.02774
11.55000
0.00000
3.3*219
6.913*3
5.6163S
.31516
9.29100
F-ll
-------
TABLE F-ll
RESOURCE AND tNvmONMKNm MOMi.* ANALYSIS
BZSIป PAP ปซปซ; THOU 1.8 EA W/EX PS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULfATE BRINE
MATERIAL WOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOUHCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENER6Y SOUMCE MISC
ENERGY SOUHCE MOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOUHCE HYDROPOWER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADD
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF Hill RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLtO WASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID WASTES XINIKin
SOLID WASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUK OXIDES
ATMOS CARSON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER OHซ-,iMICS
ATMOS ODOWOUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONI1
4TMOS HYDPOGEN FLOUHIflE
ATMOS LEAL)
' ATMOS MEHCUPY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
WATERRORNE DIS SOLIDS
WATERHORNE FLUOBIOES
WATERPOUNt DISS SOLIDS
KtTERBOHNE BOO
WATERB00NE PHENOL
WATER80RNE SULFIDES
WATER80HNE OIL
WATERBORNE CUD
WATERRORNE SUSP SOLIDS
WATERHORNE ACID
WATERBOHNE METAL [ON
WATER80HNE CHEMICALS
WATERBOHNE CVANIOE
WATERBORNE ALKALINITY
ATERBORNfc CHROMIUM
WATERBOP.NE ICON
WATERBOHNE ALUMINUM
WATERBOWNE NICKEL
WATEPBORNE MliHCURY
ATER80RNE LEAD
WATER80RNE PHOSPHATES
WATERBORNE ZINC
WATERBORNE AMMONIA
WATERAORNE NITROGEN
WATERRORNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
RAW MATERIALS
ENERGY
WATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES
ATM EMMISSIONS
WATERBORNE WASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL WASTE
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPWR
ENERGY SOURCE wooo WASTE
UNITS
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
BOUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUNO
CUBIC FT
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
ซOZ PAP-
WAX CO
CONV {ML
CUPS1
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
22.18100
18.38806
22.91580
5.18020
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
100.00000
68.66506
0.00000
0.00000
1.56818
170.00000
137.48800
367.00400
0.00000
0.00000
30.74636
62.26886
31.99382
147.21842
8.30S34
.20473
.18805
0.00000
.03000
0.00000
.00023
.0023*
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
10.06268
.02202
,00771
.00991
.01101
.08810
.05506
7.04074
1.76024
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
100.00000
68.66506
1.56818
9.10564
280.9581S
19.05747
0.00000
22.18100
18.38806
22.91580
5.18020
0.00000
)!N PAP-
80 PLATE
cawv
iNIL PL!
0.30300
0.06000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.1)0000
0.00000
a. ooooo
j. 87000
3.90600
9.39600
2.1240b
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
19.29600
0.00000
0.00000
.30600
20.00000
55. 26000
150.48000
0.00000
0.00000
11.70000
20.3*000
7.92000
SI. 66000
2.S2000
.03*20
.0*500
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00090
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.11312
.00288
.00101
.00130
.001**
.01152
.00720
2.88219
.72055
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
19.29600
.30600
3.04T49
94.22010
4.74121
0.00000
3.87000
3.90600
9.39600
2.12400
0.00000
LOPE
COATED
PAPBO
NAN S"S
0.30000
9.00000
681.38200
74.02200
0.00000
113.06336
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.coooo
9.57*75
3.53257
8.18208
5.517*6
.3*105
8.81716
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0. OOOOO
0.00000
77.43331
24.85976
.23380
1.29676
10.3*046
159,50607
64.67793
26.61376
0.00000
0.00000
8.11234
11.32158
10.58934
24.84348
3.28368
.02287
.06296
.&R328
.00016
0.00000
.00347
.00025
.55251
0.00000
0.00000
2.75273
3.4*575
.00031
.000*0
.00365
.10556
ป. 35612
.68726
.1222*
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00026
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
955.47592
26.39032
10.34046
3.3858*
59.47662
11.47429
0.00000
3.53257
8.18208
5.51746
.34105
8.81716
TOZ PAP-
PE CUP
CONV
(ML CUP)
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
S. 20300
17.13224
12.63240
2. "5560
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
60.00000
37.82324
0.00000
0.00000
.60832
380.00000
74.29400
202.31200
0.00000
0.00000
15.95974
33.59274
21.38338
69.58528
4.74*56
.06786
.11S20
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00121
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
3.57S13
.00387
.00136
.0017*
.0019*
.01549
.00968
3.87*94
.96875
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
60.00000
37.82324
.60832
8.86418
145.94997
8.45289
0.00000
5.20300
17.13224
12.63240
2.85560
0.00000
F-12
-------
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL "000 FIBER
MATERIAL LIMEbTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORf
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL 6LASS SANO
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL bAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY 50UHCE PETWOLEUM
ENERGY SOUMCE NAT SAS
ENER8Y SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOUftCE MISC
ENERGY SOURCE WOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HYOHOPOWER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL bILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADD
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENEHSY OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NA'^E
SOLID HASTES PPOCESS
SOLID PASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID WASTES MINING
SOLID WASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PAHTICULATES
ATMOS NITHOGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYUrtOCaKHONS
4TMOS SULKUft OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYGES
ATMOS OTHER ORSANICS
ATMOS OOOWOUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATซOS HYDKOBEN FLOUMlnE
ATMOS LEAU
" ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
WATERBORNt DIS SOLIU5
- WATERRORNE FLUOHlnES
KATEHeORNt OISS SOLIDS
WATERBOHNE BOD
WATERHOHNE PHENOL
HATERBORNt SULFIOES
WATERBORNt OIL
ATERBORNE COD
ซATERBOiปM: SUSP SOLIDS
WATERBORNE ACID
WATERBORNt METAL ION
WATER80HNE CHEMICALS
WATERBO^NE C-'NIDE
WATERBORNE ALKALINITY
WATERBORNE Ci-HOMlU1*
WATERSORNE I*ON
WATERBOPNC ALUMINUM
WATER80BNE NICKEL
ATERSORNt MERCURY
MATERBORNE LEAD
WATERBOHNE PHOSPHATES
WATERBORNt ZINC
WATFRBORNE A"MON!ซ
ATERBOHNE NITROGEN
ATERBORNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
TABLE F-12
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PSOCILE
ANCILLARY SYSTEMS THOU L8 EACH
UNBLEACH BLEACHED CORRU6AT
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
t'NITS
RAW MATERIALS POUNDS
ENER6Y MIL BTU
WATER THOU GAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMMISSIONS POUNDS
WATERSORNE WASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL WASTE CUBIC FT
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE COAL MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL MYPWR MIL BTU
ENETOY SOURCE WOOD WASTE MIL BTU
KRAFT
PROD
SYSTEM
0.000
0.000
689.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.333
3.629
3.325
0.000
7.432
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
70.000
19.631
.089
0.000
.374
67.000
57.357
47.500
0.000
0.000
43.912
18.799
11.750
40.483
6.273
.097
10.665
0.000
.013
0.000
.002
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.453
20.507
.002
.003
.003
.027
15.017
.505
.126
.880
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7S9.000
19.719
.374
2.320
131.994
43,524
0.000
5.333
3.629
3.325
0.000
7.432
KRAFT
CARTON
SYSTEM
0.000
0.000
530.000
80.000
0.000
238.471
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
10.094
6.982
4.006
5.210
.397
9.530
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
86.150
25.846
.278
0.004 .
10.808
148.260
58.685
30.889
0.000
0.000
9.562
11.597
6.918
21.912
3.848
.033
.096
.400
.001
0.000
.006
.000
.590
0.000
0.000
4.164
4.407
.000
.001
.091
.005
7.867
1.277
.262
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
944.714
26.124
10.808
3.211
54.964
17.963
0.000
6.982
4.006
5.210
.397
9.530
CONTAIN PAPBO
SYSTEM SYSTEM
0.000
0.000
697.000
n.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.587
2.900
2.766
0.000
5.853
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
70.000
16.016
.090
0.000
.317
67.000
45.355
39,520
0.000
0.000
39.03fl
16.226
9.749
S5.481
5.618
.084
8.089
0,000
.012
0.000
.002
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.4H3
20.506
.002
.003
.003
.023
9.514
.420
.105
.760
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
767.000
16.106
.317
2.050
134.300
36.819
0.000
4.587
2.900
2.766
0.000
S.853
c.r.oo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.829
2.944
3.528
.432
.827
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
28.120
10.560
0.000
0.000
11.891
65.380
50.956
53.702
0.000
0.000
6.200
7.704
4.454
19.387
1.367
.0?9
.027
0.000
.005
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.532
12.973
.001
.001
.001
.012
19.117
.831
.208
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
28.120
10.560
11.891
1.891
39.254
34.677
0.000
2.829
2.944
3.528
.43?
.827
F-13
-------
TABLE F-13
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROfl'.I ANALYSIS
THOU L9 EACH PROCESS
UNITS
CRUDE
OIL
NATURAL
OAS PROD
BENZENE
SYS
CTHYLENE
SYS
AMMONIA
NFS
ACRYLON
MF8
1000 L8 19DO LS 1009 L8 lOffO LB 1000 LB 1000 LB
STYRENE POLL FAC
NFO PETRO
CHEN REF
1000 LB 1000 LB
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL "000 FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SOOA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NISC
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD FIBER
ENERSY SOURCE HYOROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADD
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID WASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICIPATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORGANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATERBORNE OIS SOLIDS
HATERBOPNE FLUORIDES
HATERBORNE OISS SOLIDS
HATERBORNE 800
HATERBOHNE PHENOL
MATERBORNE SULFIOES
HATERBORNE OIL
HATER80RNE COO
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
HATERBORNE METAL ION
HATERBORNE CHEMICALS
HATERBORNE CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
HATERBORNE CHROMIUM
HATERBORNE IROK
HATERBORNE ALUMINUM
HATERBORNE NICKEL
HATERBORNE MERCURY
HATERBORNE LEAD
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNE ZINC
HATERBORNE AMMONIA
HATERBORNE NITROGEN
HATERBORNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
UNITS
RAH MATERIALS POUNDS
ENERGY MIL BTU
HATER THOU GAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMMISSIONS POUNDS
HATERBORNE HASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE CUBIC FT
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE COAL MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPHR MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE MOOD HASTE MIL BTU
0.000
0.009
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooa
0.000
o.ooo
19.621
.3ป
.032
.007
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
1.8BO
.129
.332
19.525
.083
.600
.207
.817
0.000
0.000
.05*
1.952
9.201
.319
,539
.002
.001
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.146
.000
.000
.000
.110
.000
.000
.010
.002
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
l.BBO
1*.9B6
.083
.018
12.069
6.270
0.000
1*.621
.325
.032
.OOT
0.000
0.040
0.000
9.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00?
0.000
0.000
0.000
.033
23.8*5
.032
.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.066
.60S
23.24*
.041
0.000
.194
.517
0.000
0.000
.045
3.527
26.903
.216
.966
.001
.001
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.116
.000
.000
.000
.037
.000
.000
.010
.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.000
23.91B
.041
.010
31.662
2.166
0.000
.033
23.8*5
.032
.00?
0.010
0.090
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2U732
3.510
.29*
. 0*ซ
0.900
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,090
0,000
0,000
5.0*7
5.3*8
.3*0
20.013
,*33
I. TO
2.087
4.707
0.000
0.000
.353
5.242
16.862
4.022
12.916
.030
.021
0.000
.004
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.595
.031
.001
.001
.123
.177
.023
.092
.023
0.000
0.000
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.017
0.000
0.000
5.047
25.602
.433
.119
39.951
1.083
0.000
21.731
3.510
.19*
.066
(.000
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
0.000
0.000
0.000
S.499
27.897
.459
.104
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.900
5.776
8. "502
1.241
24.216
.839
18.162
2.708
7.351
0.000
0.000
.737
12.139
41.704
4.880
2.9*8
.017
.038
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*.869
.058
.000
.000
.060
.001
.0*8
.1*1
.035
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.776
33.960
.839
.381
62.463
5.252
0.000
5.499
27.B97
.4S9
.104
0.000
9.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.0*0
2.606
.097
.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*.S50
2.765
0.000
0.000
5.0*6
.200
.568
1.5*7
0.000
0.000
.170
1.S58
3.508
.559
.319
.005
.012
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.*60
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.030
.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.062
0.000
0.000
4.5SO
2.765
5.046
.031
7.132
.560
0.000
.040
2.606
.097
.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00"
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.ISO
.152
.365
.083
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
5.000
.750
0.000
0.000
.517
.800
2.1*9
5.852
0.000
0.000
.*55
7.*91
107.308
2.009
122.098
.001
.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.0*3
. .880
.020
.000
.000
.000
1.320
.112
.028
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
5.000
.750
.517
.119
239.36*
2.405
0.000
.150
.152
.165
.083
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.694
2.798
.229
.052
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.qoo
0.000
0.000
0.000
20.000
5.772
0.000
0.000
1.923
27.000
1.899
3.662
0.000
0.000
.763
3.569
4.3*6
5. 597
.60*
.027
.021
0.000
.006
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.683
.423
.001
.001
.002
.013
.6*8
.072
.018
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
20.000
5.772
1.923
.**0
1*.933
2.861
0.000
2.69*
2.798
.229
.092
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.015
.015
.035
.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.100
.073
0.000
0.000
.001
1.380
.209
.568
0.000
0.000
.26*
.137
3.800
.615
11.810
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.00*
.029
.000
.000
.009
.169
.018
.011
.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.017
0.000
0.000
.100
.073
.001
.029
16.626
.261
0.000
.015
.015
035
.008
0.000
F-14
-------
TABLE F-14
RESOURCE AN8 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
1000 Lt EACH PROCESS OR SYSTEM
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL MOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IKON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SANO
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERSY SOURCE NAT 6AS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE MISC
ENERGY SOURCE MOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HYDROPOMER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
MATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID MASTES PROCESS
SOLID MASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID MASTES MINING
SOLID MASTS POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITHOGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORGAN ICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIOE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
MATEHBORNE OIS SOLIDS
MATERBORNE FLUORIDES
MATE-1BORNE DISS SOLIDS
MATERBORNE BOD
ATERBOHNE PHENOL
MUTERBORNE SULFIOES
M4TEHBOHNE OIL
MATERBORNE COO
MATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
MATERBORNE ACID
MATERBORNE METAL ION
MATERBORNE CHEMICALS
MATERBORNE CYANIDE
MATERBORNE ALKALINITY
MATERBORNE CHROMIUM
MATERBORNE IRON
MATERBORNE ALUMINUM
MATERBORNE NICKEL
MATERBORNE MERCURY
MATERBORNE LEAD
MATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
MATERBORNE ZINC
MATERBORNE AMMONIA
MATERBORNE NITROGEN
MATERBORNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
UNITS
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
UNITS
RAM MATERIALS POUNDS
ENERGY MIL BTU
MATER THOU SAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMMISSIONS POUNDS
MATERBORNE MASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL MASTE CUBIC FT
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM MIL 8TU
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE COAL MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPMR MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE MOOD WASTE MIL BTU
POLYSTY POLYPROP MELAMINZ PET HOPE LOPE LAS ACRYLIC
RESIN RESIN MOLDINO RESIN RESIN RESIN SYS RESIN
SYS SYS COMPOUND SYS SYS SYS SYS ^
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
22.63
15.35
.66
.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
49.48
14.25
.65
24.14
3.31
46.67
5.84
13.79
0.00
0.00
2.13
12.59
34.77
11.84
17.20
.06
.06
0.00
.01
0.00
.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.69
.60
.00
.00
.13
1.49
1.06
.27
.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.02
0.00
0.00
49. ซa
39.04
3.31
.89
78.65
13.32
0,00
22.63
15.35
.86
.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.65
40.14
1.52
.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
46.30
15.87
1.53
25.24
3.51
26.08
8.92
24.27
0.00
0.00
2.15
18.88
75.11
11.43
4.29
.03
.07
0.00
.00
0.00
.00
.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
4.B6
.48
.00
.00
.04
2.10
1.2S
.46
.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
46.30
42.65
3.51
.80
111.95
9.32
0.00
.65
40.14
1.52
.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
220.31
21.84
0.00
25.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.75
6.21
33.89
3.03
.68
2.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
35.41
24.40
1.31
20.39
17.48
37.28
18.76
48.43
0.00
0.00
6.49
24.15
56.77
27.48
15.97
.07
.09
.20
5.13
0.00
.00
.00
.13
0.00
0.00
6.55
1.98
.00
.00
.04
.17
2.93
.98
.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
.00
0.00
0.00
.97
0.00
0.00
306.04
46.09
17.48
1.41
136.47
13.86
0.00
6.21
33.89
3.03
.68
2.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.01
15.09
2.54
.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.62
23.35
.54
17.32
3.17
27.78
17.74
40.70
0.00
0.00
5.83
19.47
67.46
36.78
23.72
.13
.08
0.00
.03
0.00
.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.71
1.S9
.01
.01
.07
11.83
1.04
.79
.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.01
0.00
0.00
7.62
41.21
3.17
1.16
153.49
26.25
0.00
23.01
15.09
2.54
.ST
0.00
0.00
9.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.74
31.11
2.82
.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.06
14.56
1.30
25.43
1.85
23.57
16.57
45.09
0.00
0.00
3.94
18.24
51.55
17.96
3.82
.03
.05
0.00
.00
0.00
.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
S.54
.24
.00
.00
.06
1.76
.57
.86
.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.06
41.29
1.85
1.15
95.59
9.26
0.00
6.74
31. 11
2.82
.64
0.00
o.oa
o.co
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.co
o.oc
0.00
0.90
0.00
7.08
31.79
3.64
.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26.06
16.60
1.30
25.43
2.00
23.57
21.42
58.30
0.00
0.00
5.60
20.21
52.57
22.50
4.08
.03
.06
0.00
.00
0.00
.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.69
.26
.00
.00
.06
2.00
.65
1.12
.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26.06
43.33
2.00
1.39
105.04
10.07
0.00
7.08
31.79
3.64
.82
0.00
0. jO
0, 0
0, j.)
C 33
0.30
191. ft6
0.00
O.fO
0.00
0.00
249.73
18.13
8.60
1.94 "
.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.76
13.91
.25
14.90
4.21
82.13
11.10
30.64
0.00
0.00
7.05
10.94
21.30
29.46
13.82
.04
.05
0.00
.01
0.00
.00
.00
.96
0.00
0.00
7.36
.20
.00
.00
.16
.27
.58
5.73
.14
.03
0.00
0.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
.00
0.00
0.00
.02
0.00
0.00
458.21
29.06
4.21
1.67
83.63
14.50
0.00
18.13
8.60
1.94
.38
0.00
0. 0"
3
o.oa
0.09
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oa
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
5,8
35.75
.91
20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.03
11.62
1.40
29.68
7.80
23.96
5.33
14.49
0.00
0.00
1.34
15.18
52.27
7.43
3.57
.02
.05
0.00
.42
0.00
.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.84
2. HI
.01
.00
.07
13.80
1.19
.28
.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.03
0.00
0.00
13.03
42.70
7.80
.59
80.27
24.09
0.00
5.84
35.75
.91
.20,
o.oot
F-15
-------
REFERENCES1
1. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category,
EPA Report No. 440/1-74-014-a, April 1974.
2. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Polymer Segment of the Plastics
and Synthetic Materials Manufacturing Paint Source Category. EPA Report
No. 440/1-75/036-b, January 1975.
3. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for thg Synthetic Resins Segment of the Plastics
and Synthetic Materials Manufacturing Point Source Category, EPA Report
No. 440/1-74-010-a, March 1974.
4. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Major Organic Products Segment of the
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category, EPA Report No.
440/1-74-009-a, April 1974.
5. Atmospheric Emissions from the Petroleum Kefining Industry, EPA Report
No. 650/2-73-017, August 1973.
6. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second Edition, EPA
Publication No. AP-42, April 1973.
7. Cost of Clean Air 1976, EPA Report No. 203/3-74-003, April 1974.
8. Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for the Petrochemical,
Volume 4, EPA Report No. 450/3-73-006-d, March 1975.
9. Capabilities and Costs of Technology for the Organic Chemicals Industry
to Achieve the Effluent Limitations of P.L. 92-500, National Commission
on Water Quality Report No. 75/03, June 1975.
10. Hydrocarbon Processing, November 1975.
11. Hydrocarbon Processing. September 1974.
12. Hydrocarbon Processing, November 1973.
13. "Estimating Costs for Baseload LNG Plants," The Oil and Gas Journal,
November 1975.
_!/ See comment No. 3 Appendix B, pages 3-4.
R-l
-------
14. "Ethane and LEG Recovery in LNG Plants," Hydrocarbon Processing.
April 1970.
15. 1972 Census of Mineral Industries. "Natural Gas Liquids," SIC 1321,
December 1974.
16. "Gas Processors Assess Effects of Declining Gas Production," The
Oil and Gas Journal. July 14, 1975.
17. "Oil and Gas Field Operations," 1972 Census of Mineral Industries,
SIC 1311, August 1975.
18. Minerals Yearbook. 1971.
19. MRI data and confidential sources.
20. Woodhouse, G., D. Samols, and J. Newman, "The Economics and Technology
of Large Ethylene Projects," Chemical Engineering, March 18, 1974.
21. Saxton, J. C., et al., "Federal Findings on Energy for Industrial
Chemicals," Chemical Engineering, September 2, 1974.
22. Zdonik, S. B., E., J. Bassler, and L. P. Haller, "How Feedstocks
Offset Ethylene," Hydrocarbon Proc es s ing. February 1974.
23. lammartino, N. R., "Petrochemicals Sing to Ethylene's Time," Chemical
Engineering, April 28, 1975.
24. Zdonik, S. B., E. J. Green, and L. P. Haller, Manufacturing Ethylene.
Tulsa: Petroleum Publishing Company.
25. "Polystyrene," Hydrocarbon Processing. November 1971.
26. "Benezene Recovery Process Offers Flexibility," The Oil and Gas Journal,
August 18, 1975.
27. Water Pollution Abatement Technology; Capabilities and Cost Organic
Chemicals Industry. National Commission on Water Quality, Report No.
75/03, June 1975.
28. Screening Report Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production Processes, EPA
Report No. R2-73-285.
29. Brine Disposal Treatment Practices Relating to the Oil Production
Industry. EPA Report No. 660/2-74-037, May 1974.
R-2
-------
30. Forecasts of the Effects of Air and Water Pollution Controls on Solid
Waste Generation, EPA Report No. 670/2-74-0956, December 1974.
31. Industrial Chemicals Solid Waste Generation, The Significance of
Process Change, Resource Recoveryjand Improved Disposal. EPA Report
No. 670/2-74-078, November 1974.
32. Marynowski, C. W., "Disposal of Polymer Solid Wastes by Primary Polymer
Producers and Plastics Fabricators," Stanford Research Institute, 1972.
33. Incentives for Recycling and Reuse of Plastics, Arthur P. Little, Inc.,
EPA Report No. SW-41C-72, 1972. i
34. Stone, John C., et al., An Integrated Power Process Model of Water
Use and Wastewater Treatment in Olefins Production, University of
Houston, May 27, 1975.
35. Craft, B. C., W. R. Holden, and E. D. Graves, Jr., Well Design; Drill-
ing and Production, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
(1962).
36. Monthly Energy Review, Federal Energy Administration, November 1975.
37. Ellwood, Peter, "Lower Investment, Easier Operation to Make Melamine,"
Chemical Engineering, pp. 101-103 October 19, 1970.
38. Strelzoff, Samuel, "Make Ammonia From Coal," Hydrocarbon Processing
October 1974.
39. Faith, Keyes, and Clark, Industrial Chemicals, 4th Edition, New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
40. Welch, R. 0., R. G. Hunt, and J. A. Cross, Resource and Environmental
Profile Analysis of Plastics and Competitive Materialst Midwest Research
Institute, Project No. 3714-D, November 1974.
41. Thompson, R. G., J. A. Galloway, and A. K. Schwartz, An Integrated Power
Process Model of Water Use and Wastewater Treatment in Ammonia Produc-
tion. University of Houston, NSF (RANN) Grant GI 34459, February 1974.
42. Chauvel, A. R., P. R. Courty, R. Maux, and C. Petitpas, "Select Best
Formaldehyde Catalyst," Hydrocarbon Processing. September 1973.
43. Hahn, Albert V. G., The Petrochemica1 Industry. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company (1970).
I/ Author should be Arthur D. Little, Inc.
R-3
-------
44. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards For The Basic Fertilizer Chemicals Segment of
Fertilizer Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA-440/l-74-011a,
March 1974.
45. Lagana, V., and G. Schraid, "Snamprogetti's Newsest Area Process," Hy-
drocarbon Processing. July 1975.
46. Sittig, Marshall, Environmental Sources and Emissions Handbook, Park
Ridge, New Jersey: Noyes Data Corporation (1975).
47. Hedley, W. H., et al., Potential Pollutants From Petrochemical Processes
Monsanto Research Corporation, Westport, Connecticut, Technomic Pub-
lishing Company (1975).
48. "Drilling to Remain High in U.S. as Oil Demand Climbs in 1976," Oil
and Gas Journal. January 26, 1976.
49. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Soap and Detergent Manufacturing Point
Source Category, EPA No. 440/1-74-018-a, April 1974.
50. Hougen, O.A., K. M. Watson, and R. A. Ragatz, Chemical Process Princi-
ples^ New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1954).
51. MacFarlane, A. C. "Ethylbenzene Process Proves Out," The Ore and Gas
Journal. February 9, 1976.
52. Segales, Hercules A., "Synthetic Detergents - 1975," Hydrocarbon Pro-
cess insป March 1975.
53. "Engineering and Cost Study of Air Pollution Control for The Petrochemi-
cal Industry, Volume 2, Acrylonitrite Manufacture, EPA-450/3-73-006-b,
February 1975.
54. "U.S. Chemical Industry," Chemical and Engineering News. June 7, 1976.
55. Jira, Reinhard, W. Blau, and D. Gremin, "Acetaldehyde Via Air or Oxygen,"
Hydrocarbon Processing. March 1976.
56. Gatewood, L. B., Jr., "The Energy Crisis: Can Cotton Help Meet It?"
National Cotton Council of America, January 1973.
57. "The Cost of Air Pollution Control to Cotton Ginners," U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERS-536, February 1974.
58. "Chemical Industry Statistics," The Johnson Redbook Service.
R-4
-------
59. Cervinka, V., W. J. Chancellor, R. J. Goffelt, R. G. Curley and J. B.
Dobie, "Energy Requirements for Agriculture in California," California
Department of Food and Agriculture, University of California, Davis,
January 1974.
60. "The U.S. Food and Fiber Sector: Energy Use and Outlood," The Economic
Research Service, USDA, September 20, 1974.
61. Pendleton, Ann, V. P. Moore, "Ginning Cotton to Preserve Fiber Quality,"
ESC-560, Federal Extension Service, USDA, September 1967.
62. Domestic Shipments of U.S. Cotton, 1970-71 Season Statistical Bulletin
No. 433, USDA, ERS.
63. Ward, Kyle, Jr. (ed.), "Chemistry and Chemical Technology of Cotton,"
New York: Interscience (1955).
64. Jones, H. R., Pollution Control in the Textile Industry, Park Ridge,
New Jersey: Noyes Data Corporation (1973).
65. "Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Textile Mills Point Source Category,"
EPA Report No. 440/1-74-022-a, June 1974.
66. "Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Formulated Fertilizer Segment of the Ferti-
lizer Manufacturing Point Source Category," EPA 440/1-75/042-a, January
1975.
67. "Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Economic Impacts Fertilizer In-
dustry," National Commission on Water Quality Report No. WQSAColl,
November 1975.
68. "Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Major Inorganic Products Segments of the
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category," EPA-440/1-
74-007-a, March 1974.
69. "Analysis of Demand and Supply for Secondary Fibers in the U.S. Paper
and Paperboard Industry," EPA Contract No. 68-01-2220, Arthur 0. Little,
Inc., March 1976. 1
70. "Line-Haul Trucking Costs in Relation to Vehicle Gross Weights," High-
way Research Board Bulletin 301 (1961).
71. Davidson, Jack R. and Howard W. Ottoson (eds.), "Transportation Prob-
lems and Policies in the Trans-Missouri West," Lincoln, Nebraska: Uni-
versity of Nebraska Press (1967).
V Author should be Arthur D. Little, Inc.
R-5
-------
72. "Modular Wastewater Treatment System Demonstration for the Textile Main-
tenance Industry," EPA-660/2-73-037, January 1974.
73, Leut. Daniels, "Study on Power-Laundry Wastewater Treatment," U.S. Army.*
Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center, Fort Belvoir, Virgiria,
November 1974.
74. Personal Communication, BASF Wyandotte Corporation, Wyandotte, Michigan,
February 1976.
75. American Paper Institute Correspondence, April 1976.
76. International Fabricare Institute Correspondence, July 7, 1975.
77. Linen Supply Association of America Meeting, February 2, 1976.
78. National Automatic Laundry and Cleaning Council Correspondence (1975).
79. Consumer Reports, October 1974.
80. "Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Existing Sources and Standards
of Performance for New Sources, EPA/330/9-74/001, August 1974.
81. Shrave, R. Norris, Chemical Process Industries (3rd Ed.), McGraw-Hill
Book Company, St. Louis, Missouri (1967).
82. Minerals Yearbook. Volume 1 (1973).
83. Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Energy Use Patterns in Metallurgical
and Nonmetallic Mineral Processing. Bureau of Mines, September 1975.
84. Statistical Yearbook, Edison electric Institute (1972).
85. United States Department of Commerce, Census of Transportation, 1967,
"Commodity Transportation Survey," Washington, D.C., Government Print-
ing Office.
86. Interstate Commerce Commission, Carload Waybi11 S ta tistics, Statement
SS-2, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office (1966).
87. Interstate Commerce Commission, Transport Statistics in the United States,
Part 7, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office (1969).
88. United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Waterborne
Commerce of the United States, 1966. San Francisco, California, U.S.
Army Engineer Division, Corps of Engineers.
R-6
-------
89. In order to provide data for this study, a survey of the tissue industry
was made by the tissue division of the American Paper Institute (API).
Questionnaires were developed by API in consultation with their member-
ship and with Franklin Associates. The questionnaires were mailed to
the membership, filled out and retruned to API. There, identification
was removed and replaced with a number. Then they were inspected for
errors and sent to Franklin Associates for analysis. The respondents
represent 80 percent of the disposable diaper production in the U.S.,
89 percent of the towel production, and 62 percent of the napkin produc-
tion. These questionnaire responses form the basis for data concerning
the paper products mentioned.
90. "Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Five Milk Containers,"
draft report in preparation by Midwest Research Institute and Franklin
Associates, Ltd., for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs.
91. Reference 89, and API Energy Consumption Survey.
92. Reference 89, and the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
93. In order to provide data for this study, a survey of paperboard mills
was made by the bleached paperboard division of the American Paper Insti-
tute. The survey sample was five mills, which in 1973 produced 80 per-
cent of the cup stock and 74 percent of the plate stock produced in
the U.S.
94. Reference 93, and the 1973 Energy Consumption Survey.
95. In order to provide data for this study, a survey of plate and cup manu-
facturing was made by the Single Service Institute. In each case, the
survey sample included more than 50 percent of the U.S. production of
that product. Questionnaires were developed by SSI, in consultation with
their membership, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Midwest Research Institute and
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Completed questionnaries were mailed to SSI,
where they were coded and sent to Arthur D. Little, Inc. The question-
naires were then analyzed and summarized before data were submitted
to the research team.
96. Derived by Franklin Associates, Ltd., and the tissue division of API.
97. "Study of Solid Waste Management Practices in the Pulp and Paper Industry,"
Gorham International, Inc., Gorhara, Maine, for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Washington,
D.C., February 1974.
98. Battele Comumbus Laboratories, Energy Use Patterns in Metallurgical
and Nonmetallic Mineral Processing, Bureau of Mines, June 27, 1975.
R-7
-------
99. Flewelling, F. J., Canadian Experience with the reduction of Mercury
at Chlor-Alkali-Plants, Canadian Industries, Ltc., Montreal (1973).
100. Olotka, Fred T., Formal Discussion on "Canadian Experience -nth 'he-
Reduction of Mercury at Chlor-Alkali-Plants," International Conference
on Heavy Metals in the Aquatic Environment, December 6, 197_>.
101. Cabass, R., and T. ฅ. Chapman, "Losses of Mercury from Chlorine T>;ants:
A Review of a Pollution Problem," AIGHE Journal, Volume 18, No. 5,
September 1972.
102. The Chlorine Institute.
103. 1967 Census of Mineral Industries, Tables 3, 6, and 7, Washington,
D.C., Government Printing Office.
104. Ibid, Water Use in Mining, Table i-A.
105. "Particulate Pollutant System Study," Vol. Ill, Air Pollution Control
Office, Durham, North Carolina (1971).
106. "Lime and Limestone," Kirk-Othiner Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology,
2nd Edition, Vol. 12 (1963.
107. United States Department of Commerce, Census of Manufacturers, 1967,
Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office.
108. United Stated Department of Interior, Minerals Yearbook (1967).
109. Faith, Keyes, and Clark, Indus trial Chemicals. 3rd Edition, New York,
Wiley & Son (1965).
110. Ross, Stephen S., environmental Regulation Handbook, Environmental
Information Center, New York (1973).
111. Collins, Gene, "Oil and Gas Wells--Potential Pollutants of the Environ-
ment, Journal WPCF, December 1971.
112. Maryonowski,
112. Maryonowski, Chester W., Disposa_l of Polymer So^id Wastes by Primary
Polymer Producers and Plastic Fabricators, EPA, Contract No. PH-86-
68-160 (1972).
113. "Modern Plastics Special Report," Modern Plastics, April 1973.
114. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inorganic Fertilizerland
Phosphate Mining Industries - Water Pollution and Control, September
1971.
R-8
-------
115. Shreve, R. Norris, Chemica1 Pro ce s s In du stries, 2nd Edition, New York,
McGraw-Hill (1956).
116. Materials Flow for Renewable Fiber Resources - Cotton, National Cotton
Council of America, Memphis, Tennessee, May 1975*
117. Weisman, V. I., and R. C. Anderson, "The Production of Sodium Sulfate
from Natural Brines of Morrahans, Texas," Mining Engineering. July
1953.
118. "Soda Ash," Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 2nd Edition,
Volume 12 (1963).
119. Franklin Associates, Ltd., and confidential sources.
120. United States Department of Interior, Minerals Yearbook, 1969.
121. "Particulate Pollutant System Study," Volume III, Air Pollution Control
Office, Durham, North Carolina (1971).
122. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Refuse Discharge Permit Applica-
tions.
123. Single Service Institute.
124. Census of Manufacturers, 1972*
R-9
-------
I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
The products included in this study--towels, napkins, sheets,
diapers and foodservice ware--are vital components in the American way of
life. The average individual uses or comes into contact with the majority
of these types of products during the course of each day. Accordingly, the
relative sanitation of the disposable and reusable variants within each
product type is a significant concern of all involved in delivering these
items to the consumer.
The "Public Health and Sanitation" component of this comprehen-
sive study of selected disposable versus reusable products examines con-
cerns that have been raised regarding the public health and sanitation as-
pects of these products. In accordance with the scope of work for this in-
vestigation, MRI conducted a literature review of relevant sanitation studies,
as well as of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Sanitation Code and
1 2
selected state and local sanitation ordinances.' A total of 85 references
were reviewed for this task. Additionally, MRI contacted 32 public health
associations and industrial associations, 40 product manufacturers, national
and regional FDA officials, and 5 state health agencies. A complete list
of these contacts is provided in Appendix B of this report.
In accordance with the contract scope of work, no original re-
search was to be conducted in the development of information for this study.
Yet, MRI believes that the report presents a consensus of the available
literature and of the opinions of industry and government officials regard-
ing the public health impacts of these selected disposable and reusable
products-^
y See comments, Appendix B , pages 11-12.
2J See comments, Appendix J, pages 37-38.
_3/ See comments, Appendix J, page 21.
-------
II. GENERAL SANITATION CONCERNS RELATED TO CLOTH PRODUCTS
A. Contamination of Cloth by Microorganisms
One of the central health concerns related to the use of cloth
products is their sanitation. Scientific studies have shown that fabrics
can harbor microorganisms which can be transmitted from person to person.
In light of this finding, it is especially significant to investigate the
presence of microorganisms on cloth--their persistence, transmittal from
fabric to humans, and their diminution or eradication via laundering.
1. Mechanisms of Contamination; There are four basic mechanisms
by which microorganisms may be transmitted:
a. Contact: In this type of contamination, bacteria may be
suspended in fluid or dispersed in a more dense medium. For example, a hos-
pital sheet could be contaminated by urine, a fluid medium; or through skin
lesions or feces, both of which are relatively dense.
b. Droplet; Droplets are large moisture-laden particles which
can be spread by talking, coughing and sneezing. They remain airborne only
a short time but can contaminate fabrics as they fall.
c. Droplet Nuclei; These are the residues resulting from
evaporation of moisture from droplets. They may remain airborne for long
periods of time but eventually fall, at which point contamination may occur.
(Droplet nuclei contamination is also called aerosol contamination.)
d. Dust; In this type of contamination, microorganisms adhere
to particles of dust which may be dislodged, by sweeping or other similar
S-2
-------
movements, from the fabric. These dust particles may then become airborne
and subsequently lodge on a surface or directly on a person.
2. Persistence of Microorganisms; Once fabrics have become con-
taminated, the microorganisms may survive for a relatively long period of
time under favorable conditions (e.g., rough-textured material and low hu-
midity). A number of studies have been done on the persistence of micro-
organisms under normal conditions on certain types of fabrics. McNeil and
Greenstein (38), demonstrated that viable Staphylococcus aureus persisted
on cotton for 84 days, E. coli for 32 days and Mycobacterium butyricum for
70 days. The authors also tested the persistence of the same microorganisms
on wool and acetate tricot, finding longer survival times on the wool and
shorter times on the tricot. They explained this result in terms of the
construction of the various materials, wool having a scaly, rough texture
to which microorganisms adhere quite easily and tricot being relatively
smooth and more resistant to such adherence. Survival times also varied
with degree of humidity, with a fairly high humidity (70 percent)-usually
associated with less persistence than a low humidity (28 percent). McNeil
and Greenstein concluded that "it is evident from the data...that the test
bacteria survived on the fabrics for sufficient periods of time to be of
epidemiological significance."~ (38, Page 137).
_!/ Although the phrase "of epidemiological significance" is not precisely
defined in this or in a subsequently cited study, the author's implica-
tion is that longer survival times provide a greater opportunity for
exposure to a potential human host, thus presenting greater public
health significance. No evidence of actual infectiousness is presented.
S- 3
-------
weeks at 35 percent humidity and for 6 to 12 weeks under 78 percent humi-
dity. Both Staph aureus and Salmonella survived for relatively brief periods
on the cotton wash-and-wear.
3. Release of Microorganisms from Cloth and Potential for Disease
Transmission; Obviously then, fabrics can harbor bacteria for a significant
period of time. However, the next step in the transmission process involves
the release of these resident bacteria into the environment or directly
onto a surface where they may impact negatively on humans. Sidwell et al .
(69) undertook a study to determine whether poli'ovirus and vaccinia could
be released in sufficient amounts to be capable of dissemination to sus-
ceptible hosts. A number of fabrics, Including cotton, wool, and synthetic
blends, were exposed to these viruses by direct contact and by aerosolization,
allowed to dry and then randomly tumbled with sterile swatches of the same
fabrics for 30 minuses. Up to 10 * CCID of poliovirus per milliliter
4.4
and 10 CCID 0 of vaccinia virus per milliliter were recovered from the
originally sterile fabrics as early as 1 to 10 minutes after contact. The
authors note that the exposed fabrics were contaminated with an extremely
large quantity of virus, greater than would be expected in domestic uses;
however, they believe that the rapid transfer of poliovirus and vaccinia
(considered to be sufficiently diverse to represent the most important human
viruses) from contaminated to sterile fabric indicates that the virus particles
adhere loosely to the fabric and would probably be disseminated rather easily
under normal usage conditions. But, they conclude that, "it is yet to be
_!/ Critical Concentration Intradermal, causing reaction in 50 percent of
test animals receiving intradermal injection.
S-5
-------
determined whether a*., human being would become clinically infected by
the quantity of virus that was transferred to the sterile fabrics," (69,
Page 953).
In another study implicating fabrics as potential fomites, Duguid
and Wallace (38), as reported in McNeil and Greenstein, compared the number
of bacteria released from the clothing of nasal carriers of Staphylococcus
aureus to the number transmitted via sneezing. Clothing is obviously subjected
to significant agitation through the normal movements of the wearer; and
such agitation is considered to be a factor in bacterial release. Duguid
and Wallace found a significantly greater amount of Staph aureus air con-
tamination from dust particles released from clothing than from droplet
nuclei emitted during sneezing. Ten percent of the dust particles emanat-
ing from the clothing and containing Staph aureus remained airborne for
at least 35 minutes, a sufficient period of time for contamination of per-
sons or inanimate objects.
Other authors have reported cases of illness directly traced to
contaminated fabrics. Oliphant, Gordon, Meis and Parker reported that laundry
workers had contracted Q fever (a rickettsial disease) from handling con-
taminated clothing, presumably by inhaling infected lint. In 1951, several
unvaccinated laundry workers in Great Britain contracted smallpox by handling
the soiled linen used by persons suffering from subclinical cases of the
disease. And, Gonzaga studied the effects of exposing newborn infants to
linens which had been contaminated by known Staph aureus carriers. The in-
fants contracted the infection when exposed to heavily contaminated articles.
All of the studies described in this paragraph were reported in Refer-
ence Number 43.
S-6
-------
These studies emphasize the potential for disease transmission
presented by contaminated cloth products. Although several of the investi-
gations focused on clothing rather than linens (Duguid and Oliphant), the
basic mechanisms of contamination and dissemination are the same.
In our present study, the cloth produces under investigation ex-
hibit the potential for significant contamination. A cloth towel, used in
the kitchen for wiping kitchen spills, can easily be contaminated by hand
contact. The hands are major carriers of microorganisms because they touch
such a variety of potentially contaminated surfaces (8). Additionally, spilled
food or liquids can provide excellent media which can support the growth
of bacteria. Napkins present a different potential for contamination because
of their contact with the mouth, where a variety of microorganisms are har-
bored. Finally, the bed sheet used in institutions is subject to the most
severe contamination. Hospital patients, who often carry some type of infec-
tion, can contaminate sheets in a variety of ways: any type of wound or
lesion may emit blood or purulent discharge onto the sheet; the patient
may excrete, through urination or defecation, potentially pathogenic material;
or he may contaminate the linen merely through touching, sneezing, coughing
or talking.
Despite the fact that fabrics can harbor microorganisms, that
these microorganisms can persist for a significant period of time, and that
cases of disease have been traced to contaminated fabrics, direct correla-
tion between contaminated fabrics and disease is not always clear. The likeli-
hood of particular microorganisms causing disease when transmitted from one
S-7
-------
person to another, vU fabric, is dependent on a variety of factors\ the
numbers and types of organism involved^ their degree of virulence, the mode
of entry, and the degree of immunity of the person involved. While these
factors are undeniably important in accurately assessing the overall health
threat represented by exposure to various microorganisms, definitive data
in these areas are sorely lacking. Most of the studies presented in the
following section, therefore, deal solely with the numbers of various bac-
teria found in fabrics, before and after laundering. While this measure
doeg not totally assess the associated health threat, the basic relationship
between the degree of exposure to potential pathogens and health jeopardy
is logically sound. In summarizing this topic, Davis mades the following
comment!
"The phenomena of communicability and invasiveness are complex
and controlled by many factors, but, other things being equal, the contact
with large numbers of potential pathogens must obviously increase the chance
of infection," (8, Page 89). Consistent with this focus, the following sec-
tions investigate the laundering process in general and the effectiveness
of typical commercial, institutional and home laundering practices in elim-
inating microorganisms from fabric.
B. Sanitation Mechanisms in the Laundering Process
Despite the foregoing conclusions regarding cloth products as
potential disease carriers, the inherent potential for disease transmission
can be virtually eliminated by proper Iqunderin^ techniques* Laundering
represents the best single key to the achievement of sanitation in cloth
S- 8
-------
products; and, for this reason, the practice of effective laundering methods
in the home, commercial and institutional facilities becpmes highly sig-
nificant in producing products which meet acceptable public health standards.
The laundering process provides three basic mechanisms by which
bacteria can b$ destroyed:
. The mechanical action of water and detergent solutions;
. The action of heat; and
. The bactericidal action of reagents used for cleansing.
1. Mechanical Action? The first step involves the physical removal
of bacteria-harboring soil from the fabric. The agitation of the washer,
coupled with detergent, lifts the soil out of the fabric and suspends it
in the wash water. At this point, called the first "break," millions of
bacteria may be suspended in each rallliliter of water in the average load.
As the contaminated water is flushed away and replaced by clean water, the
bacterial count is decrementally reduced through the dilution process. With
each flushing operation, the count further decreases. The effect of deter-
gency and dilution is illustrated in Figure 1. Although the lower curve
in the figure represents a higher temperature (125 to 140 ), the percent-
age of bacteria removal at each step ig approximately the same as that of
the 100 temperaturea 50 percent reduction at each flush. However, as
shown in the graph, it was necessary to add bleach to effect total bacteri-
cidal action.
2. Heati The action of heat alone can be effective in destroying
bacteria. Smith and Mack note that "water alone at 160 F causes almost
complete destruction of representative pathogenic organisms...(however)
S-9
-------
0)
"o
107
106
105
104
103
102
10'
1
1
Detergency &
Dilution Only
Bleach Added
.Steps in Laundering Process
Figure 1 - The Role of Detergency and Dilution
in the Sanitation Process
S-10
-------
where low or moderate temperatures are used in laundering, it is difficult
to attain complete sterilization," (71, Page 98). In addition to heat in
the washing process, dryers and ironing can provide some bactericidal action,
although the literature indicates that these latter heat sources should
not be relied upon to achieve fabric sanitation.
A study done by Sidwell et al. (67) confirms the significance
of heat in bacterial destruction. Swatches of fabric were contaminated,
through direct and aerosol exposure, with poliovirus and then laundered
at three different temperatures using two types of detergent and using no
detergent. Table 1 shows the results of these tests on cotton sheeting.
As indicated in the table, detergent usage made little difference,
but the hot wash water markedly reduced the amount of detectable virus.
The authors note that "the heat supplied by the wash water was one of the
most important factors in eliminating viable poliovirus from the contami-
nated fabrics, as shown by the fact that virus reductions were marked in
the hot water experiments, with little detectable virus remaining'on the
fabrics," (67, Page 229). It is also interesting to note that drying had
a significant effect on virus reduction.
Additionally, the study showed that no virus was recovered from
the rinse water after: hot water laundering; however, virus was recovered
from rinse water after warm and cold water laundering. Sterile fabrics laun-
dered with contaminated fabrics in hot water had a lower virus content than
similar fabrics laundered in warm or cold water. These results indicate
that warm and cold water physically remove the virus from the fabric, but
that hot water not only removes the virus but also inactivates it.
S- 11
-------
/ซ*s
3
o
m
Q
H
CJ
O
v *
CO
CJ r-l
85 cu
r-4 IE
H -H
M H
p2 14
W ฃ5 *r4
fa O >
fa H
H H C
Q O co
U 0)
H S3
0 rH r-4
O
^ in | o' oo'
co $4 O O O
CU Ml i 1 r-4 r-l
H fit V V
"*^ป
w ja| vo in <
W 4J
oi ai o o o
H * 232
rH t< I*H
"rol
r-l
0) O CM O CO
rj M * * *
u jj vo ซtf m
H a ooo
^> O t^ f^ rH
0
u
0 -H
H B
ง0
H 0)
i-l C C
a o o
voc^ en vo o
* 4
vO eTi m
tn vo m m m vo
OOO 000
r^ ^^ i*H r4 i^H f^
u u
0 -H 0 -H
H C -H C
P O CO
O -H 0- O -rl 01
ri c c -H a c
CO" BOO
0) 01
*2 w
g s
a u
J ซ
M-4 a
o a
u ><
U 4J
0) -H
1W Tl
>W -rj
ta g
3
J2
>
5
ca T-I
0) 4->
CO CO
3 r-4
M CU
H ,J
>
4J
<4-l C CO
0 01 M
0 3
CO Vi O
M 01 .C
o a.
4J O
ca in cs
c3 n
r* H
B C o
01 !-! 4-1
CO
to fa >,
t-l 0 P
O r^ T)
41 *O T3
f-l TJ J3 CD ca TJ TJ
co c 3 a S
n n 3 3
CU S -H CO co
> e3 > r-4 r-4
4J C O 01 0)
CO O 4J M W
4-1 U 01 0)
rl *O !S 3
4-1 1 CU
(3 CO CO CO
cd cq o JO eo
. o cu S 3
r-l T-l 1-1 CO CO
Cfl r-4 CD
O 3 co co
4-1 h 33
01 J3 r-4 1-4
a u & a
r-l O -H
r-l ,ฃ3 ** ป
01 oo 3c ^--* ***,
? C C0| col
"O 1-1 CO
i-l CU CO CO
co 43 eo CB
CJ
4J 0) CU
01 CO S S
CJ 3 co CO
r-l CO CO CO
s -^- ^
co cof.a| ol
S-12
-------
Time is an inseparable component of temperature in effecting bac-
terial destruction. Davis (8) notes that the cumulative exposure time to
high temperatures is the best indicator of bactericidal effectiveness. Strin-
gent regulations on laundering, such as those established by the Joint Com-
mission on the Accreditation of Hospitals for hospital laundries, dictate
that fabrics be held at 160ฐ for 25 minutes. There is little doubt, according
to the literature, that fabrics would be effectively sanitized by such ex-
posure. However, some studies (34,8) indicate that with a few minutes ex-
posure to 140 temperature, fabrics become free of certain types of pathogens.
Figure 2 depicts thermal destruction of one strain of Sjiaph aureus at 140 ,
130ฐ and 120ฐ; obviously, the 120ฐ temperature was ineffective, leaving ap-
proximately 50 microorganisms after 25 minutes; whereas at 140 , all the
Staph was destroyed after 2 minutes. Thus, a slight increase in temperature
can markedly reduce kill time.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Minutes)
Source: Marmo, Anthony, "Bacteria Control in the Laundry," (34),
Figure 2 - Thermal Destruction of Staph Aureus
S-13
-------
Two other significant factors in evaluating thermal destruction
are the particular type of bacteria and the type of soil to which it ad-
heres. For example, a strain of E. coli harbored in broth can be destroyed
at a considerably lower temperature than the same strain adhering to cream.
Also, whereas the strain of Staph aureus represented in Figure 2 could be
destroyed by a 2-minute exposure to a 140 temperature, another strain of
the same organism can survive up to 19 minutes of exposure to the same
degree of heat.
3. Chemicals; Chemicals represent the third mechanism for bac-
terial destruction in the laundering process. There are four basic types
of chemical bactericides (disinfectants):
a. Alkalies: Alkalies create a highly alkaline environment
in which many bacteria cannot survive and also neutralize the acidity present
in many soils, thereby enhancing the effect of detergents.
b. Detergents (soaps): Soaps have varying effects on micro-
organisms. Pneumococci, meningococci, gonococci, and numerous other organ-
isms are easily destroyed by the chemical action of detergents. Others,
such as certain strains of Staphylococci and tubercle bacilli, are more
resistant and can be killed only by the combined action of heat and deter-
gent.
c. Bleaches! Chlorine bleach is dependent on a number of
factors for its effectiveness: a low pH value, high temperature, and rela-
tively high bleach concentration. Figure 3 illustrates the significance
of each of these factors in the destruction of Bacillus metiens.
S- 14
-------
,q
u
u
o u-
CN o
O
O
0>
O 0_
CO E
-------
d. Sours; A sour produces an acidic condition which neutral-
izes residual alkali from earlier processes and also completes bacterial
destruction by creating a low pH condition deleterious to many bacteria.
Sours are particularly useful as bactericides in colored loads where lower
temperatures are used and no bleach is added.
Because the many organisms which can be found in fabrics re-
^
spond so differently to laundry chemicals, there is no one substance which
will kill all bacteria. Additionally, as illustrated in the case of chlorine
bleach, there are several variables which can alter bactericidal action.
However, proper combinations of agitation, heat, and chemicals should result
in almost complete elimination of microorganisms. Smith and Mack note that
"a good washing formula utilizing the successive actions of alkali, soap,
bleach, and sour at temperatures in the range of 160 for the break and
sudsing operations, with bleaching at 140 to 145 , can be expected to
effectuate the complete destruction of bacteria ordinarily encountered in
laundering" (71, Page 100).
C. Effectiveness of Commercial Laundering
The cloth products being investigated in this study (towels, nap-
kins, diapers, and sheets) may be laundered by any one of the following
methods:
. Commercial laundry (household towels and napkins, commercially-
used napkins, diapers, some institutional sheets).
Home laundry, including self-service laundromats (household
S- 16
-------
towels and napkins, diapers).
. Institutional laundry (sheets).
Because of special considerations inherent in the laundering of
diapers and institutional (predominantly hospital) sheets, laundry proce-
dures for these products will be discussed in the respective projects se^-
tions.
Towels and napkins, however, are generally treated by standard
laundry procedures. If sent to a commercial laundry, towels and napkins
would normally be handled by one of the following techniques recommended
by the International Fabricare Institute, which is one of the major associ-
ations representing commercial laundries:
1. Standard White Work Washing Procedure!
Operation
1. Suds.
2. Suds
3. Suds
4. Bleach Suds
5. Rinse
6. Rinse
7. Rinse
8. Rinse
9. Sour
10. Starch
Time
(Min)
5-7
5-7
5-7
ds 5-7
2
2
2
2
3-4
10
Level
(Inch)
5-6-8
5-6-8
5-6-8
5-6-8
10-12-15
10-12-15
10-12-15
10-12-15
5-6-8
2
Temperature
(ฐF)
180
160
160
155
160
140
120
100
90
90
p_H
11.2-11
11.0
10.8
10.5-10
5.0-5.
.4
.6
5
S-17
-------
2. Wash Procedure for Polyester/Cotton Linens,;
Operation
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
_a/ Spin.
Time
(Min)
Break 10
Plush
Suds
Rinse
Bleach
Extract-'
Rinse
Extract
Rinse
Sour
3. Colored Loads
3
10
3
10
1
3
1
3
5
Level
(Inch)
6
8
6
12
6
12
12
6
(cotton) : Sai
Per 100 lb.load
140
140
140
140
140
125
110
95
1.5 lb Sodium Orthosilicate
0.4 lb Tripolyphosphate
0.75 lb Nonionic deter-
gent (1)(2)
1/2 of supplies as listed
in step No. 1
2 qt 1% Av. chlorine bleach
pH 10.4-10.5 (3)
(4)
pH not lower than 5
that the .first suds is at 100 , subsequent suds are at 140 , and the rinses
are done-at 140ฐ, 120ฐ, 100ฐ, and 100ฐ, bleach is not used with the fourth
suds.
4. Lightly Soiled White Loads; Same as standard white work except
that first suds is at 100 and subsequent sudsings may be at slightly lower
temperatures than for standard white work.
5. Commercial Fl.atwork (Such as napkins); Handled in the same
manner as lightly soiled white loads.
These recommended procedures all involve a minimum of 17 minutes
exposure to 140 F (colored loads) and a maximum of 30 minutes exposure to
155 or above (23 minutes to 160ฐ or higher) for standard white work. Although
S-18
-------
these time and temperature recommendations do not match those presented in
the literature (160ฐ for 25 minutes), the addition of chemical bactericides
(alkalies, detergents, bleaches and sours) supplement the antibacterial
action of time and temperature.
In order to determine if such commercial laundering techniques
produced reasonably sterile fabrics, Nicholes (43) performed bacteriologi-
cal studies of commercially laundered items from all over the world. The
products tested included continuous roll towels, napkins and dish towels.
Nicholes1 results were reported mainly on the continuous towels, which ini-
tially showed an average of 41,960 bacteria per square inch in one test
and over 3 million in another. After the laundries were advised to make
adjustments in time, temperature and chemicals, counts were reduced to <32
and to 160,000, respectively. Nicholes emphasizes, however, that even the
initial high counts proved to be mostly gram-positive spore-forming (and
thus heat-resistant) organisms which he feels do not present a great public
health nuisance. Marmo concurs that these organisms tend not to be pathogenic
but rather tend to be mold and mildew-producers (34). Nicholes also concluded,
from an extensive literature review, that laundered fabrics have never been
implicated in the transfer of disease.
It is significant to note that in Nicholes1 study, bactericidal
effectiveness was considerably improved by instructing the laundries in
proper time, temperature, and chemical utilization. While standard practice
in the commercial laundry industry involves bactericidal techniques, the
human factor must be considered in evaluating the compliance of individual
laundries to industry standards.
S-19
-------
In another study conducted under the auspices of the American
Institute of Laundering (AIL now IFI), bacterial counts were taken at each
step of the white and colored laundry formulas, using temperatures consider-
ably lower than are now recommended by IFI. Even at these lower temperatures,
however, no bacteria were recovered at the end of the white washing procedure
and only 158 bacteria per cubic centimeter at the conclusion of the colored
method (again indicating the added effectiveness of bleach used in the white
wash). Tables 2 and 3 summarize these test results.
The American Institute of Laundering study also compared commer-
cially laundered loads with home washing. The average bacteria count in
the last rinse for colored loads as found in 109 commercial laundries was
71 organisms per cubic centimeter compared to 318,792 per cubic centimeter
as found in nine different randomly selected homes in a total of 180 tests.
For white loads in the same laundries, the average count was only 31 per
cubic centimeter.
D. Effectiveness of Home Laundering
The results of the AIL study are consistent with the majority
of other literature on home laundering, which indicates that such poor re-
sults from home laundries are attributable to a number of factors:
1. Generally shorter wash times: an MRI survey of local service
centers for three home washer manufacturers indicates that the washing (de-
tergency and dilution) time in home laundry averages only 12 minutes for
a normal full load. However, most washers can be set for shorter wash times,
S-20
-------
TABLE 2
BACTERICIDAL EFFICIENCY OF A COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY WHITE FORMULA
Temperature
Bath
1 lush
1st Suds
2d Suds
3d Suds
4th Suds
1st Rinse
2d Rinse
3d Rinse
j-th Rinse
Sour and
blue
Supplies Used
Soap and alkali
Soap and alkali
Soap and alkali
Soap and alkali plus
Sodium hypochlorite
--
--
Sodium acid fluoride^'
(ฐF)
110
125
135
140
165-170
165
165
165
165
140 and
110
Time
(Min)
5
10
10
10
3
3
3
3
Average
Bacterial Count
Per cu cm
200,428
9-, 314
42,518
3,382
5
1
0.5
0.4
0.2
Sterile
Source: American Institute of Laundering.
TABLE 3
BACTERICIDAL EFFICIENCY OF A COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY COLORED FORMULA
Bath
Flush
1st Suds
2d Suds
3d Suds
4th Suds
1st Rinse
2d Rinse
3d Rinse
4th Rinse
5th Rinse
Sour
Supplies Used
Soap and alkali
Soap and alkali
Soap and alkali
Soap and alkali
Sodium acid fluoride
Temperature
(ฐF)
90-100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Time
(Min)
5
10
10
10
10
3
3
3
3
3
5
Average
Bacterial Count
Per cu cm
3,674,055
1,979,862
1,248,758
255,579
221,293
88,966
67,461
43,809
35,278
24,441
158
S'urce: American Institute of Laundering.
S-21
-------
which are often recommended for synthetic fabrics. Coin-operated washers
in laundromats average a 10-minute washing time.
2. Lower temperatures: McNeil (36) notes that average home laundry
temperatures at the hot water setting range from 120 to 130 , while at
the warm water setting, temperature averages about 100 (temperature being
dependent in both cases on the setting of the hot water heater in the home
or self-service laundry).
3. Use of less water.
4. Reuse of water.
5. Use of less effective chemical reagents.
According to the USDA, "Neither the water temperatures nor the
detergents used under today's home laundering conditions can be relied on
to reduce the number of bacteria in fabrics to a safe level," (66). Ethel
McNeil, formerly of the USDA Agricultural Research Service, has performed
several studies of home laundering. In one study, nine families brought
soiled laundry to the lab each week for several months. The bactericidal
effectiveness of three types of disinfectants (quaternary, phenolic and
sodium hypochlorite, also called chlorine bleach) was tested at varying
water temperatures and with varying types of detergents. The temperature
of the wash water at the "hot water" setting varied from 122 to 140ฐF at
the beginning of the wash cycle, and from 109 to 135 F at the end of the
cycle. The temperature of the wash water at the "warm water" setting varied
from 91ฐF to 118ฐF at the beginning of the wash cycle, and from 88ฐF to
108 F at the end of the wash cycle.
S-22
-------
Bacterial counts were made of treated and untreated waงh and rinse
waters and of swatches of fabrics attached to an article of clothing. Detailed
test results are presented in Tables I through V, in Appendix A to this
report.
The conclusions of the report were as follows:
1. Large numbers of bacteria were recovered from many of the un-
treated wash and rinse waters, even at the "hot water" setting. Home launder-
ing temperatures and detergents cannot, therefore, be relied on for the
control of transmission of bacteria by textiles and clothing.
2. The quaternary disinfectant at a concentration of 200 ppm,
added to either the wash or rinse water at the hot water setting, consis-
tently reduced bacterial counts in the water and on the fabric swatches.
3, The phenolic disinfectants also reduced bacterial counts in
the wash and rinse cycles when used at a concentration of 125 ppm or higher.
4. The sodium hypochlorite (chlorine bleach) was effective at
160 and 320 ppm of available chlorine.
5. Redeposition of bacteria did occur from soiled fabrics to the
attached swatches*
As a corollary to the preceding study, McNeil investigated the
types of bacteria which had been isolated from the home laundering procedures.
Over 1,500 colonies of bacteria were described and gram stains were made.
Four hundred of these were retained for further study; 30 species of 13
genera were identified, most of which were found in wash loads to which
disinfectants were not added. These species are listed in Table 4. The most
S-23
-------
TABLE 4
INCIDENCE OF 30 SPECIES OF BACTERIA IN THE LAUNDRY OF NINE FAMILIES
Species
Staphylococcus aureus
Staphylococcus epidermidis
Micrococcus aurantiacus
Micrococcus candidus
Micrococcus caseolyticus
Micrococcus conglomeratus
Micrococcus flavus
Micrococcus freudenreichii
Micrococcus luteus
Micrococcus varians
Sarcina sp
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Escherichia coli
Escherichia intermedia
Paracolbactrum aerogenoides
Paracolbactrum intermedium
Paracolbactrum coliforme
Aerobacter aerogenes
Aerobacter cloacae
Proteus vulgaris
Flavobacterium sp
Achromobacter sp
Alcaligenes fecalis
Alcaligenes bookeri
Alcaligenes marshallii
Alcaligenes recti
Alcaligenes viscolactis
Brevibacterlum sp
Bacillus subtilis group
Bacillus megatherium-cereus group
Total Number
of Strains
Identified
41
58
8
6
5
5
5
1
5
3
16
21
4
1
20
15
7
3
2
2
5
1
55
5
1
6
1
29
27
43
Number of Families
From Whose Laundry
Species were Isolated
..([Total of 9)
7
8
4
5
3
4
4
1
2
3
8
7
2
1
8
7
7
2
2
2
4'
1
9
3
1
2
1
7
8
9
Source: McNeil, Ethel, "Studies of Bacteria Isolated From Home Laundering,"
(36).
S-24
-------
significant bacteria froฎ a nOttaefapld hjgiene Standpoint were Staphylococcus
aureus, Pseudcwjonas ซerwginos3 fad Parecolbactru^. In evaluating the health
status of families whose Iaup4ฃre4 fabrics contained these bacteria, McNeil
found that three of the seven families with Staph aureus reported skin lesions
or upper respiratory infections during the period prior to laboratory laundry
of their clothes I five of the eight with Paracolbactruro aerogenoides reported
intestinal disorders! and three of the seven with Pseudomonas reported ear
or genitourinary infections* In each case, the bacteria isolated represent
a common causative agent for the type of infections reported. It is clear
from McNeil's study that pathogenic bacteria can be transmitted from in-
fected humans to fabrics, and that these bacteria can survive home launder-
ing, especially when disinfectants are not added*
McNeil's work forms the basis for a USDA recommendation, contained
in the bulletin, "Sanitation in Home Laundering," (66) that disinfectants
be employed whenevert
1. There is illness in the family, or
2. Laundry facilities are shared.
Quaternary and liquid chlorine disinfectants are recommended by USDA for
all temperatures) pine oil and phenolics, for hot and warm water.
Witt and Warden (85) also studied the effectiveness of home launder-
ing by using varying water temperatures (hot = 140 , warm = 100 , cold =
60 ), and detergent concentrations (none, 0.1 percent, 0.2 percent, 0.4
percent) on fabrics contaminated with Staph aureus. They found that none
of the combinations of temperatures and detergent concentrations removed
S-25
-------
100 percent of the organisms} however, as water temperatures and detergent
concentrations increased, bacterial survival decreased on the contaminated
fabrics, on the sterile fabrics following recleposition of bacteria from
contaminated fabrics, and in the wash water* Figures 4 and 5 illustrate
these results for the fabrics and wash waters.
c
c
j
o
I
u
&
c
After Dry
60 100 140
Water Temperature (ฐF)
Figure 4 - Count After Washing with
Various Water Temperatures
c
o>
o
0)
"o
Figure
.1 .2 .3 .4
Detergent Concentration (%)
5 - Count After Washing with
Various Detergent Concentrations
The study points out factors which can cause redeposition of soil
from contaminated to uncontaminated fabrics:
1. A high amount of soil;
2* Adverse temperature conditions}
3. A low volume of waterj and
4. A low detergent concentration.
S-26
-------
Home i&undxt0f effcen exhibit all of th^se factofs, with lower water tem-
peratyres, pv^ffllllpg of washers resulting in a low water*to-fabric ratio,
and misuse o| detergents. Another problem erapha$ized in this study is the
removal of clothe? from automatic dryerg before they are completely dry.
This practice* often followed for no-iron fabrics, provides 9 warm, moist
environment which encourages bacterial growth*
Tables VI and VU in Appendix A to this report provide complete
results of Witt atปd jlarden'ป experiments on two types of fabric.
A fourth study which investigated noncommercial laundering was
performed by Che Applied Biological Science Lab, Inc., for the Linen Supply
Association of America (LSAA)ซ The purpose of the study was to determine
the effectiveness of the washing procedure recommended by the American Hotel
and Motel Association (AHMA) for no-iron linens. This procedure involves
washing for 5 minutes at 100ฐF and adding a bacteriostat to achieve sanita-
tion. Both cotton muslin and 50 percent cotton/50 percent polyester blend
sheets were tested, using 100 and 160 temperatures, two types of detergents
and no detergent* The sheets had been innoculated with a 1 x 10 dosage of
Pseudomonas aaruginosa* The summary of the tests is presented in Figure 6.
As Indicated in the figure, the most effective results were ob-
tained from the 30-minute, 160 wash. The 5-minute washes (as recommended
by AHMA) at both temperatures left a significant bacterial residue, although
at 160 , with detergents, results were more favorable than at the lower
temperature. There was no measureable difference in results between the
cotton muslin and the cotton/polyester blend in terms of bacterial reten-
tion.
S-27
-------
ฃ ฃ Control^/
ฃ 8 All
~* Enstaph HD
1
if u. Control-9/
ซ"> 8 All
f - Enstaph HD
fj "- Controls/
o o
ฃ 8 All
4, -.
| u. Controls/
f | All
o - Enstaph HD
9
*
vซ
J
^^^m
m+~m
T
1
0 100 300 500 700
Bacteria Count per Swatch
S/No Detergent Added
f Median Value
Source: Linen Supply Association of America.
900
Figure 6 - Effect of Time and Temperature on Bacteria Kill
S-28
-------
In contrast to the preceding study, a University of Iowa Hospital
comparison (2) of the same materials at the same temperatures and times
indicated that 5-minute, 100 washes were quite effective in producing sani-
tary linen. Table 5 shows the results of their microbiological testing.
As indicated, the no-iron sheets contained fewer bacteria prior to washing
than the conventional cotton sheets. (No explanation of this phenomenon
was offered.) Also, the 5-minute, 100 wash produced a level of sanitation
comparable to that resulting from the commercial method for the 100 percent
cotton sheets. It should be noted, however, that this was the only study
encountered in the literature which indicated favorable results for short-
time, low-temperature laundry procedures and which showed lower initial
bacteria counts on no-iron fabrics.
The overwhelming evidence gathered during the course of this study
indicates that standard commercial laundering methods, using at least 140
temperatures, 15- to 30-minute cycle periods, with the additition of chemicals,
produce far more sanitary fabrics than do typical home (short-time, low-
temperature) laundering procedures.
A final consideration in cloth product sanitation and laundering
is recontamination of fabrics after washing. Even though cloth may be totally
sanitized and free of microorganisms at the conclusion of the washing process,
it may be recontaminated during subsequent stages of laundering, drying, iron-
ing and folding. Church and Loosli (6) studied this recontamination problem
in one hospital and one commercial laundry. (For the purposes of this section,
only the results of the commercial laundry testing will be discussed.) They
S-29
-------
O
ex
I-i B
CU -r4
4J x:
<4-l CO
< CO
ex
CD B
Q JS
>4-l CO
in
CM
cป
O
CO
O
vO
vO
CM
CO
CM
o
00
VO
CN
CO
o
CM
o
CM
S
B
a
3
D
1
ej
K
CO
H
5
g
0
fe
o
pi
M
i
B
03
H
rJ
g
3
H
OJ
s
hJ
^
O
M
8
ฃ
M
PQ
ง
U
i-l
2
B
4-1
CO
N
H
B
U
CO
4-1
B
O
V
M
cu
4J
U-l
<
co
\4
o
14-4
s
TJ
B
CO
CO
4J
CU
cu
X!
CO
CU
0.
H
ซ
B
H
x:
CO
I3
VO CM rH
^^ """S* 1^
ON P* CO
I? \P JH
ex
o
i
ca
S
8ง 8
ป-* r-l i-l
""N ^** "***.
ป-* rซ4 r*4
M
B
x:
CO
ca
a
H
XI
CQ
CO
r*^ oo
N^ ^3
o o
ON tN
rH
fc
o
O o>
*H "0
3
4J CD
tj
o
x:
4-1
J2J
M
XI
CO
ca
Is
CO
B
H 13 i-l
co cu S
4J X! 1
B co ca m
o v ca
4J >> 3 CO
*J rH B
O O co 0
0 O. 4J
cu f.
ปf S^ CO 4J
O O X* "r^
m m co 5
00
8
m
8
o
rH
tH
01 ..
CU hi
CO o
B m
H vO
h rH
1
B a
H O
8 vo
1 rH
C*>
4-1
O eg
Bro
co
a -H
B M
ai Q
o
B
cu
XI N
U 1-4
CO 4-1
co 1-1
rH B
Xt CO
CO
O
B M
00 ฐ
B I-i
-1 3
ca o
3 co
O "">
VO O CM O
c*i ซM
r-l Sf
a
cu
u
m
B
o a
O 4J
o o
in o
vo
o
o
B
3
B -H
O co S
I-i 4J CO l-i
H 41 CO 0)
CM CO N
o x: o -H
B Z CO Z 4J
I
C
o
o
CO
O
a
CO
ca
4J
O
CU
vo
5
8
rH
rH
f** 4
rH
*
O
o
0)
4jj
H
4-> M
a o
rH J3
a
4J O
o. a
CU Jx,
a*
cu a
1-1
o
CO CO
CO
6-2
PJ
CO <4-l
W O
CM
B
3
rH
8
o
rH
".
rH
a
0)
13
a
CO
Xi
i-4
8
r-4
M
&
XI
a
ca
Q)
rH
CO
4J
co
cu
XI
to
D
o
h
H
O
Z
cu
rH
U
>,
U
XI
ca
ca
U
H
O
M-l
i
ft
S co
4J
ง1-1
M
H O
O r-4
O XI
C/3 U
S
00
ซ
CN
O
O
rH
rH
CM
O
00
r-l
r-l
B
3
P3
8
in
^
vO
rH
8
o
rH
o
CO
B
0
M
M
CO
4-1
co
co
s
B
O
4-1
4-1
O
0
fr"ป
f"s
^5
f1
CM
B
03
O
0
00
*
"*^
0
o
rH
CD
o
C3
m
r 1
CO
3
ca
3
cu
4J
ฃ
0
B
ca
i-i
3
O
CO
CO
4-1
CU
cu
CO
(0
o
^4
a
M
c
en
(0
cu
M
O
CM 0)
^ XI
r- CO
P (
m
3
C
ซ
^
Pป-
"O
c
3
ro
j
c
0
1-1
^4 1 1
cu i
B 0
0 Z
1-1
i-( CD
jr
rH H
4J
cu
0)
co
T)
0)
r 4
1-1
o
co
C
O tn
4-1
CQ C
4J cu
C -H
3 AJ
O CO
0 CX
ca 4J
H C
I-l 01
r-4 CO M
O *i 4J CU
lJ O U-4
1 < CO U-l
4-1 XI -H
xi T;
(JO J C
1-1 -H U-1
CU ซ O
-^ c
1 QJ O C
C i I -H O
D- T> 4J .H
>-, ro cfl u
PS 0) ^ -H -H
u pq s-i -d
S >r^ to
31-1 ซ ฃ>
HO 0)
-O r-4 O
O XI !-J W
CO O 3 H
o o
CO 2
S-30
-------
found that the laundry process was efficient in removing bacteria from the
fabrics during washing, but that the materials became recontaminated during
water extraction in the spin dryer or while they were being folded. Figure
7 graphically depicts the results of air samples taken at various sites
in the laundry. As indicated, the highest counts were found near the sorting
table, near the extractor at the end of the extraction process, and near
the dryer and folding table.
The authors found that the open-lid extractors were drawing in
large numbers of airborne bacteria which were subsequently harbored in the
textiles being spun-dry. Table 6 shows the relationship among the increase
in airborne bacteria, waterborne bacteria and linen contamination from the
beginning of the laundering cycle through the end of the extraction process.
Samples were taken at the time of maximum sorting activity, when movement
of the soiled clothes contributes heavily to airborne bioload. Samples taken
in the hospital laundry when no sorting was in process showed considerably
lower bacterial counts. The study also concluded that the heat of the iron-
ing process was insufficient to eliminate all the organisms built up during
extraction.
The extent to which the recontamination problems outlined above
occur in individual laundries related to the layout and operation of the
facility. Solutions to identified problems are dependent on an understand-
ing of potential trouble areas, so that precautions (e.g., ventilation,
screening, etc.) may be taken to minimize bacterial redeposition.
S-31
-------
4)
t>
J!
102
10=1
y
N
U
/
/
/
f
r
""
L
--ป
u
x*
A-
-
C-
Do
n A
U4~
-
F-
G -
H-
A B C D2D4D6DioD]4D16E F G H
Location of Air Samples
Sorting Table
Loading Washing Machine
Unloading Washing Machines
~ Near Extractor, 2 Minutes
- Near Extractor, 4 Minutes
- Near Extractor, 6 Minutes
- Near Extractor, 10 Minutes
- Near Extractor, 14 Minutes
- Near Extractor, 16 Minutes
Near Extractor, Off
Near Ironer
Near Dryer
Near Folding Table
Source: Church and Loosli, "The Role of the Laundry in the Recontamination
of Washed Bedding," (6).
Figure 7 -
Total Number of Bacteria per Cubic Foot of Air Sampled at Specific
Sites During Routine Activities
S-32
-------
vO
3
3
H
B
(U
en
z
H
H
ซ
Q
in
y
5
5
g
jง
O
H
FJS
p
cc
^4
ff
s
^
hJ
z
H
CO
[i
c
co
1
[t
[&4
H
P
g
g
0
g
)J
c/
l-t
CO
ง
V,
M
Z
CJ
Cej
O
fa
O
Pi
b
P
g
b
B
H
jj
25
Cd
Z
H
P
1
Crf
H
5s
u
B
o
G
j
CO
p^
e
o
w
t^
2
y|
E
i
PS
a
PC
ff.
52
g
u
IS
4
P!
O
en
CN
ฃ
h
E-
C.
"s
to
d "B
B
cd
00
Vl
o
0
o
0
00
en
00
a
H
ฃ
CO
CO
CO
e-
cu
4J
co
h
0
M-I
0)
PQ
Vl
o
4J
CO
^g
1
W i-l
CO
00
VI
o
o
o
00
B
i-l
x:
CO
(0
Z
งo o
m -*
O CM i-l
m 1-1
VO
1 00 00
O B B
a 1-1 1-1
VI B "O
4J O i-l
X Vl 0
M M fa
B
Vl O Vi Vi
(U i-l CO CD
4J 4J 4J 4J
Ql II l Mj
< <
-------
In summary, sanitation concerns related to cloth products in general
involve a wide range of variables, and no definitive conclusions can be
reached regarding absolute degrees of contamination or sanitation of a given
product. However, the following points are overwhelmingly supported by the
literature:
1. Cloth products are potential disseminators of microorganisms!
2. Laundering at 160 for 25 minutes can reasonably ensure destruc-
tion of pathogenic bacteria (lesser time and temperature being effective
for some bacteria)5
3. Commercial laundering methods are generally superior to home
laundering methods in sanitizing cloth products; and
4. The impacts of inadequate sanitation on the public health cannot
be definitively determined, since variables such as degree of contamination
and susceptibility of the exposed populace significantly affect the relation-
ship between contaminated fabrics and the development of disease.
1
III. TOWELS AND NAPKINS
Despite an extensive literature search and comprehensive contacts
with organizations, manufacturers and public health officials, very little
data could be gathered regarding towels and napkins in the applications
prescribed by this study (i.e., home use and laundry of cloth and paper
towels and sponges; home and commercial use and laundry of cloth and paper
napkins). Health and sanitation concerns related to toweling have focused
primarily on hand drying applications in commercial and institutional environ-
ments. In particular, the communal cloth towel has been the subject of the
See comments Appendix B, pages 17-18.
S-34
-------
closest scrutiny* However, regarding the use of toweling or sponges for
cleaning up kitchen spills, there is neither a clearly defined basis for
public health concern nor any previous study which focuses on such applica-
tion. Data on napklM ซM MW more Bparae. In the absence of definitive
information, attention will bo directed in this section to specific concerns
raised regarding the prescribed product applications, and, where possible,
to the interpolation Of o<ฃpy relevant data to these concerns.
The chief concern in the use of towels or sponges for wiping up
kitchen spills iซ the possible transmission of microorganisms, which may
originate from food spills or hands and multiply in the favorable environ-
ment provided by the mutrient-enriched damp towel or sponge. Thus, if a
cloth towel or spoage is used to wipe up a spill containing bacteria (e.g.,
juices from raw neat), and allowed to retain the food residues within a
warm, damp environment, that towel or sponge could transmit a heavy bioload
onto kitchen surfaces or onto human hands. The offensive odor often emitted
by damp kitchen cloths or sponges, especially during warm weather, is indica-
tive of the bacterial content of these products when used in this manner.
A major spo*ge Manufacturer does not share this concern but indi-
cates that, based on its test data, "There is little concern with spread
of microorganisms since the product (is) usually well-rinsed or washed out
in use." None of the cloth towel manufacturers provided any data regarding
kitchen applications of their product. It would seem obvious from the fore-
going ditcuaaio* th*ซ the public health threat posed by reuse of cloth towels
I/ Stated to have been destroyed in a fire and hence not available to MRI.
S-35
-------
or sponges would depend on the habits of the individual user; i.e., a sponge
or towel which is indeed rinsed thoroughly between uses, periodically washed
with some type of soap product, and allowed to dry sufficiently between
uses, would be less likely to transmit bacteria than a product not treated
so hygienically. But, the paper towel, used only once and then discarded,
would virtually eliminate this potential for cross-infection.
Despite these observations and assumptions, the absence of labora-
tory data precludes a substantive or quantitative evaluation of the three
products in kitchen applications.
Of primary concern in the use of napkins, both in the home and
in commercial establishments, is the potential for transmission of bacteria
from the hands and mouth of one user to those of the subsequent users. Again,
no laboratory data are available from which to make quantitative assessments,
but certain observations can be made. In the home setting, cloth napkins
are often used for several days before they are laundered, creating increased
potential for bacterial transmission. And, as discussed in the previous sec-
tion, if they are processed by normal home laundry techniques, they are un-
likely to be thoroughly sanitized prior to a new use cycle. If sent to a
commercial laundry, however, the napkins should have significantly lower
bacterial counts.
Cloth napkins used in a commercial setting must be changed after
each usage, as prescribed in almost every local food sanitation ordinance.
Generally, these napkins are commercially laundered, and again may be as-
sumed to exhibit sanitation standards such as were described in the preced-
ing section.
S36
-------
In terms of the sanitary qualities of paper towels and napkins,
the literature does provide one piece of data on unused paper towels which
can be presumed to relate to paper napkins as well. Test data supplied by
the American Paper Institute (47) indicates that typical total bacterial
counts of paper toweling from one manufacturer average 180 organisms per
square foot. This may be compared to the FDA Sanitation Code (14) standard
of 100 organisms per foodservice product contact surface. Depending on
the size of the towel or napkin being considered, the API count could be
either slightly inferior or slightly superior to the FDA standard. However,
it should also be pointed out here that the FDA standard itself may not
be based on any real evidence linking degree of microbial contamination
to attendant public health threat.
The literature has also compared typical paper towel counts to
bacterial counts on commercially-laundered cloth products in hand-drying
applications (40, 47, 8); in each comparison, paper toweling has been shown
to harbor significantly fewer bacteria than cloth toweling. While this type
of data cannot be related directly to conditions likely to prevail in the
home kitchen or commercial restaurant facility, it is still reasonable to
assume that paper would show fewer bacteria than would cloth towels or nap-
kins.
However, in view of the lack of substantive evidence establishing
cloth towels, cloth napkins and sponges as sources of pathogenic organisms,
to which normal exposure would likely cause infection, MR! can formulate
no definitive conclusion as to the relative health and sanitation status
of paper versus cloth towels versus sponges, or paper versus cloth napkins.
See comment Appendix B, pages 13-15,
S-37
-------
1,2,3,4
IV. DIAPERS
The disposable diaper has become an increasingly popular product
for infant care in the home. More than 2,800 hospitals have adopted the
disposable diaper for use in their newborn nurseries. Seventy-five percent
of all babies born in hospitals are first diapered in disposable diapers
(9), and many parents continue this method of diapering in the home situa-
tion. Unquestionably, the disposable diaper provides an element of conveni-
ence not offered by the conventional cloth diaper. The disposable is merely
removed and discarded, whereas the cloth diaper must be soaked, laundered,
dried, folded, and returned to storage. In the hospital situation, utiliza-
tion of cloth diapers adds a significant burden to the laundry facility;
in the home, parents either assume the extra work themselves or employ a
commercial diaper service.
Aside from convenience considerations, both disposable and reus-
able diapers present certain health and sanitation concerns which have been
raised in the course of this study:
1. The possibility of increased skin irritation or rash associated
with the use of disposable diapers.
2. The ineffectiveness of home laundering of cloth diapers compared
to commercial laundering.
3. The health implications of disposing of single-use diapers
contaminated with urine and feces.
In order to understand the significance of diapering in the overall
health of the baby, it is important to understand the role of the diaper
See comments Appendix B, pages 11-13 and pages 15-16.
See comments Appendix B, page 18.
See comments Appendix D.
4
See comments Appendix G.
S-38
-------
in inhibiting or encouraging skin rashes. Grant, Street and Fearnow (19)
list two of the most common causes of diaper rash as: (1) Monilial or bac-
terial infection; and (2) Ammonial contact dermatitis. The diaper provides
a moist, warm environment conducive to the growth of bacteria, which may
originate from an improperly laundered diaper, from the infant's skin (es-
pecially if the skin is not cleansed following defecation), and from the
excreted stools and urine. Other factors in rash development are laundry
chemical residuals in the diaper, maceration (softening of the skin by wet-
ness causing increased permeability), marked changes in skin pH, and meta-
bolic wastes in stools.
Brown and Tyson (3), in studying diaper dermatitis, found that
a 2-stage process exists in the development of dermatitis. In the first
stage, bacteria act on the urea present in urine, decomposing it into am-
monia, which is in itself irritating to the skin. The infant who is not
cleaned after defecation, not changed frequently, or who wears plastic pants
over diapers (thereby enhancing the racist, warm environment of the diaper
region) is much more susceptible to ammonial dermatitis.
The second stage of the process involves the secondary invasion
of already-irritated skin by pathogenic bacteria. Brown isolated Staphy-
lococcus aureus and Beta hemolytic streptococci (both known pathogens) in
babies with rash, but only one incident of Staph aureus and two incidents
of Streptococci were found in the babies without rash.
Thus, bacteria in the diaper region contribute to dermatitis by
producing ammonia and also by invading the site of primary infections caused
See comment Appendix D, page 39.
2 See comment Appendix D, page 39.
S-39
-------
by the ammonia. Both the disposable and cloth diaper can produce conditions
favorable to bacterial growth; however, actual hygienic practices of changing
the baby frequently and cleaning him adequately are still of major import-
ance.
1. The Possibility of Increased Skin Rash Associated with the
Use of Disposable Diapers; A 1968 study performed by Silverburg and Glaser
(70) at the Long Island Jewish Hospital showed that the incidence of diaper
rash was significantly greater with disposable diapers than with cloth dia-
pers. Two plastic-backed disposable diapers and one paper-backed disposable
were compared with cloth diapers in the newborn and premature nurseries.
Results are presented in Table 7.
The results indicate that in all cases except one, cloth showed
a statistically significant improvement in protecting against diaper rash
over either plastic-backed or paper-backed disposables. Additionally, only
9.4 cloth diapers were used per baby per day in the newborn unit, compared
to 10.4 per day for the disposables; in the premature unit, 7.8 cloth diapers
were used per baby per day, compared to 10.0 disposables. However, the authors
did not attempt to explain the results of their study nor did they postulate
any reason for the difference.
2. The Ineffectiveness of Home Diaper Laundering Compared to Com-
mercial Launderingf The effectiveness of the cloth diaper in retarding bac-
terial growth and diaper rash is based on how the diaper is laundered. Within
the home setting prescribed in this study, diapers would be laundered either
in the home (or in a self-service laundry comparable to home facilities)
or by a commercial establishment, in many cases a diaper service.
See comment Appendix D, corner letter.
S-40
-------
TABLE 7
DIAPER RASH INCIDENCE IN DISPOSABLES COMPARED TO CLOTH
Type of Diaper
Number
of
Babies
Number of
Diaper
Changes
Percent of Babies
Developing Rash
Newborn Nursery
Plastic-backed
disposable #1
Plastic-backed
disposable #2
225
225
2,752 (3 weeks )i/
3,364 (4 weeks)
4.5%
1.0%^
Paper-backed
disposable
Cloth
225 1,668 (7 weeks)
173 2,092 (4 weeks)
Premature Nursery
2.5%
0.37o
Plastic-backed
disposable #1
Plastic-backed
disposable #2
Paper-backed
disposable
Cloth
67 2,648 (3 weeks)
67 4,135 (4 weeks)
67 3,864 (7 weeks)
64 3,711 (4 weeks)
10.2%
5.8%
2.6%
0.9%
Source: Silverberg, Alvin and David Glaser, "Disposable Versus Reusable Linen
in the NurseryResults of a Comparative Study," (70).
a/ Inconsistencies in number of changes compared to number of babies and test
time can be attributed to fluctuations in the length of stay for each baby,
b_/ Not statistically significant in comparison to cloth.
S-41
-------
The diaper service industry has been in existence since 1932.
Through its association, the National Institute of Infant Services (NIIS),
this industry has monitored its operations through an independent medical
laboratoryPhiladelphia Medical Laboratory (formerly Usona Bio-Chem Labora-
tory). The laboratory established the "Diaseptic Process," a specific method
for laundering diapers so they will meet certain standards of sanitation,
aesthetic quality, pH balance, softness, and absorbency. This process has
been considered standard in the industry, and its effectiveness is checked
by taking regular samples of commercially laundered diapers and submitting
them to the laboratory for testing.
The 100 members (representing the most active diaper services
throughout the U.S.) of NIIS must maintain the following standards:
1. The service must submit one random sample per month, taken
from a finished package of diapers, to a specified medical laboratory. The
sample must be free of all pathogenic bacteria or fungi and may contain no
more than 20 colonies of nondisease-producing bacteria per 8 square inches
of fabric. (This compares to a standard of less than two colonies per square
inch for disposable diapers." )
2. The sample diaper must read within the range of 4.5 to 6.5
pH by the colorimetric procedure (compared to pH of 7.0 in disposables prior
to user- ) .
3. The sample will be tested for zone of inhibition (bacteriostatic
effectiveness) against Staph aureus.
_!/ Results from individual disposable diaper manufacturers' continuous quality
control testing programs, as reported by the American Paper Institute.
1
See comment Appendix D, page 42.
S-42
-------
4. Diapers served to customers must be soft to the touch and free
from stiffness.
5. Diapers served to customers must be so absorbent that water
added drop by drop enters the fabric immediately.
6. Diapers served to customers must be free from stains, tears,
and excessive wear. (A package selected at random should show no greater
than 3 percent substandard diapers.)
Additionally, in 1970, NIIS established a Diaper Service Accredita-
tion Council which is now composed of two pediatricians, a public health
director, a bacteriologist, and three industry representatives. The Council
formulated an accreditation program which requires site inspection, self-
analysis procedures, and rigorous in-plant standards in order for a service
to merit accreditation. Although less than half of the NIIS member services
are currently accredited, the Institute plans to require accreditation for
all of its members within the next 3 years. In addition to administering
the accreditation program, the Council advises the industry on new laundry
detergents, new bacteriostats and other additives to ensure their safety
and effectiveness. This monitoring is especially important in light of several
laundry components found during the 1960's to cause adverse effects on infants.
Trichloro carbunibide (TCC), a bacteriostat used in laundry softeners, was
found to produce free aniline, a known toxin, when exposed to high heat.
In premature nurseries where diapers are autoclaved, this reaction led to
the development of cyanosis and methemoglobulinemia in some infants. Another
substance, sodium pentachlorophenate, an antimildew agent, caused two deaths
S-43
-------
and a number of cases of illness in two separate hospitals. Both of these
cases emphasize the need for careful evaluation and usage of chemicals in
laundering diapers.
Diapers can, of course, be laundered commercially outside of a diaper
service, or by a service which is not a NIIS member. In either case, the
diaper would be processed according to the standards described in the section
on general laundering. In most instances, as discussed in this section, the
commercially laundered diaper would be washed at higher temperatures for
longer periods of time and would be more effectively rinsed than a home-
laundered diaper.
This conclusion is borne out by the Grant, Street and Fearnow study
in which the authors compared the incidence of significant diaper rash re-
ported by 1,197 mothers attending a well-baby clinic as it related to the
method of laundering (disposables, commercial diaper service, or home wash-
ing) used more than 50 percent of the time. Diapers washed by a diaper service
were associated with the lowest incidence of diaper rash--24.4 percent. Dis-
posables showed about the same incidence as the commercially laundered cloth
diapers. However, the home-laundered diaper was associated with the signifi-
cantly greatest incidence of diaper rash, at 35.6 percent. These results
are shown in Table 8.
The authors attribute their findings to the fact that commercially
laundered diapers are virtually sterile and are thoroughly rinsed of all
chemical contaminants. Additionally, bacteriostatic agents such as bleach
and quatern?ry ammonium compounds used in commercial diaper services are
See comment Appendix D, page 44.
S-44
-------
oo
a
oa
is
1
m
CO
S
|
o
S3
S-S| 1 \0
1
CM
CM
14
A t^ ป-ป
ง00 O
00 CM
z
rซ
ฃ
ง
a
<
3
pa
E
<
H
Q
\n
O
O
5
ง
o
H
g
M
Q
g
O
U
<
rs
M
<
M
Cd
E
***
3
Q
cS
8
z
Ed
s
CJ
a
M
M
(!)
a
co
H
P
u
I-l
ฃ>
CO
CO
O
a
CO
H
P
s-s i r-
i
in
r-l
h
0)
ja vo r~
งcn co
CM
z
J
h
O
01
>,
CO
P
CM
\-/
X!
CO
CO
PS
M
i-M Q)
co a
4J CO
O -H
H P
CT\
*
CM
r-(
st
rH
r-l
O
o
1 1
-*
CM
m
a\
r~
s-\
m
>,
a
p
CM
i-l
^
Q
>ซx
JS
CO
ca
^
M
CO
0.
CO
H
P
VO
m
en
m
r-l
CO
0
in
CM
r-l
vO
-*
-*
CM
OO
r-l
rH
CO
4J
O
H
ฃ.
m
CO
Pi
r4
HH
O
,
u
ง
4-1
C
H
C
T-l
CO
(1)
x:
m
m
Bd
rl
a O-N"
CO r-t
1-1 "^
P .
A
. 00
rH C
CO T4
rl
4J a)
-------
cited as inhibitors of rash. Even with multiple rinses, the home-laundered
diaper failed to meet the standards of the conmercially washed product, as
shown in Table 9. These results confirm the fact that home laundry does not
render as sterile a product; i.e., adequate rinsing alone does not solve
the problem}
TABLE 9
EFFECT OF NUMBER OF RINSES OF HOME-LAUNDERED
DIAPERS ON
Total
Diaper Rash
2 Days or Less
Diaper Rash
Over 2 Days
Diaper Rash Total
INCIDENCE
1 to
No.
692
162
86
248
OF DIAPER RASH
3 Rinses
%
~
23.5
12.4
35.9
Over
No.
195
35
28
67
3 Rinses
ฐA
...
20.0
14.4
34.4
Source: Grant et al. "Diaper Rashes in Infancy: Studies on the
Effects of Various Methods of Laundering," (19).
Brown and Wilson (4) also tested the performance of home laundries
in washing diapers. Two loads of 12 soiled diapers each were soaked for 12
hours in water and detergent, washed in an automatic washer at 140 to 144 F
for 20 minutes, given four spray rinses, a full-water rinse for 2 minutes
at 100 F, and two additional spray rinses. Each load was then dried for 40
minutes in a home gas dryer. Results from two samples taken from each load
are shown in Table 10.
See comment Appendix D, page 46.
S-46
-------
TABLE 10
TEST RESULTS FOR HOME-LAUNDERED DIAPERS
Sample
Organisms Isolated
Colony Count
Agar-Plate Test
Load 1 -
Diaper 1
Diaper 2
Load 2 -
Diaper 1
Diaper 2
E.. coli. nonhemolytic
streptococci, J5..
subtilis
ฃ coliT nonhemolytic
streptococci, Z.
subtilis
Nonhemolytic strepto-
cocci, gram positive
and negative saprophytic
bacilli
Gram positive and negative
saprophytic bacilli
9,300 per sq in.
of fabric
11,100 per sq in.
8,200 per sq in.
9.700 per sq in.
A faint zone
of partial
inhibition
No zone of
inhibition
No zone of
inhibition
No zone of
inhibition
Source: Brown, Claude, and Frederic Wilson, "Diaper Region Irritations:
Pertinent Facts and Methods of Prevention," (4).
These results show much higher bacterial counts than are allowed
by NIIS diaper services (no more than two colonies per square inch).
It is important to note, however, that these bacterial counts were
not specifically correlated with the development of diaper rash in infants
wearing tested diapers. The significance of the results lies in the fact
that bacteria present in a diaper can break down urea into ammonia, a known
skin irritant which can initiate a chain reaction of rash development. But,
some factors other than bacteria can and do contribute to diaper rash develop-
ment, notably frequency of changing. The bacteria present in home-laundered
diapers should therefore be viewed as one potential cause of rash.
See comment Appendix D, page 47.
S-47
-------
Brown and Wilson also indicate that "home-washed diapers may have
a pH of 9.5" (4) or higher from improper rinsing. This compares unfavorably
to the 4.5 to 6.5 pH required by the NIIS, and the 7.0 pH reported for dispos-
ables. The higher or more alkaline pH is quite different from normal skin,
ฑ
which has a pH of 5.5A1.5, and can in itself be an irritant.
A third study comparing home-laundered to commercially-laundered
diapers was done at the University of Illinois Medical College, for the -
American Institute of Laundering (now International Fabricare Institute) (64).
Investigators tested diapers which had been laundered in six private homes.
In five of the homes diaper processing consisted of a cold soak followed
by one hot suds and three rinses. In the sixth home, a fourth rinse was added.
Results of the home diaper laundering are shown in Table 11. As indicated,
bacterial count after the third rinse was 168,388; when the fourth rinse
was added, average count was reduced to 149,400. As shown in Table 12, com-
mercially laundered diapers, by contrast, were rendered sterile after the
third suds, to which two quarts of 1 percent sodium hypochlorite per 300-
pound load were added.
As in Brown's study, no direct correlation between diaper rash
incidence and bacterial count is made; again, it can only be assumed that
a sterile diaper is less likely to produce conditions favorable for diaper
rash development.
Jordan et al. (25) examined the effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite
in destroying Sabin type II poliovirus under household laundry conditions.
This virus, known to be resistant to many germicides, was found to be suscept-
ible to the virucidal action of sodium hypochlorite bleach, when used at the
See comment Appendix D, page 48.
S-48
-------
TABLE 11
BACTERICIDAL EFFICIENCY OF HOME DIAPER WASHING
Operation
Cold Soak
1st Suds
1st Rinse
2nd Rinse
3rd Rinse
Average Bacterial Counts Per
Cu Cm Wash Water
2,248,033
1,983,000
1,171,033
719,940
168,388
Source: "The Sanitary Aspects of Commercial Laundering,"
Special Report for the American Institute of
Laundering, (64).
TABLE 12
BACTERICIDAL EFFICIENCY OF A COMMERCIAL DIAPER FORMULA2
a/
Operation
1st Cold Rinse
2nd Cold Rinse
1st Suds
2nd Suds
3rd Suds
Supplies Used
Soap and Alkali
Soap and Alkali
Soap and Alkali
plus 2 quarts
1% soldium hypo-
chlorite per
300 Ib load
Temperature
65ฐ F
65ฐ F
110ฐF
12 5ฐ F
145ฐF
Time in
Minu tes
5
5
10
10
10
Average
Bacterial
Other
Per Gu Cm
1,678,333
1,621,200
720,300
84,333
Sterile
1st Rinse
2nd Rinse
3rd Rinse
4th Rise
5th Rinse
Sour
Boric acid bath
plus bluing
Sodium acid fluoride
165ฐF
175ฐF
175ฐF
175ฐF
140ฐF
120ฐF
100ฐF
3
3
3
Sterile
Sterile
1
Sterile
Sterile
Sterile
Sterile
Source: "The Sanitary Aspects of Commercial Laundering," Special Report for
the American Institute of Laundering, (64).
S-49
-------
recommended belach level of 200 ppm available chlorine. The authors note,
however, that the virus was destroyed at water temperatures of 130 F and
above without the addition of bleach; but at 110ฐF (the lower range of house-
htld laundry temperatures), bleach was requisite for viral destruction.
3. The Health Implications of Disposal of Single-Use Diapers Con-
taminated with Urine and Feces; As a result of increased use and subsequent
discard of disposable diapers, general concern over the public health conse-
quences of fecal matter in solid waste has increased in recent years. The
basis for this concern centers around the occurrence of bacterial and viral
pathogens in fecal matter and the potential for these pathogens to leach
into ground or surface water supplies. In evaluating the potential threat
or lack thereof inherent in land disposal of single-use diapers, one must
first assess the occurrence (numbers and types) of pathogens involved, and
secondly, the resulting effect of such conditions as measured by their ability
to survive in and leach from the landfill environment and come into contact
with human beings.
a. Occurrence of Pathogens in Disposed Diapers
Bacteria; As the subject of several fairly recent studies
(1, 11, 59), the bioload of raw residential solid waste has been shown to
contain densities of fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci in excess of
one million organisms per gram. The presence of these organisms, which are
normal inhabitants of the large intestine of man and other warm-blooded ani-
mals, is commonly assumed to indicate a strong likelihood of the presence
of other intestinal organisms which may be pathogenic. One such bacterial
pathogen which has been observed in solid waste in Salmonellae.
S-50
-------
Viruses; In addition to bacteria, raw solid waste also contains
a variety of potential human viral pathogens, the leaching source of which is
fecal matter. Investigating the occurrence of viruses as a function of typical
soiled disposable diaper load in a sanitary landfill, Peterson (59) determined
that, by wet weight, soiled disposable diapers represent 0.6 to 2.5 percent
of mixed municipal waste. Finding one-third of these diapers to contain fecal
matter at an average of 60 grams of feces per diaper, Peterson calculated
the average amount of human fecal matter in solid waste to be about 0.04-
percent by wet weight. In two separate areas of the country, viruses were
detected in 15 percent and 2.9 percent of fecal samples from area A (Ohio)
in February and April, respectively, and 16.7 percent of samples from area
B (Kentucky) in July. Poliovirus 3 was found in both sampling areas, and
echovirus 2 was found in two samples from area B. The poliovirus 3 density
ranged from 16 to 1,920 plaque-forming units (PFU) per gram, with an average
of about 390 PFU per gram. Densities of the echovirus 2 (positive samples)
were 1,440 and 960 PFU per gram.
Further perspective on the occurrence and potential signific-
ance of viruses in human fecal matter is provided by Dr. John Fox, an epi-
demiologist. Based on virus watch data that he collected across the U.S.,
Dr. Fox prepared an opinion statement on the "Viral Infection Hazard of Dis-
posable Diapers" (17), the results of which are summarized in Table 13.
As shown in the table, the most common virus group likely
to occur in human feces is poliovirus. However, the health threat posed by
these viruses is minimized by typically low virulence of vaccine-derived
S-51
-------
u
cu
_t_i
4J
tfl
4-1
to
s
4J
CO i-l x-s
W C 4-1
0 3 fl
W i cu
UปJ l_i
^f W
85 CU
H C O-i
0 ^
W 4J r-4
33 to
3 cu
CO & i-4
rC - -
o i "u
CT. O 00 O
r^. 4J i-i jj
en r
i i
[V) Q
CO O-i
H OS
> CO
<1)
b-i co
O 1-4
iw Q
W O
O -0
iz ^^ ^
O
Z cy co
O co co
H <2
cu
M
cu
^
cu
co
o o cu
(3 S co
I-l
|sr^
CO
< to
W cu
o a
2: cu to
W 0 1-4
(J C Q
< cu
w r-i o
aJ 3
OH O 4J
0 C
O CU
U
to
cu
PH
0 sf
CM 1
O O CM O
CM 4J r-l
r^ X
r-4
to
3
a
3
O
t-t
0
CO
3
r-l
t*
M
CO 1-4
3 > to
H O i-l < Cซ
r4 i-l 4J
> r-| 1-4 CU CU
o o 4-i o. a,
1-1 Q. CO r>", >ป
r-4 C O, H H
o o cu
O-i 53 33
r-l
1"^
co
o
o
C
I-l
jjrj
^j.
CO
3
H
^
0
C
^
jj ij
to -i-l
M CO
to f->
33 0
C -H
0 C3
r< p
4-1
CJ ซ
0) p>^
M-l 00
C 0
M r-l
O
r-l -1-4.
to B
M CU
H -0
J> 1-1
= a.
u
U-l
O-i O
C !-i
rC O
O ca
>-> co
cu
X* 0
O rJ
D^ p j
V
u
1-1
3
o
CO
cu ca
B C
0 i-l
co to
fa
O 4J
4-1 CO
4-1 CU
to C
H i-l
X 0
0) U
to
I ซw
o
CO
CU r-l
a co
r>, 1-1
4J 4-1
C
o i-4
(0 'O
M
4J r 1
CO tO
g
CU M
C 0
CJ
o ซ
CO C
<4-4
0 J3
00
C 3
0 0
CO jj
M 4-J
4)
> CU
CU 00
M CO
CO
!-i CO
O to
iw a
r^ C
CO O
1-1
4-1 | '
C C
CU (U
4J 4-1
0 X
a cu
CU t3
j- CU
4-1 4J
H
cu E
1-4 r-4
r*
^J
v^^
COl
S-52
-------
strains which presently make up practically all of existing poliovirus flora
in the U.S., and by the probably high prevalence of immunity of the popula-
tion. The nonpolio enterovirus group is diverse and potentially widespread
in occurrence in fecal matter. Furthermore, type-specific immunity is vari-
able and tends toward the low end of probability, thereby presenting a seem-
ingly great health threat potential. Fortunately, medical experience indicates
that only extremely infrequently are these viruses the cause of serious ill-
ness. In virus watch studies conducted by Dr. Fox, 50 percent of all detected
infections were subclinical and 80 percent of the related illnesses were
minor respiratory. The overall potential health threat posed by this group
of virus is therefore difficult to assess, but is certainly less than severe.
Type A hepatitis virus is a relatively benign pathogen causing temporary
disability and to which there is a high probability of immunity in the popula-
tion. Furthermore, the probability for its occurrence in soiled diapers is
quite low. On the other hand, Type B hepatitis virus is a tremendously virulent
pathogen to which there is a low probability of immunity in the population.
The health significance for this virus is, however, again minimized by the
extremely low probability of its occurrence in soiled diapers. Adenoviruses
are of little health concern because of the benign character of diseases
they may cause in humans and the relatively low probability of their occur-
rence in soiled diapers.
b. Fate of Pathogens in the Landfill Environment: In the above
discussion, it has been shown that human bacterial and viral pathogens can
occur in and be isolated from solid waste, and that one potentially signifi-
cant source of such pathogens is human fecal matter discarded in disposable
S-53
-------
diapers. However, to gain a better appreciation for the extent of the health
threat, it is necessary to look at the fate of microorganisms in the land-
fill environment and the extent to which viable organisms leach from this
environment.
Bacteria: Blannon and Peterson (1) investigated the survival
of fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci in a full-scale sanitary landfill
over an 11-month leachate production period utilizing mixed municipal solid
waste. The results of this investigation revealed that high densities of
fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci occurred in leachates during the first
2-month leaching period, with a rapid die-off of fecal coliforms noted 3
months after placing the fill. Fecal streptococci persisted past the 3-month
sampling period. Furthermore, the 18-inch clay soil lining underneath the
solid waste was observed to offer poor filtration action on the bacteria.
In view of these findings, the authors concluded "...that leachate contamina-
tion, if not controlled, may add a pollutional load to the recreational and
groundwater supplies and present a risk to the public using these-waters."
In an attempt to determine the effect on leachate bioload,
Cooper et al. (7) added fecally contaminated diapers to a simulated sanitary
landfill. Overall, large numbers of bacteria of potential sanitary signifi-
cance were present.
However, the high background levels of fecal coliforms and
fecal streptococci made it impossible to measure the impact of the addition
of feces and diapers. The low ratio of fecal coliform to fecal streptococci
in freshly collected and ground refuse indicated animal waste (cats, dogs,
etc.,) to be the most predominant source of these indicator organisms.
S-54
-------
Further information on bacterial decay rates is provided by
Engelbrecht (11). Fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci and Salmonellae typhi-
tnurium was added to whole leachate at two different temperatures (22 C and
55ฐC) and at two different pH values (5.3 and 7.0). Persistence of enteric
bacteria in leachate was found to be less at the higher temperature and lower
pH value. The order of stability in the leachate at 55ฐC at both pH values
was: ฃ typhimurium > Fecal streptococci ป Fecal coliforms.
Viruses; In a continuation of the same study cited above,
Cooper et al. also assessed the presence of viruses in leachate under normal
conditions and with the addition of fecally contaminated diapers. The dosage
of feces added was approximately 0.02 percent by weight, roughly equivalent
to the amount found by Peterson in the previously mentioned study. Virus
recovered from the leachate of the inoculated fill amounted to 150 and 2,310
PFU per gallon during the second and third weeks of leachate production,
respectively. The control landfill produced 380 PFU per gallon of leachate
the third week only.
Noteworthy here is the fact that in each case where viruses
were detected in leachate, the associated landfill had been brought to field
capacity (saturation point) over a 3-week period to simulate exaggerated
rainfall conditions. No viruses were detected in leachate from fills brought
to field capacity gradually over a 15-week period to simulate normal rainfall
conditions for the area.
After the third week of production, all samples were negative.
Since the control was also positive, the authors concluded that the addition
S-55
-------
of viruses through human feces had no discernable effect on the recovery
of viruses.
At the termination of the experiment, the contents of the
control fill and two fills to which soiled disposable diapers had been added
were removed and assayed for the presence of viable viruses. No viruses were
recovered from these materials, indicating that both indigenous and added
viruses did not survive at detectable levels through the test period.
In a study by Sobsey et al. (72) the survival and fate of
two enteroviruses (polioviruses type 1 and echovirus type 7) in simulated
sanitary landfills was examined. After inoculating the solid waste contents
of the fills with large quantitites of the above enteroviruses, the fills
were saturated with water over a 3-1/2 week period to produce leachate, which
was then analyzed for viruses. Although 80 percent of the total leachate
produced by each fill over the test period was so analyzed, no viruses were
detected. Furthermore, analysis of the refuse itself following the conclu-
sion of the leachate analysis revealed no detectable viruses.
In part, this outcome is explained by the tendency of viruses
to adsorb onto components of the solid waste and thus resist leaching. A
further explanation lies in the determined natural toxicity of the leachate
itself. The leachate was evaluated to determine the extent of its toxicity
to viruses. More than 95 percent of inoculated viruses were inactivated
over a 2-week exposure period at 20 C and more than 99 percent were inacti-
vated within 6 days at 37ฐC.
S-56
-------
The results of the above investigation were duplicated by
Engelbrecht (11) in a similar experiment, using poliovirus, reovirus and
Rous sarcoma to seed the simulated landfills. No viruses were recovered from
leachate samples collected throughout the 76-day test period. As was the
case above, inactivation studies showed the leachate to be toxic to viruses.
c. Conclusion; Evidence has been presented to indicate that
fecal material in soiled disposable diapers may represent as much as 0.02
percent by weight of normal mixed municipal refuse, and that they may be
a significant contributor of microorganisms of potential sanitary signifi-
cance. However, it has also been shown that the normal bioload of solid waste
without diapers is extremely high, due mainly to the presence of fecal matter
from domestic animals. This source also contains large numbers of microor-
ganisms of potential sanitary significance.
Due to this large naturally-occurring bioload in solid waste,
attempts to demonstrate an increase in bioload from the addition of fecal
contamination from diapers to 0.02 percent by weight have been unsuccessful.
These findings thus establish that, at 0.02 percent by weight, fecal con-
tamination from diapers does not add an amount of either bacteria or viruses
in the leachate which can be detected over and above the background level.
Attempts at determining the public health significance of
the bioload from solid waste have centered around occurrence of viable or-
ganisms in leachate. In general, the physical characteristics of the land-
fill environment are inhospitable to survival and growth of microorganisms.
In addition, the leachate emanating from a landfill appears to be toxic.
S-57
-------
However, it has been clearly demonstrated that viable bacteria can and do
leach from the landfill in large numbers, thereby representing a source of
contamination to ground and/or surface water supplies and a possible health
threat to anyone using this water as a potable water supply. Unlike bacteria,
experiments measuring virus occurrence in leachate have revealed conflicting
results* One investigator was able to detect viruses from a rapidly saturated
fill while others, using similar techniques, were not. It is fairly well-
established, however, that leachate is quite toxic to viruses and that ad-
sorption of viruses to solid waste components does occur. It has been shown
that more than 99 percent of all inoculum viruses can be inactivated within
6 days at 37ฐC following introduction into landfill leachate. And yet, one
investigator has detected viruses in leachate up to 3 weeks after onset of
leachate production. In view of the lack of consistency in the published
literature on the topic, no clear understanding of the public health threat
represented by viruses in solid waste can be reached.
With regard to public health significance of disposing of
fecally contaminated disposable diapers in the solid waste stream, conclu-
sions are even more difficult to reach. However, to the extent that such
material does contain microorganisms which may leach into water supplies,
some potential for a public health threat to the consumers of that water
may exist. However, the actual bioload contribution from this source is yet
unclear, as in the relationship between degrees of contamination of the water
supply and the relationship to disease development. Therefore, no final state-
ment on the public health significance of discarding disposable diapers
into the solid waste stream can be made.
S-58
-------
Based on the foregoing data, several conclusions can be for-
mulated:
1. Although disposable diapers were associated with a greater
incidence of diaper rash than hospital-laundered cloth diapers in one study,
they performed as well as commercially laundered diapers in another study.
On the basis of these conflicting results, no definitive statement can be
made regarding the relative effects of the two types of diapers in inhibit-
ing rash development.
2. The average home-laundered diaper is inferior to both the
disposable and commercially laundered diaper in terms of sterility and pH
balance. Although no precise relationship exists between bacterial count
and type of bacteria present in a diaper and the development of diaper rash,
bacteria do contribute to the incidence of rash. An NIIS diaper service un-
doubtedly provides the superior laundering method, with its maximum allow-
able count of 20 colonies per square inch. A regular commercial laundry,
while probably not meeting this exacting standard, would likely produce a
more sterile diaper than a home laundry due to higher wash temperatures,
longer cycles, and types of additives used. Disposables also meet a high
standard of sanitation, with less than two colonies of bacteria per square
inch; and they provide a favorable pH balance averaging 7.0.
V. SHEETS
Health and sanitation concerns relating to institutional bedding
are among the most significant within the scope of this study. Not only are
See comments Appendix D, page 59.
S-59
-------
linens subjected to a greater degree of contamination in the hospital or
nursing home setting (the primary institutional environments being considered
here), but the users of these linens tend to be much more susceptible to in-
fection than is the general populace. Because of these considerations, bedding
for institutional applications must meet rigorous standards of cleanliness
and sanitation to ensure that its role in cross-infection is kept to an absolute
minimum.
The patient bed sheet, which is the focus of this investigation,
is a virtual repository of bacteria. Several studies have emphasized the
significance of skin desquamation in spreading microorganisms; the average
human desquamates an entire layer of skin over a 1- to 2-day period, which
is in large part deposited onto the bed sheet when the patient is hospitalized
or otherwise bedridden. These skin scales, as established in a study by Davis
and Noble, harbor a variety of potentially pathogenic bacteria. Additionally,
the patient may excrete urine or feces onto the sheet, or he may have wounds
which produce pus and/or blood. All of these factors interact to render the
bed sheet contaminated, and thus the object of intense scrutiny in evaluating
institutional standards of health and sanitation.
Greene (20) states two general contamination control objectives
within the hospital:
1. "(To) minimize the microbial contamination level of the environ-
ment by curtailing dissemination of contaminants from soiled and used fabrics.
2. (To) minimize the probability of microbial transmission from
infected reservoirs to susceptible hosts by destroying or removing microbes
on used linen before it is reissued to patients and personnel."
S-60
-------
The first concern relates primarily to linen handling--making and stripping
of patient beds, transport of linens to, from and within the hospital laundry--
while the second issue focuses on the effectiveness of laundering techniques
in destroying bacteria.
Greene notes that improper linen handling is a major cause of air-
borne contamination; he cites studies which have shown significant increases
in bacterial counts in areas where soiled linens were being shaken, removed
from laundry chutes, and stripped from patient beds. As discussed in an earlier
section, this type of agitation represents a major factor in the release of
microorganisms from fabrics*
A 1971 study by Litsky and Litsky compared bacterial shedding dur-
ing bed-stripping of reusable and disposable linens in a nursing home environ-
ment. The Litskys1 work was based on earlier studies which had concluded that
"measures adopted to stop fiber shedding from cotton goods must...assume a
high priority in the reduction of the hospital loads to which the debilitated
hospital patient is exposed," (28, page 33). The Litskys compared, the conven-
tional reusable cotton sheets to a newer disposable sheeting material to
determine whether the airborne particles generated during bed-making could
be minimized. Air samples were collected: (1) prior to bed-makingj (2) during
bed-making; and (3) during bed-stripping, in an actual patient room housing
four ambulatory pauients. Additionally, air samples were taken in a laboratory
chamber where clean and soiled reusable and disposable linens were shaken
to release adherent particles.
S-61
-------
Tables 14 through 17 present the results of these tests. As shown
in Table 14, airborne bacterial counts of viable organisms resulting from
bed-stripping of disposable sheets were approximately 86 percent less than
those taken during stripping of reusables; during bed-making, counts for
disposables were 60 percent less. Counts of nonviable particles are shown
in Table 15; again, counts were markedly reduced for disposables. In labora-
tory chamber tests, the disposables again showed significantly lower counts
of viable microorganisms and nonviable particles, on three different types
of linen articles. Table 17 indicates that even the clean reusables shed
2 to 3 times more (nonviable) particles than did the clean disposables. The
authors venture the following suppositions to explain their findings: "(1)
The surface of the disposable linen is smoother and thereby produces fewer
particles of lint which may become airborne vectors bearing microorganisms;
and (2) the weave of the disposable fabric is such that the pore size is
smaller than cotton and thereby entraps more microbes," (Page 34).
Repeated attempts during the course of this study to elicit addi-
tional data regarding sanitation of disposable sheets for patient beds were
largely unsuccessful. In the absence of data from the appropriate associa-
tion and from manufacturers, we can only observe that, although disposable
bed sheets may have an advantage over reusables in reduced bacterial shedding,
sufficient information is not available to formulate general conclusions
regarding their sanitation.
Turning to reusable sheets, it is obvious that both of Greene's
concerns are relevant. Not only must they be properly laundered so that bac-
teria are destroyed, but they must be handled in such a way as to prevent
S-62
-------
TABLE 14
COUNTS OF VIABLE AIRBORNE MICROORGANISMS DURING BED-MAKING WITH
DISPOSABLE AND REUSABLE LINENS
Number of Microorganisms Per Ft^ of Air
Activity Reusable Linens Disposable Linens
None 39 21
Bed-Making 103 42
Bed-Stripping 312 47
Source: Litsky, Bertha, and Warren Litsky, "Bacterial Shedding
During Bed-Stripping of Reusable and Disposable Linens
as Detected by the High-Volume Air Sampler," (28).
TABLE 15
COUNTS OF NONVIABLE AIRBORNE PARTICLES DURING BED-STRIPPING WITH
DISPOSABLE AND REUSABLE LINENS
f\
Average Particle Count x 10 per 100 Seconds
Activity Reusable Linens Disposable Linens
Normal 2,021 579
Stripping of Bed 1 2,088 656
Stripping of Bed 2 2,215 756
Stripping of Bed 3 2,355 755
Source: Litsky, Bertha, and Warren Litsky, "Bacterial Shedding During Bed-
Stripping of Reusable and Disposable Linens as Detected by the
High-Volume Air Sampler," (28).
TABLE 16
NUMBER OF VIABLE MICROORGANISMS DISPERSED INTO THE AIR BY SHAKING
OF NATURALLY
Minutes After
Shaking
4
5
6
7
8
10
Number of
Pillow Case
Reusable
148
130
369
60
101
69
Disposable
61
37
21
23
45
8
SOILED LINENS
Microorganisms Per Ft-1
Bottom
Reusable
4,790
4,700
3,070
1,780
1,060
456
Sheet
Disposable
262
127
173
137
109
49
of Air
Flat
Reusable
2S630
1,940
1,470
967
554
317
Sheet
Disposable
209
175
108
100
54
23
Source: Litsky, Bertha, and Warren Litsky, "Bacterial Shedding During Bed-
Stripping of Reusable and Disposable Linens as Detected by the
High-Volume Air Sampler," (28).
S--63
-------
ป-t
05
s
en
cd
2
M
r3
fn
o
O
2
H
tx!
<
EC
en
><
m
04
H
<;
w
E
Q
p
2
I-l
r-
r-l Q
b
Cd en
rH 0
ฃ3 ง
H en
r-l
Q
en
b
r-
a
M
H
tt
<
OH
U
DC
Q
ff
Cc
r-
Ei
P
(-
^
t
C
Pn
o
04
PL
1
'
j
1
^
1
o
c
c
cu
en
o
o
r
M
CU
04 OH
d
n co
5 o
J X
JH 4J
34 C
8 ง
< o
04
pQ r-
rJ . T
2 r
M cfl
a
H 0
2 '
H rH
S 1
<
4J
CU
u
en
4J
co
0)
i 1
rQ
CO
Ul
3
CU
04
o
CU
1-1
H
O
cn
O^ O CJ* O
o cn oo fo
CM CM rH -! CU
r-l
43
CO
Ul
c
CO
cu
r-4
0
o
f^ O *O O* ft
00 00 vO 00 Ul
,-4 r_| r-l -rl
o
~ a
o cu
c c
0)
r-l
43
CO
U)
o
o
Ul
H
O
T)
O>
r-l
rl
O
en
cfl -H
1 1
VO O r-l CM 0)
CM O 00 VO r-4 ซ4-4
r-l 43 0
cfl
ui C
3 0
CU "rl
C
Cfl
CU
r-l
O
04 W
oo r-i CM r- co
f^ \O in <1 14-4 il
0 r-4
Cfl
00 J-1
C in
-i C
4J
CU
cu
f,
en
g
5
4-1
4J
O
PQ
0)
r-4
rQ
CO
co
3
CU
a!
a
CU
r-4
1-1
O
cn
CO, -rl
a
o o r-i r- -H o
O r-l O VO V4 f
r-4 CM CM r-l 4-1
en ri
1 0
T) -H
01 V4
C
CO
CU
r-l
0
M a
m o r~ i i
r- r~ m o oo M
r-| r-4 r-4 r-l C 43
r-4 r-4 r-l TD M 4J
T3 CU
Ol r-4 U-l
43 a. 0
en E
CO 4J
CM m O o i i en c
\O vO vO in cfl 3
H M O
rJ -rl O
- cu <
4J (1)
o o) c
cu
Ul
CO
O
S
O
r-4
r-l
!-
PH
cu
r-4
43
CO
CO
3
01
O4
-d
O)
r-4
rl
0
en
Cfl g -H
P3. 3 r-l
r~- r~- o oo ; r- 1
oo m * co o 01
ซ > co
>. 1 co
rM 43 43
to 00
4-1 -rl CU
C
CO
CU
r-4
O
H D3 43
o r-i m r> J 4-1
vO in CM r- 1 co
e 43 0)
0) 4J >
M 0
M r*> 43
(0 43 cfl
CU
r-l
43
CO
U)
O
O
Ul
rl
Q
a
r2
rl
O
en
,ป
O CO
p~ \O VD CX3 TJ Ol O
r~ 10 r-l CO C 4J r-l
cfl U
cu x
. 4-1
CO CU Ul
43 Q 4-1
c
cfl
0)
r-4
0
4-> C
O -* CM O rl Ul 3
m m CM r-i cu co o
rt o
CO
~ > C ui
^ 41 <0
M
01
4J
C ซ!
H < ex
C
CU Ml -H
g "O ,^J
H C Cd
H O 43
O en
0)
en
X C
Ul -rl TJ
4-1 iJ Ol
H Ul
rJ CO
0)
O O O O rl
o o o o) a,
CM CO CO O X
~ M Cd
r-l 3
O ~^
cn co|
S-64
-------
recontamination. The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH)
requires that hospitals launder their linens at a temperature of 160ฐ for
a total exposure time of 25 minutes. At this temperature and time, virtually
all pathogenic bacteria are killed without the necessity of using chemical
additives; however, many hospital laundries, such as one visited in Kansas
City, Missouri, do employ bleach, sour and softener, and some add a bacterio-
static agent as well. Hospitals are also required to have separate rooms
for clean and soiled linens, so that bacteria released during the sorting
process will not contaminate clean linens which are being folded and loaded
onto carts.
The significance of water temperature in the laundering of hospital
linens is verified by a study performed by Walter and Schillinger in 1975
(80). As part of their investigation, bed linens from the isolation section
of a hospital were checked for bacterial counts before and after laundering,
with the laundering process employing a range of water temperatures. Table
18 shows the results of five of these tests.
TABLE 18
NUMBERS OF BACTERIA PER SQUARE CENTIMETER FROM SOILED HOSPITAL
ISOLATION PATIENT LINEN BEFORE AND AFTER LAUNDERING
Cycle Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run_ 4 Run 5
Washing Temperature (F) 100 100 110 110 120
Before Laundering
Mean Bacterial Count 70 288 758 9,550 6
After Laundering
Mean Bacterial Count 0.0 23 0.0 3.98
Source: Walter, William, and John Schillinger, "Bacterial Survival in
Laundered Fabrics," (80).
S-65
-------
The exceedingly high bacterial count in Run 4 (prelaundering) was
the result of a patient's leg wound draining onto the linen; however, even
at the relatively low temperature of 110 , the postlaundering count was re-
duced to approximately 4 organisms per square centimeter. Overall, Walter
and Schillinger found that none of the water temperatures they employed gave
consistently adequate results in terms of bacterial destruction. They recom-
mend a water temperature of 140 for 10 to 13 minutes, followed by drying, for
linens used in health care facilities. They also note that bleach provides
an added degree of safety.
Recontamination is also of concern in the consideration of reusable
hospital linen. Although sheets may be rendered free of all pathogens by
the laundering process, they may be recontaminated during subsequent stages
of drying, ironing, folding, and distributing. The study by Church and Leosli
(6), which was referenced in the chapter on general sanitation concerns,
investigated recontamination problems in a hospital laundry as well as in
a commercial laundry. The findings were quite similar: fabrics became re-
contaminated during water extraction in the spin dryer and during the fold-
ing process, with high bacterial counts found near the sorting table, near
the extractor at the end of the extraction process and near the dryer and
folding tablฐ. As noted in the earlier reference to Church and Leosli1s
study, these recontamination problems are related to laundry layout; measures
such as improved ventilation and screening of areas showing high bacterial
counts are recommended to decrease bacterial redeposition.
S-66
-------
In the investigation of sheets in the institutional setting, as
well as the examination of other cloth products within the scope of this
study, it becomes obvious that adequate sanitation can be achieved, given
the proper elements of laundry technique, handling methods and prevention
of recontamination. Undoubtedly, because of the regulations of the JCAH,
hospital linens achieve a higher and more consistent degree of sanitation
than any of he other products, with the possible exception of diapers laun-
dered by a diaper service. This emphasis is reassuring in light of the neces-
sity for providing a relatively aseptic environment for the hospital patient.
VI. DISPOSABLE AND REUSABLE FOODSERVICEl/ WARE
A. Introduction
Public health personnel have long been concerned with the role
of improperly cleaned eating utensils in the spread of communicable disease.
Early evidence supporting this concern was presented by Ravenel and Smith
in 1909 (26). Their investigation of a typhoid fever outbreak implicated
eating utensils as the link in the chain of transmission between the carrier
host and the affected population.
In 1919 and 1920, Gumming (26) and his associates reported the
results of their extensive epidemiological investigations into utensil/disease
relationships. Looking at influenza among Army troops, patrons of commercial
eating establishments, and influenza-pneumonia occurrences in institutions,
these investigators amassed a significant amount of evidence indicating im-
properly sanitized food utensils as a leading avenue of transmission of
_!/ The term "foodservice," when used as an adjective, is considered to be
one word, in accordance with contemporary usage. However, titles of
references and quotations cited in this section often utilize the orig-
inal two word or hyphenated format.
1 See comments Appendix J, page 13-16.
S-67
-------
sputumborne and intestinal infections. In 1933, MacDonald and Freeborn (26)
concluded a review of their own and others'work in this area by making the
following points:
1. "There is undoubted evidence of the transmission of some of
the communicable diseases through the medium of improperly disinfected eat-
ing utensils in private homes and public eating places;
2. There is lack of appreciation on the part of the public of the
possible danger of disease transmission through improperly sterilized eating
utensils;
3. The sanitation of many restaurants, hotels, etc., is far below
the accepted standard of cleanliness and safety; and
4. One of the best means of preventing many of the sputum-borne
and intestinal infections both sporadically and epidemically is by means
of proper sterilization."
As a result of these and other similar findings, the U.S. Public
Health Service was prompted to draft regulations to govern the washing, stor-
age and use of foodservice utensils. After field trials, this ordinance
and code was revised and published in 1940 under the title Ordinance and
Code Regulating Eating and Drinking EstablishmentsRecommended by the U.S.
Public Health Service. The code, subsequently revised in 1943 and again in
1962, has been adopted by the majority of the states and over 1,000 county
and municipal health jurisdictions. A proposed revision, which would change
the method for recording sanitation violations and establish a new scoring
system for classifying restaurant sanitation, was published in the October
1974 Federal Register.
S-68
-------
This section of the report will examine the standards governing
foodservice ware, both reusable and disposable, and then will present the
results of the literature review undertaken to determine the compliance of
the products specified within the scope of this study (paper and plastic
cups and plates, melamine and china plates, and glassware)*
B. Standards
1. U.Sป Public Health Service "Model Food Service Sanitation Or-
dinance and Code"; As an integral part of the foodservice industry, reus-
able and disposable utensils are regulated by certain standards to ensure
their sanitation. The most significant standard is the U.S. Public Health
Service "Model Food Service Sanitation Ordinance and Code (1962)." This stan-
dard was established as a guideline for states and municipalities to follow
in their regulation of the foodservice industry. Currently, 44 of the 50
states have adopted this Model Ordinance as the basis for their sanitation
codes. In turn, the states recommend the ordinance to municipalities as a
guideline in the establishment of local standards. Although municipalities
are not required to adopt the ordinance, their standards must be at least
as stringent. Additionally, the states may receive assistance in regulating
foodservice establishments through the Food Service Sanitation Program (FSSP),
a voluntary, cooperative service provided by FDA. Generally, the states re-
tain jurisdiction over nursing homes, interstate carriers, and areas not
governed by a municipal or local health authority; additionally, the state
health agencies act in an advisory capacity to the municipalities within
their boundaries.
S-69
-------
The PHS Model Ordinance, as a generally accepted sanitation code,
provides specific regulations relating to foodservice ware, both reusable
and disposable. The relevant provisions of the Ordinance are as follows:
Section D; Food Equipment and Utensils
1. Sanitary Design, Construction, and Installation of Equip-
ment and Utensils. This subpart provides that "all.. .utensil's
shall be so designed and of such material and workmanship
as to be smooth, easily cleanable, and durable, and shall
be in good repair; and the food-contact surfaces of such
...utensils shall, in addition, be easily accessible for
cleaning, nontoxic, corrosion resistant, and relatively
nonabsorbent." It also specifies that "single~service arti-
cles shall be made from nontoxic materials." This regulation
is augmented by the FDA's Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
which governs the composition of food packaging materials
under its food additive provision.
The Ordinance provides the following explanation for its
cleanability standard: "Items of equipment and utensils
which are poorly designed and constructed, and which are
not kept in good repair, are difficult to clean thoroughly
and are apt to harbor accumulations of food and other soil
which supports bacterial growth." The durability standard
is also expanded to include the following: "All...utensils
shall be so durable under normal conditions and operations
as to be resistant to denting, buckling, pitting, chipping,
S-70
-------
crazing and excessive wear; and shall be capable of with-
standing repeated scrubbing, scouring, and the corrosive
action of cleaning and sanitizing agents and food with
which they come in contact."
2. Cleanliness of Equipment and Utensils. The second subpart
provides that:
* All eating and drinking utensils shall be thoroughly
cleaned and sanitized after each usage.
* After cleaning and prior to use, all food-contact surfaces
of equipment and utensils shall be so stored and handled
as to be protected from contamination.
* All single-service articles shall be stored, handled,
and dispensed in a sanitary manner, and shall be used
only once.
* Foodservice establishments which do not have adequate
and effective facilities for cleaning and sanitizing
utensils shall use single-service articles.
The Ordinance provides the following explanation for its
cleaning and sanitizing regulations: "Regular, effective
cleaning and sanitizing of equipment, utensils, and work
surfaces minimizes the chances for contaminating food dur-
ing preparation, storage, and serving, and for the trans-
mission of disease organisms to customers and employees.
Effective cleaning will remove soil and prevent the ac-
cumulation of food residues which may decompose or support
S-71
-------
the rapid development of food-poisoning organisms or toxins.
Application of effective sanitizing procedures destroys
those disease organisms which may be present on equipment
and utensils after cleaning, and thus prevents the transfer
of such organisms to customers or employees, either directly
through tableware, such as glasses, cups, and flatware,
or indirectly through the food."
"Improper storage of equipment and utensils, subsequent
to cleaning and sanitizing, exposes them to contamination
and can nullify the benefits of these operations. Accord-
ingly, storage and handling of cleaned or sanitized equip-
ment and utensils, and single-service articles, must be
such as to adequately protect these items from splash,
dust, and other contaminating materials."
Subpart 2 describes the procedures considered adequate
in washing and sanitizing utensils. The initial washing
cycle involves preflushing or prescraping to remove excess
food particles, washing in suitable detergent either by
hand or by machine, and sanitizing by one of the following
methods:
a. Immersion for at least 1/2 minute in clean hot water
at a temperature of at least 170 F.
b. Immersion for at least 1 minute in a sanitizing solu-
tion containing:
See comments Appendix J, pages 38-39.
S-72
-------
. At least 50 ppm of available chlorine at a temperature
not less than 75ฐFj or
. At least 12.5 ppm of available iodine in a solution
having a pH not higher than 5.0 and a temperature .
of not less than 75 F; or
. Other sanitizing solution determined by the health
authority to be equivalent in strength to 50 ppm of
chlorine.
Other types of machines, devices, facilities and procedures
may be approved if they provide bactericidal effectiveness
"as demonstrated by an average plate count per utensil
surface examined, of not more than 100 colonies."
Specific regulations are promulgated for manual washing,
such as the requirement for three sinks for washing, rins-
ing and sanitizing utensils; and for machine washing, in-
cluding the stipulation that wash-water temperature shall
be at least 140 F (160 F in single-tank conveyor machines),
with 180ฐF water at the manifold for sanitization in the
final rinse (if hot water sanitization is used).
This subpart also provides regulations regarding storage
of single-service articles. They must be stored in closed
cartons or containers and handled and dispensed in such
a way as to prevent contamination.
See comments Appendix J, pages 26-27,
S-73
-------
The health departments of the six states not using the PHS Model
Ordinance were contacted during this study to determine what regulations
they have adopted for foodservice ware. Only three statesNebraska, Iowa
and Maine--responded to these inquiries. In these states, foodservice regula-
tions are basically similar to those of the Model Ordinance, except that
Iowa has not established standards for single service ware.
2. National Sanitation Foundation Standardst In addition to the
mandatory standards adopted by local governments in accordance with the Model
Ordinance, many manufacturers of foodservice ware and equipment voluntarily
comply with standards established by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF).
The Public Health Service, in order to encourage uniformity of standards,
cooperates wth NSF and other organizations in the development of consistent
criteria. Two NSF standards of special interest in this study are NSF Standard
No. 36 for Dinnerware and NSF Standard No. 3 for Commercial Spray-Type Dish-
washing Machines.
The NSF Dinnerware Standard relates to new, reusable dinnerware
intended for use in foodservice establishments. It sets forth basic require-
ments of cleanability, durability, shape and contour much like the standards
found in the USPHS Model Ordinance. However, NSF establishes a testing pro-
cedure for determining cleanability and durability to which dinnerware must
be subjected in order to receive the NSF seal. Durability is determined by
exposing the dinnerware to 150 cycles of normal "use environment," including
washing, rinsing, sanitizing, stacking, and knife cutting, and then testing
its cleanability. Cleanability following exposure must be not less than 98.5
percent of initial cleanability, tested by laboratory methods involving
S-74
-------
precise soiling techniques, consistent washing procedures, and counting
of soil residuals by the use of radioisotopes.
The NSF Standard for Commercial Dishwashing Machines designates
water temperature requirements, flow pressures, prewashing procedures, stack-
ing techniques and other variables for the different types of commercial
dishwashing machines on the market. The Standard basically follows the Model
Ordinance in its temperature specifications and related factors in achieving
acceptable levels of sanitation for permanent ware.
3. Single Service Standards; The single, service industry has its
own policing mechanism--the Food Protection Laboratory of the Syracuse Re-
search Corporation. The Laboratory has been testing single service cups since
1947, and plates, since 1967, utilizing methods specified in Public Health
Service Publication 1465, Fabrication of Single Service Containers and Closures
for Milk and Milk Products* Both the laboratory and its testing personnel
are certified by the USPHS, under FDA.
Single service container manufacturers routinely submit'product
samples to the Food Protection Laboratory, where their conformance with the
bacteriological standards of Publication 1465 is tested. Products may not
show evidence of coliform bacteria, and no more than one colony of noncoli-
form bacteria is allowable per square centimeter of food or beverage contact
surface (50 colonies per 8 square inches).
C. Compliance of Reusable Foodservice Ware (Permanent Ware)
As is the case with cloth products, the major health concerns relat-
ing to permanent foodservice ware are its cleanability and the effectiveness
S-75
-------
of washing procedures in producing sanitary cups, plates and glassware. And,
like fabric laundering, dishwashing encompasses a wide range of variables,
including water temperature, chemical additives, handling techniques and
the degree of competence exhibited by personnel. The history of foodservice
sanitation has been summarized in "Single Use Cups and Plates: A Review of
the Available Literature," (26) a brief synopsis of which follows:
Since the early 1900's, when disease transmission was first linked
to unsanitary utensils, the literature has addressed virtually all of these
variables. In the 1940's, investigators noted that ignorance among foodservice
workers as to proper washing times, temperatures and detergents resulted in
sanitation problems. By the late 1940's, surveys of dishwashing practices in
commercial establishments continued to show high bacterial counts on washed
foodservice ware; however, at that time many facilities were still employing
manual washing procedures, while in cases where machines were being used,
workers often operated these machines improperly. Kleinfeld and Buchbinder
concluded at this time that "satisfactory dishwashing practice lies in con-
version to machine and the intelligent operation of this satisfactory equip-
ment."
In 1950, "Minimum Requirements for Effective Machine Dishwashing"
were developed by the Committee on Sanitary Engineering and Environment of
the National Research Council. The Committee set a standard of less than
100 microorganisms per utensil surface, which they believed could be consis-
tently attained through current dishwashing methods. (This standard has been
continued through the USPHS Model Ordinance.)
S-76
-------
Within the institutional setting, inadequacies in foodservice ware
sanitizing practices have also been found to relate to poor processing techniques
rather than to the type of ware or the equipment available to clean and sani-
tize it. Wehrle (82) reiterated the reliability of proper machine dishwashing
in his study of "Food Service Procedures on Communicable Disease Wards,"
in which he states that disposables, though used for convenience, are not
necessary (even for patients with highly infectious diseases) "since the
usual mechanical dishwasher, properly maintained and operated, will remove
hazardous microorganisms likely to be found on any eating utensil," (Page
466). Investigators such as Litsky, Lloyd, Jopke and Hass in the late 1960's
and early 1970's reemphasize the problems of poor sanitation techniques among
hospital foodservice workers, as well as improper environmental exposure
of clean utensils.
The preceding synopsis suggests that the sanitation of foodservice
ware has remained an active concern of health professionals over the years.
In evaluating the sanitary status of permanent foodservice ware, three major
foci of discussion emerge:
1. The cleanability of the permanent ware surface; i.e., its re-
sistance to cracking, scratching and chipping, all of which render the product
less amenable to thorough cleaning;
2. The effectiveness of dishwashing practices; i.e., the efficiency
of machines, water temperatures used, detergents added and the competence
of machine operators;
3. Handling and storage of dishes after washing; i.e., impacts
of airborne contaminants and contamination from the soiled hands of hospital
S-77
-------
personnel. Also involved in handling is the possibility of breakage of china
and glassware.
The following sections of this report will address each of these
factors and will present the results of the numerous studies which have in-
vestigated permanent ware sanitation.
a. Surface Cleanability; The issue of cleanability was most
significant in the 1950's, when reusable plastic foodservice ware was initially
being marketed. Whereas china had been the dominant dinnerware product for
centuries, the new plastics were a relatively unknown entity which were closely
scrutinized to determine their comparability to chinaware.
China has a very hard, nonporous, nonabsorbent, and highly
durable surface which is easily cleanable. In a 1953 study, Ridenour and
Armbruster (63) compared the cleanability of china to that of plastic (type
not specified). They found that 98 to 99 percent and over of various types
of test bacteria could be removed from the china surfaces, while plastic
showed only a 56 to 84 percent rate of bacteria removal. China surfaces also
provided a high degree of cleanability after a period of natural wear and
in the presence of a food film buildup, while plastic performed much less
favorably in these two areas. Presumably, the surfaces of the early plastic
dishes, unlike today's plastic utensils, were softer and more susceptible
to scratching, scoring and deterioration through normal usage, thus reducing
their degree of cleanability.
Mailman et al. (33) found no significant differences between
melamine and vitreous china in cleanability, bacterial survival, and staining.
See comments Appendix J. pages 31-33,
S-78
-------
Mailman's findings are consistent with the current status of the two products.
Refinements in the composition of melamine have resolved early deanability
problems. The manufacturers of 99 percent and over of all melamine currently
marketed in the United States comply with the NSF Dinnerware Standard. As
previously described, this standard specifies that permanent ware must be
able to withstand rigorous testing of its durability, cleanability, shape
and contour.
In light of this fact, early studies indicting plastic perma-
nent ware can no longer be considered relevant, and melamine should now be
viewed as equivalent to china in surface cleanability.
b. Effectiveness of Washing and Sanitizing Procedures; The
effectiveness of washing and sanitizing procedures for permanent ware is
summarized by Mailman in his study of "Sanitation with Modern Detergents,"
(32) "Any discussion of cleaning and sanitizing must be prefaced by comment-
ing upon personnel...A cleaning procedure is no better than the worker. No
matter how good the cleaning agent is, its usefulness will depend entirely
upon how the worker uses it--the concentration--the time of application--
the amount of brushingcollectively spell the degree of cleaning attained.
The cleaning attained is determined by the worker," (32, Page 54). Thus, the
human factor is ultimately of far greater significance than are the washing
and sanitizing procedures themselves. Although there is a trend toward mechani-
zation of detergent dispensing and other elements within the total process,
human variables still play a role in utensil sanitation.
_!/ Dave Ettinger of Silite, Inc., in telephone interview.
S-79
-------
With this understanding, it is important to present briefly
the factors which contribute to the washing and sanitizing of foodservice
ware:
(i) Preflushing or Prescraping; This action is usually pro-
vided by water pressure during a prerinse cycle, which removes the gross
soil and excess food particles, thus assisting in the actual washing process.
(2) Water Temperature; Maximum soil removal appears to occur
at temperatures from 130 to 140 F. Lower temperatures tend not to remove
fats, and higher temperatures can cook proteins, causing them to adhere to
utensil surfaces. Higher temperatures (170ฐ or above) are, of course, required
in the final rinse for sanitation.
(3) Chemical Detergents; The detergent supplements the action
of the water and enhances removal of the grease film left by fats. Types
and amounts of detergents should be selected in accordance with water com-
position, and detergent solutions should be maintained with a minimum of
suspended soil, so as to prevent redeposition of bacteria on cleaned utensils.
(4) Rinsing/Sanitizing; This last step can be accomplished
with hot water at 170 or above or with chemicals. The latter method is ef-
fective only if the dishes have been thoroughly cleaned, since sanitizing
agents cannot penetrate food particles or food film (32).
As discussed in the previous section on foodservice standards,
certain portions of the foregoing process are closely regulated by health
agencies. Though the type and amount of detergent and precise wash water
temperature are not specified in the Model Ordinance, sanitization procedures
S-80
-------
are clearly defined and, of course, require proper preparation of the utensils
through washing so that sanitization will be effective*
Despite the existence of fairly standardized washing and sani-
tizing procedures and of the regulatory activity supplied through FSSP, the
Model Ordinance, and state and local health agencies, concern continues to
exist over the degree of compliance of foodservice establishments with these
procedures and regulations* The major study of restaurant compliance encount-
ered during the course of this investigation was undertaken by the General
Accounting Office in 1974 (61). At GAO's request, the Food and Drug Administra-
tion inspected, from January through March 1974, 185 restaurants selected
at random from 14,736 restaurants in nine metropolitan cities. Results were
recorded on the Food Service Establishment Inspection Report, based on the
regulations stipulated within the FDA Model Ordinance. Sample results were
projected to apply to the 14,736 restaurants in the original inventory. Over-
all, 89.8 percent were considered to be "inadequate," and thus, according
to the GAO, "insanitary."
The term "inadequate," as defined in the study, means that
"Significant public health violations exist. Restaurants could be operating
under conditions where food may have become contaminated with filth or rend-
ered injurious to health. Deficiencies should be corrected immediately."
In its response to the GAO Report, the National Restaurant
Association (NRA) (49) points out that: (1) The sample upon which the survey
JV It is important to note that a restaurant can exhibit many violations
not related to foodservice ware; e.g., insect or rodent infestation,
improper refrigeration, etc*
S-81
-------
is based is not distributed proportionately to the distribution of the total
estimated universe; e.g., in city E, the total inventory of restaurants is
8,927, or 60.6 percent of the estimated universe (14,736), whereas the sample
size for city E was only 35, or 18.9 percent of total sample size (185).
While the sample within each city may be considered representative of res-
taurant conditions in that particular city, it is not valid to total the
samples and project an overall percentage of restaurants exhibiting "insani-
tary" conditions." The term "insanitary" is used synonymously with the word
"inadequate." Although the study did find a majority of restaurants sampled
in each city to be "inadequate," it does not necessarily follow that they
are unsanitary. By the GAD's own definition, these restaurants "could be"
operating under conditions potentially injurious to human health. The dis-
tinction must be made, as it has throughout this report, between the potential
for health problems and the existence of definably pathogenic conditions.
Again, there is no clear relationship between "inadequate" foodservice sani-
tation and an attendant threat to the public health.
Although the GAO study should not, in light of the preceding
discussion, be interpreted as a flawless indictment of restaurant sanitation,
its findings in regard to sanitation of foodservice ware are noteworthy for
the purposes of the present investigation. Table 19 shows the percentage
of the total restaurants sampled, exhibiting violations related to foodser-
vice ware.
_!/ This analysis of the statistical sampling procedure was confirmed by con-
sultations with two MRI statisticians.
S-82
-------
TABLE 19
SUMMARY OF SANITATION VIOLATIONS RELATING TO FOODSERVICE WARE
Number of Percent
Violative of Sample
Item Restaurants in Violation
Tableware clean to sight and touch 24 12.9
Utensils and equipment preflushed,
scraped, or soaked . 2 1.0
Tableware sanitized 52 28.1
Facilities for washing and sanitizing
equipment and utensils approved,
adequate, properly constructed,
maintained and operated 100 54.0
Wash and sanitizing water clean 9 4.8
Wash water at proper temperature 7 3.7
Adequate and suitable detergents used 2' 1.0
Cleaned and sanitized utensils and
equipment properly stored and
handled; utensils air-dried 116 62.7
Suitable facilities and areas provided
for storing utensils and equipment 77 41.6
Single-service articles properly stored,
dispensed and handled 117 63.2
Source: "Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United
.States: Federal Support for Restaurant Sanitation Found Largely
Ineffective," (61").
As shown in the table, the major violations (involving more
than half the restaurants sampled) relate to inadequate facilities for wash-
ing and sanitizing equipment and utensils, inadequate storage and handling
of utensils and equipment; and inadequate storage, dispensing and handling
of single service items. (The latter problem will be addressed in a later
section on single service ware.) Since most facilities complied with the
requirements regarding clean water, proper water temperature and adequate
detergents, the assumption can be made that the deficiencies centered around
the design and/or layout of dishwashing machines and the human variables
previously mentioned.
S-83
-------
The implications of these violations are difficult to assess.
While 54 percent of the restaurants were reported as having inadequate wash-
ing and sanitizing facilities, only 28 percent showed failure to comply with
the requirement that tableware be sanitized. This inconsistency would indi-
cate, once again, that the ultimate level of sanitation of foodservice ware
in commercial establishments is dependent upon a wide range of variables,
which cannot be fully addressed through the vehicle of health inspection
reports.
The GAD, however, implies that these violations contribute
substantially to the "100,000 persons (who) became ill from foodborne dis-
eases contracted in restaurants during 1970," (Page 1). This statistic, cred-
ited to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), disagrees with the actual CDC
report (16) which shows a total of 24,448 persons becoming ill in 1970 as a re-
sult of 371 outbreaks, 114 of which occurred in foodservice establishments.
Furthermore, very little information exists on the numbers and types of
microorganisms typically found on serviceware utensils in foodservice estab-
lishments after washing.
Relating to the practical relationship between the sanitary
condition of machine-washed utensils and the associated public health threat,
Dr. Marcus Harowitz of the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta offered
the opinion that "the inoculum count of microorganisms left on foodservice
ware after washing would likely be too low to cause disease," (52). However,
the entire area of dose/response relationships between pathogenic organisms
ซP
and disease is poorly understood and little documented.
See comments Appendix J. pages 27-30.
See comments Appendix J. pages 30-31.
S-84
-------
Although it is accepted fact, even by the NRA, that there
are problems in achieving total sanitation of foodservice ware in commercial
foodservice establishments, inadequacies such as were found in the GAD study
cannot be directly related to disease transmission. However, in the normal
tradition of protective public health measures, precautions are taken to
protect and preserve the public health whenever there is even a suspected
potential for harm*
Another area in which foodservice ware has been studied is
the use of beverage glasses in hotels and motels. Dr. Bailus Walker of the
Environmental Health Administration undertook a 4-year bacteriological study
of such glasses (78), and found that over 90 percent were unacceptable from
the standpoint of bacteriological and aesthetic standards. The bacteriological
standard of 100 organisms per glass was exceeded in over 80 percent of the
glasses examined; and over 50 percent of these glasses contained pathogenic
organisms, including streptococci and staphylococci.
Dr. Walker attributes this finding to the fact that in 40
of the 66 hotels/motels surveyed, the glass washing procedure involved rins-
ing the glasses in the wash basin with "hot" water, drying them with a bath
towel and then repackaging them in bags labelled, "THIS WATERGLASS IS SANI-
TIZED FOR YOUR PROTECTION." Although such practice was not the established
policy of the hotel or motel, it was followed by the housekeepers as a time-
saving, convenience measure.
Table 20 shows the bacterial count of beverage glasses rinsed
in the hotel or motel rooms. Standard plate counts ranged from 1,000 organisms
per glass to 100,000,000 organisms per glass, with Staphylococcus aureus
S-85
-------
u
cj
O
O
O
4-1
p.
)r-lO-CMCOCMincMCM~Ji-lCO
CO
1-H
HO-i
c_j p-j TD rj \o in vQ vO vD r^ป vO 10 vO r** CO vO
-i ul C
ojoi-H inmooooininomom
J^COE CMCM'-Hii r-i CM i-< li-ICMiICM
Box
z w
o
H
CD T)
4J 0)
o >
ss
to
H CU
(U
U U Q
U C r-l
l-i O O
u o -u a
1-1 VM 00 co
- c ซ
H (3
c
c
CO X
I-l (U
0 $
43
a,
00
z
0)
Ui
> O
01 a,
3
r-i cn
H
-------
and streptococci appearing on from 20 percent to 100 percent of the glasses
tested. In contrast, as shown in Table 21, glasses washed in the central
commissary, using standardized washing and sanitizing procedures, showed
considerably lower counts. Although standard plate counts were higher than
accepted bacteriological standards in all cases, no pathogenic organisms
were detected in the commissary-washed glasses. The author attributes this
finding to the possibility of unnecessary handling which occurs between wash-
ing, prepackaging and distribution of the glasses to the. rooms.
Several investigators have studied foodservice ware sanita-
tion within the institutional setting. Lloyd et al. (30) surveyed the dish-
washing facilities of five large (500 to 1,000-bed) hospitals and one chil-
dren's orphanage in 1970 to determine the washing and sanitizing efficiencies
of dishwashing machines. Microbiological testing-was performed on the wash
water of the dishwashers, the rinse water, the dish surfaces following wash-
ing and rinsing, and the air surrounding the dishwashing area. Table 22 shows
the results of the wash and rinse water tests, in which staphylococci and
enterococci were noted in the wash water at two institutions; and one showed
staphylococci in the rinse water. The authors note that the water tempera-
tures during the wash and rinse cycles were lower than has been recommended,
attributing their microbiological findings to this fact. However, as shown
in Table 23, dishware which had been washed and rinsed showed counts below
the accepted microbiological standard in every case but one. Additionally,
the number of airborne microorganisms was not found to be significantly af-
fected by either activity or inactivity in the area of the dishwashing mach-
ines, indicating that the processing of the foodservice ware did not produce
an increased bioload in the surrounding environment.
See comments Appendix J, page 37.
S-87
-------
1 t
CN
a
PQ
<5
H
^4
(3rf
^
* CO
CO
M
8
ซi!
K
2
Ed
2
i-l
Q
Cd
ffi
H 4^
rG -H
O
0
1
O
m
ง
o
o
1
o
o
o\
0
o
o
r-4
u-i
CO
,v
CO
H
C
0 'H
00
Q M
H
* >
C 1
O *"C3
4J g
00 CO
C r-i
H f>s
rC M
to (0
CO J23
i^K >^
^^
CO
v-'
in
< i
-------
TABLE 22
THE OCCURRENCES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MICROORGANISMS IN WASH AND RINSE WATER
SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM DISHWASHING MACHINES IN SELECTED MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS
Types of
Organisms
Tested
Total Count
Aerobic Spores
Anaerobic Spores
Coliforms
Staphylococci
Pseudomonas
EnterococciH'
Molds
Total Count
Aerobic Spores
Anaerobic Spores
Coliforms
Staphylococci
Pseudomonas
Enterococciฃ'
Molds
Institution
A J5 C D _E ฃ
Average Number Organisms per Millimeter of Water Samples!/
Wash Water
59
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,250
190
35
0
250
0
280
2
230
1
10
0
0
0
0
0.
155
138
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
--
0
10
0
0
_.
45
114
0
10
0
16
Rinse Water
130
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
230
180
1
0
20
0
0
0
35
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
14
7
--
0
0
0
0
__
0
0
__
0
0
0
0
__
53
190
0
0
0
0
__
Source: Lloyd et al. "Bacteriological Observations of Hospital Commissary
Environments," (30).
a/ Average bacterial counts obtained from the three collected wash and rinse
water samples.
b/ Enterococci counts were based on most probably numbers per 100 millimeter
of water samples.
S-89
-------
TABLE 23
BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION ON PRETREATED AND .WASHED AND
RINSED EATING UTENSILS COLLECTED FROM SELECTED INSTITUTIONS
Institution
A
B
C
D
E
F
Average Number
From Duplicate
Pretreatedl^
30
110
TNTCฃ/
180
TNTC
TNTC
Bacteria Recovered ,
a/
Samples of Dishware"
Washed/Rinsed
20
45
45
120
20
20
Source: Lloyd et al. "Bacteriological Observations of Hospital Commissary
Environments," (30).
&l Counts obtained from membrane filters.
b/ The counts shown represents those taken right after scraping.
c^/ TNTC--too numerous to count.
Wehrle (82) in a previously mentioned study of foodservice
on communicable disease wards, reports that normal foodservice ware washing
and sanitizing procedures are adequate in removing even highly infectious
organisms from utensils used for patients with communicable diseases. He
stresses that the problems in handling these utensils lie with personnel
who often fail to wash their hands properly before and after touching the
dishes, rather than with the sanitizing procedures themselves. Wehrle sug-
gests a cycle involving prewash at 140ฐ to 160ฐF, wash cycle of 160ฐF, and
a flow rinse at 180ฐF. The significance of Wehrle*s study is that, given
proper personnel training, the facilities and processes available in the
institutional setting are capable of producing sanitized foodservice ware,
even when that ware has been heavily contaminated.
See comments Appendix J, pages 24-26,
S-90
-------
Another study, by Jopke et al. (24) of 21 hospitals in the
Twin Cities area, reaffirms the effectiveness of institutional washing pro-
cedures. From a total of 6,600 samples from dinner plates, cups, and glasses
(among other products), the authors found very low microbial counts immedi-
ately after washing, reflecting the operating effectiveness of all dishwashing
machines. The results of this test are presented in Table 24.
TABLE 24
MICROBIAL CONTAMINATION ON HOSPITAL TABLEWARE IMMEDIATELY AFTER WASHING
Mean Percentage Distribution of
Type of Number of (Average) Microbial Counts (%)
Tableware^
Plates
Trays
Cups
Glasses
Spoons
Forks
Knives
Samples
627
627
315
313
105
105
105
Count
13.9
24.2
7.4
3.9
17.5
11.6
7.6
0
71
65
51
65
73
84
72
1-50
25
25
46
34
19
10
21
50
4
10
3
1
8
6
7
Source: Jopke et al. "Microbial Contamination on Hospital Tableware," (24).
_a/ Expressed as colonies/utensils for the flatware and colonies/rodac plate
for the other types of tableware (spoons, forks, knives).
c. Handling and Storage Factorst While Jopke's study found
that washing and sanitizing procedures in the hospitals studied were effec-
tive, "handling and environmental exposure emerged as the critical factors
in tableware contamination," (Page 31). The authors note that "the degree
of contamination increases with the length of time between after washing
and before use, a period when the tableware is exposed to both environmental
and personnel contamination," (Page 31).
S-91
-------
Table 25 shows the microbial counts of tableware during stor-
age. As shown, the mean counts on all items except dinner plates and trays
increased during storage. This can be explained by the fact that plates and
trays are often better protected from airborne contamination than cups, glasses,
and flatware, which may be stored on open shelves. Also, since plates and
trays are stacked, less individual surface area is exposed to personnel and
environmental contaminants. Finally, Table 26 indicates counts taken on tableware
immediately prior to use. As indicated, the three products of particular
concern to this studyplates, cups and glassware, showed slightly lower
mean counts at this point than during storage; however, there were fewer
samples showing a zero bacterial count prior to use than during the storage
period. Based on their findings, the authors recommend several improvements
to decrease microbial contamination of tableware. Included are decreased
handling of tableware by personnel, the storage of sanitized plates in mobile
bins or self-leveling storage bins, and the storage of sanitized cups, glasses
in the same rack and cylinder in which they were sanitized.
In a sequel to the previous study, Jopke et al. (23) examined
the effects of air conditioning on microbial airborne contamination in hos-
pital dishwashing facilities and resultant contamination of tableware. They
found that the presence or absence of air conditioning was the one variable
with the greatest effect on airborne microbial quality, with air-conditioned
hospitals showing levels one-third less than those in nonair-conditioned
facilities. Results of these tests are shown in Table 27.
S-92
-------
TABLE 25
MICROBIAL CONTAMINATION ON HOSPITAL TABLEWARE DURING STORAGE
Type of
Tablewar eฃ'
Plates
Trays
Cups
Glasses
Spoons
Forks
Knives
Number of
Samples
630
629
315
314
104
105
105
Mean
(Average)
Counts
Percentage Distribution of
Microbial Counts (%)
5.5
10.4
15.2
15.8
30.3
35.4
42.4
64
60
34
38
59
57
55
ฃ
64
60
34
38
59
57
55
1-50
34
35
59
55
31
32
36
50
2
5
7
7
10
11
9
Source: Jopke et al. "Microbial Contamination on Hospital Tableware," (24).
JL/ Expressed as colonies/utensils for the flatware and colonies/rodac plate
for the other types of tableware.
TABLE 26
MICROBIAL CONTAMINATION ON HOSPITAL TABLEWARE BEFORE USE
Type of
Tableware-
Number of
Samples
Mean
(Average)
Counts
Percentage Distribution of
MicrobiaiCpunts (%)
0
1-50
50
Plates 628 3.4 77 22 1
Trays 629 11.2 54 42 4
Cups 315 14.6 24 71 5
Glasses 313 10.3 36 60 4
Spoons 105 109.5 53 27 20
Forks 105 72.6 55 30 15
Knives 105 34.1 49 39 12
Source: Jopke et al. "Microbial Contamination on Hospital Tableware," (24).
. aj Expressed as colonies/utensils for the flatware and colonies/rodac plate
for the other types of tableware.
S-93
-------
r*"*
CN
TABLE
ป
t
i
4
f
C
t
1-
C
fc
b
I-
.
H
ฃ
H
0
V
s
2
cy
1
E-
C/!
^
CO
C3
Z
l-
ง
S
HI
Q
52.1
^J
u
a!
3
S
s
H
g
Q
S3
H
H
&
1-
%
Z
t-
2
2
r*
-<
^
0
J
> H-l
J O
M -
0)
^
5 c
z
(A
w S
Q) r ( VO "H
H VO ซJ 4J
3 * CNJ -H
; > ป i <
ฐ CN r-l 1-1
0 (J
co
a *
1
c
4
i
> *J
i "Si
H
' >
o
;j
en
X1
(3 ;
CO f
58 i
<
\.
> 60
o e
>j en o -5
a . . 45
^ 50 oo M
^ N S
j -^
1 co
H
VM ฐ
O a
M^J
^ i
S ^
3 w
Z
,_,
CD
r~ oo w
r~ en in
CN ri a
ca
o
33
!ซ
4J
H
Ul
T-l
>
T)
C
CM
JJ
p-
(O
H
>
JJ
cn
r 1
r
i
X^t
CU
c S
CO CO
0) u
1
v^
H*
H
O en to
i t
o rป cu
-1 CM >
Jl
(J
"1
14-1
o ca
Number
Sample
00
o
o en i-i
o m o
i i m -H
^2
T-l 0
t-i
O
l-t
xvj S
0)
C 01
CO CO
-------
A final consideration in the handling of permanent foodservice
ware is breakage. Of the three types of products being considered in this
studymelamine, china, and glassglass undoubtedly presents the greatest
hazard from the standpoint of accidental breakage. Glass tends to shatter,
scattering splintered fragments over a wide area. China, although it also
may be broken, separates into a smaller number of pieces, which are predomi-
nantly of right angle formation. These pieces are not as sharp as the glassware
fragments and are therefore easier to pick up without risk of injury (18).
Melamine is resistant to breakage and although a severe impact could cause
fracture, the pieces would be unlikely to cause injury.
D. Compliance of Disposable Foodservice Ware (Single Service)
As discussed in the section on standards, single service container
manufacturers routinely submit samples of their products to the Syracuse
Research-Corporation (SRC) Food Protection Laboratory (an independent labora-
tory) for testing. Testing determines conformance with the bacteriological
standard, stated in PHS Publication 1465, of no allowable coliform bacteria,
and no more than one colony of noncoliform bacteria per square centimeter
of food or beverage contact surface.
As experts in the field of single service ware testing, SRC has
found that "these products consistently meet the standards of the PHS." Ac-
cording to Mr. Jack B. Friers, Manager of the Food Protection Laboratory,
"Based upon these results, it is our opinion that single service containers
have an excellent sanitary quality and are safe for their intended use."
S-95
-------
Friers also believes that the difference in bacteriological standards be-
tween permanent ware (no more than 100 colonies per 8 square inch area) and
single service ware (no more than 50 for the same area) "are not significant
...and that both standards should be meaningful in their field of use," (51).
In support of SRC's experience, a 1-month analysis of disposable
foodservice ware at Elmhurst Hospital in 1968 (21) showed all items tested
to be free of coliform organisms and well within the generally recognized
bacteriological standard. Table 28 shows these results.
Two studies were submitted which question the sanitary quality
of single service food containers. The first, called the "Eight Hospital
Study," {15) tested disposable paper items taken from normal storage during
a 1-week period in eight hospitals. The results of the tests, done in the
hospitals' own laboratories, are presented in tabular form, as shown in Table
29. (Items applicable to the present study have been asterisked.) According
to the study results, microbial counts for the 9 ounce cold drink cup were
"too numerous to count" at one hospital, but were 0 in the other 7; all counts
for the hot drink cup were 0; 4 of the 8 counts for the 9 inch plate were
unacceptable (2 being "too numerous to count"); and 2 of the foam cup counts
were above acceptable levels.
The "Eight Hospital Study" is questionable for a number of reasons:
First, exact methodologies for testing are not included in the report. Second,
since each hospital performed its own tests in its own laboratory, conditions
could not be expected to be consistent among the eight facilities. Third,
the Rodac plate method used to determine microbial counts is intended for
S-96
-------
oooooooooooooooooo
g
H
H
AH
CO
0
X
H
CO
K
^
EC
s
U
H
^3
U
1
s
W
U
H
Pi
W
CO
Q
00 O
CM P
W
>J W
S* fp
ฃ-1 **ซ
CO
2
CO
H
D
pLi
O
o
z
.H
CM
s
CO
H
O
H
C5
S
O
H
W
U
H
CJ
m
in
<^^
o
JJ
ง
O
o
H
I 1
o
o
00
W C
I-l g -rl
4) 0) *d
rQ JJ 0)
E H 0)
3 0
Z MJ X
O U
cj
Q
JJ M
U 0
O
PQ
4J
O _
U g
S
r-l 4J
CO 1 I
H
1-4 H
4) 4)
jj d,
Q
CO
& r,
H O
O
M
4J
g
Z
C
1-4
-d
u
10
4)
H
CO
4)
^
Q)
t
i
s
CO
H
I
U)
(U
H
*d
M
CO
C
CO
CO
d
W
vฃ>|
m|
^
CO
C^J
'c
"O
4)
10
4)
H
10
&
4)
JJ
H
cfl
M
4)
H
JJ
fj
4)
O
4)
M
CO
3
O
CO
JJ
-1
C
Z
O O O O O
o o o o o
4) 4) 4) 4) 4)
00 00 00 00 00
0) 4) 4) 4) 4)
Z Z Z Z Z
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o o o o
O O O CO O
r-4
o o o o o
o o o o o
O 0 0 0 0
CN
in <-i oo
-------
TABLE 29
RESULTS OF THE "EIGHT HOSPITAL STUDY" (20 COLONIES PER 16 CM
MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE
Sample
(All Paper)
4 ounce cup ,
9 ounce cup"" ,
Hot drink cup"?
9 inch plate
6-3/4 inch plate
Soup bowl
Vegetable bowl
LEVEL) COLONIES PER
16 CM2 (RODAC PLATE)
Facility
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
TNTC
2
9
0
0
27
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
7
15
9
0
4
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
5
TNTC
0
0
2
0
TNTC
31
6
TNTC
TNTC
0
31
54
5
0
7
0
0
0
TNTC
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
TNTC
11
9
0
Additional
Items Tested
a/
Foam cups-
Individual
sugar packets
Individual salt
packets
57
TNTC
TNTC
39
TNTC
57
17
TNTC
TNTC
Source: Foodborne Outbreaks; Annual Summary, 1970, (15)
a/ TNTCtoo numerous to count.
S-98
-------
testing flat surfaces; thus, its efficacy for rounded cup surfaces is ques-
tionable. These reservations would suggest that the results of the "Eight
Hospital Study" may not be scientifically acceptable.
The second study is the Rosner-Hixon Report (65), in which dispos-
able plates (type not specified) were tested to determine the degree of bac-
terial contamination. Three cartons from each of six manufacturers were rep-
resented in the test. One plate was taken from the top of the stack, one
from the middle and one from the bottom; additionally, two more plates were
removed from the top of other stacks from each carton. The plates were swabbed
with sterile water, and plate counts were performed; the results appear in
Table 30.
As indicated, all of the plates from the bottom of the.stacks were
sterile; however, two samples from the middle showed counts of 300 and 3,100
respectively, while the top samples showed fairly high levels of contamination
in three of the six cartons. The implication, of course, is that the top
plates were more subjected to exposure and to contamination during packaging
and handling. The Rosner-Hixon Report has been questioned because of its
lack of detailed description of methodology, of personnel and facilities
used in the testing, and for its limited number of samples, considered not
to be representative of the total number of products under consideration.
Additionally, for the purposes of the present study, there is concern over
the fact that the type of "disposable" plates is not specified.
_!/ Confirmed by consultation with MRI bacteriologist.
S-99
-------
TABLE 30
TEST RESULTS FROM THE ROSNER-HIXON REPORT
Carton
Manufacturer Number Top Middle Bottom
A 1 0-200-0 0 0
2 200-0-0 ' 300 0
3 200-0-0 0 0
B 1 0-0-0 d 0
2 0-0-0 0 0
3 0-0-0 0 0
C 1 0-0-80,000 0 0
2 0-0-0 0 0
3 0-0-0 0 0
D 1 0-0-0 0 0
2 0-0-0 0 0
3 0-0-0 0 . 0
E 1 400-0-1,000 3,100 0
2 100-1,000-0 0 0
3 0-0-0 0 0
F 1 0-0-0 0 0
2 0-0-0 0 0
3 0-0-0 0 0
Source: "The Sanitary Aspects of Single-Service (Disposable)
Ware," Permanent Ware Institution, (65).
NOTE: 0 denotes a number less than 100.
S-100
-------
SRC, in a response to these two studies, questions not only the
scientific quality of the investigations, but also the results* According
to the manager of the Food Protection Laboratory, "Occasionally somewhat
higher bacterial counts are found in the exposed top item of the stack than
in other parts of the stacks, but we have not encountered the extremely high
counts reported in the study. We have found that single service items within
a stack (other than the top item) are consistently low or zero in bacterial
contamination levels."
In light of the above reservations, the position of SRC, and the
fact that these were the only two studies encountered in an extensive litera-
ture review which indict disposable foodservice ware from a sanitation stand-
point, the "Eight Hospital Study" and the Rosner-Hixon Report do not present
substantial or conclusive evidence indicating the sanitary quality of single
service items. However, in light of the finding by the GAO that 63.2 percent
of sampled commercial establishments do not properly store, dispense and
handle single service articles, it is possible to conclude that problems
may well exist in the handling of those products; and that these problems
could represent the potential for disease transmission. Again, it is not the
products themselves but the human factor which may threaten sanitation.
In order to ascertain the attitudes of public health professionals
toward disposable products, the Environmental Health Administration undertook
a national survey in 1976, in which questionnaires were mailed to 3,000 indi-
viduals, randomly chosen from the directory of state food and drug officials
2
and the membership of public and environmental health organizations. These
See comments Appendix J, pages 33-35,
9
See comments Appendix J, page 35.
S-101
-------
organizations included the National Environmental Health Association, the
Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States, the Conference
of Local Environmental Health Administrators, the Association of State and
Territorial Health Officers, the International Association of Milk, Food
and Environmental Sanitarians, Inc., and the American Public Health Associa-
tion (Section on the Environment). About 2,760 persons returned question-
naires, providing a 92 percent response rate.
Table 31 categorizes the respondents according to their positions
and organizations. As indicated, 45 percent of those returning questionnaires
are public and environmental health administrators at the state and local .
level, and 41 percent are state and local sanitarians. These categories rep-
resent those individuals most directly responsible for health regulation in
commercial and institutional foodservice establishments. Of the respondents,
83 percent have at least 6 years experience in their respective fields, with
57 percent indicating 11 or more years of experience.
TABLE 31
POSITIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS OF RESPONDENTS
Number of Percent of.
Position and Organization Respondents Respondents"
Public/Environmental Health Administrators
(State and Local) 1,245 45
Officials of Professional Public/Environmental
Health Organizations 18 1
Sanitarians (Field LevelState and Local Agencies) 1,145 41
Public/Environmental Health Academicians 67 2
Environmental Health Scientists (State and Local) 240 9
Public Health Officials (in Federal Agencies) 45 2
Total 2,760 100
Source: Walker and Price, "The Health Profession's Attitude Toward Single-Use
Food and Beverage Containers," (79).
&J Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer.
S-102
-------
Table 32 presents a listing of the benefits the respondents attribute
to single-use foodservice items. Of the public health professionals, 69 per-
cent consider sanitation-related factors to be the main benefits of these
products, including the reduction in the potential for cross-infection, the
reduction in disease transmission (if properly stored and handled), the pro-
vision of a consistently high level of food sanitation, and the reduction
in human involvement in the sanitizing process. Conversely, 71 percent of
the respondents recognize that disposables present disadvantages in terms
of solid waste volume, litter, and disposal problems; this breakdown is shown
in Table 33. However, 80 percent believe that the benefits of disposables
are greater than the disadvantages, 11 percent feel benefits and disadvantages
are fairly equal, and only 6 percent think the disadvantages outweigh the
benefits. Finally, when asked how much disposable foodservice ware contributes
to sanitation levels in foodservice facilities, 74 percent of the respondents
felt they "contributed very much," 16 percent felt they "contributed somewhat,"
and 9 percent believed they "contributed slightly." These results are presented
in Table 34, Accordingly, 74 percent of the respondents felt that sanitation
levels would definitely decrease if disposables were eliminated and that they
would definitely increase if disposables were required.
See connents Appendix J, pages 35-36.
S-103
-------
TABLE 32
PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS DERIVED FROM PAPER AND PLASTIC SINGLE-USE PRODUCTS
, Number of Percent of.
Benefit- Respondents Respondents"
Reduce the possibility of cross-infection 421 15
If properly stored and handled, reduce trans-
mission of diseases 866 31
Practical and economical means for food service
facilities to operate when reusable products
are impractical 208 8
Eliminate the need for dishwashing facilities 426 15
Provide a consistently high level of food
sanitation 385 14
Reduce human involvement required for cleaning
and sanitizing 243 9
Convenience 128 5
Conserve energy 47 2
No real public health benefit 35 1
Total 2,760 100
Source: Walker and Price, "The Health Profession's Attitude Toward Single-Use
Food and Beverage Containers," (79).
_a/ Benefits were listed by respondents.
_b/ Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer.
TABLE 33
DISADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM PAPER AND PLASTIC SINGLE-USE PRODUCTS
Number of Percent of .
Disadvantage Respondents Respondents
Contribute to solid waste disposal problems 782 28
Add to the volume and bulk of solid waste 485 18
Increase litter 474 17
Contribute to disposal problems, especially
with plastics that are nonbiodegradable 229 8
Increase need for additional storage space 237 9
Poor quality of some of the disposable products 98 4
Limited acceptance in all restaurants by con-
suming public 396 14
Increasing cost of disposable products 59 2
Total 2,760 100
Source: Walker and Price, "The Health Profession's Attitude Toward Single-Use
Food and Beverage Containers," (79).
_a/ Disadvantages were listed by respondents.
t>/ Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer.
S-104
-------
st
CO
W
PQ
^
H
CO
Cd
M
C^t
W
rj
^
r-4
W
O
H
>
K
S
CO
Q
Z
w
CO
rj
r>
bJ
Hip
Z
O
H
E-4
HH
CO
8
CO
13
<
J
&4
9
^
W
p.
^
U
o
l"*H
H
CO
S
a
0)
4J
1 J M
0 .0
Z -H
rl
*g
O
O)
4J
3
H
4J
c
o
o
CD
4-1
3
H
ฃ
C
o
o
oi
4J
3
i
rl
ID
4J
C
oo
o oo
vO
00 CM
CO r-l
tn
4J
tn
C C
U tn
CO r-l
u o
Cd *4-4.
O C 1-1 J3
rl O C
-ป CO C -H
o M -H ta
i-4iicdOTJooiu
JD C04J1-I CO iM-rl'O
3 H) ^H r-l O -H r-l 01
d,S5 CrO^0fn
cd 3 C 3
co pm r^i p!
in
01
01
*
O
O
r-l
S
r-
CM
r^
vO
CO
ON
ON
CM
vO
i 1
CM
CO
^
^
3
0
ft
CM
r-l
ca
4J
f-i
^
r-
=^
en
ฃ
a
c
ca
a
o
o
fa
01
to
I
1 1
60
H
CO
*O
^1
ca
J3
O
H
HI
T3
3
rl
U
<
in
C
O
H
tn
tn
(U
U-l
o
rl
4J
i 1
CO
a>
X
2 ซ
H -u
= C
-3
cu c
o o
rl Q,
ri m
PH 01
rl
T3
C ' i i
cd o
rl rl
CU 01
r-l g
t* Z
01 rl
U 01
rl A
3 g
o 5
CO Z
^^
j_j
0)
60
01
C
H
JJ
tn
01
M
cd
0)
c
01
i-i
o
4J
T3
ai
T3
3
O
01
ca
tn
0)
60
id
C
0)
u
rl
OI
a.
tn
4-1
C
01
0
0
(X
tn
0)
rl
U-l
o
J-l
C
OI
o
t-i
01
M
c
01
u
i-i
01
S-105
-------
The role of single-use foodservice ware in the overall realm of
sanitation cannot be denied. As specified in the Model Ordinance, single-
service items must be used in foodservice establishments (or institutions)
where there are inadequate facilities for washing and sanitizing permanent
ware. Single-service items may be recommended in isolation units of hospitals,
particularly if there is concern over the sanitary quality of permanent ware
being processed through the hospital kitchen. Single-service products are
also necessary at public events, outdoor gatherings, and other such occasions
when the "commercial foodservice establishment" may consist only of a small
booth or stand, certainly not equipped to wash and sanitize dishes.
Within the commercial or institutional setting where there are
facilities for washing and sanitizing permanent ware, it is extremely dif-
ficult to make direct comparisons between reusables and disposables. As pre-
viously discussed, the impact of human variables, from day to day, from restaurant
to restaurant or institution to institution, negates virtually every attempt
to quantify differences in the sanitary status of disposables versus reusables.
As corre.ctly stated by the Single Service Institute, "the only precise way
to assess the health values of disposables versus reusaLles would be to survey
the bacteriological quality of one versus the other by testing the utensils
in food-serving establishments just prior to their use," (48). And even then,
the scope of the investigation would have to be massive in order to be equitable.
Additionally, bacteriological standards alone do not measure the
capacity of foodservice ware (or any other product) to transmit disease;
the most such standards can do is to indicate potential for disease trans-
mission.
S-106
-------
The problem in assessing sanitation standards on foodservice ware
is summarized quite effectively by Bailus Walker, the author of several stud-
ies in this field: "Anderson in an extensive review of the epidemiclogical
basis of environmental sanitation in 1943 stated 'I wish I could cite evidence
that the lack of decent cleanliness in handling dishes in food establishments
is likely to result in demonstrable diseases, for I would welcome a basis
for enforcing better dishwashing. And yet I know of no evidence of this char-
acter.1 ...Almost four decades later there is still little or no evidence
of this character. Questions involving the health effects of environmental
bioloads are particularly prone to uncertainty and the health impact of var-
ious environmental levels of microorganisms on food or beverage contact sur-
faces are often unknown, and not infrequently unknowable." (78, page 10;
See comments Appendix J, pages 16-20.
S-107
-------
APPENDIX A
ADDITIONAL TESTING DATA
S-108
-------
TABLE I
EFFECTS OF THE USE OF DISINFECTANTS IN RINSE WATER AT THE HOT WATER SETTING
Number Bacteria
Participant
Number
1
3
4
Treatment
None
Quaternary
Phenolic (B)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
None
None
None
None
None
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Phenolic (B)
Phenolic (B)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
None
None
None
None
None
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Phenolic (B)
Active
Ingredients
(ppm)
0
200
125
250
250
0
0
0
0
0
200
200
200
125
250
125
125
125
125
250
250
250
0
0
0
0
0
200
200
200
135
135
135
135
135
33
125
per Millilitet
Wash
Water
80
640
90
40
40
1,400
1,180
8,200
1,300
1,000
14,000
2,100
2,100
4,600
700
1,300
180
2,700
1,200
760
17,000
2,100
4,400
5,400
1,150
31,000
330
3,900
650
1,800
2,500
2,200
7,600
170
6,700
1,550
1,900
Rinse
Water
30
< 10
10
20
< 10
180
6,400
4,600
610
340
70
< 10
20
30
< 10
220
10
50
30
< 10
1,580
30
1,670
2,800
1,660
20,300
1,070
20
0
0
10
< 10
0
0
30
610
10
Number Bacteria
per Square
Inch
50
0
< 10
0
25
925
3,500
550
225
100
50
< 25
25
< 25
< 25
125
< 25
1,200
75
1,500
710(M).
25,600
50
< 25
< 25
--
300
Detergent
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
S-109
-------
TABLE I (concluded)
Active
Number Bacteria
oer Milliliter
Participant Ingredients Wash
Number
5
6
7
Treatment
Phenolic (B)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
None
None
Quaternary
Quaternary
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
None
None
Quaternary
Quaternary
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (E)
None
None
Phenolic (C)
(ppm)
250
65
125
125
125
250
250
250
250
0
0
200
200
125
250
250
250
0
0
200
200
125
125
250
0
0
125
Water
2,600
4,600
84,000
17,400
16,900
460
1,000
1,000
6,200
10,500
500
690
20
230
510
90
940
180
770
240
470
120
120
60
851
410
2,900
Rinse
Water
< 10
1,200
4,900
< 10
1,700
220
80
10
330
32,000
800
< 10
0
40
30
20
15,300
1,360
1,580
< 10
0
50
50
0
2,110
2,300
80
Number Bacteria
per Square
Inch
250
1,075
100
225
275
< 25
50
200
350
1,600
< 25
< 25
25
25
0
25
< 25
< 25
100
100
< 25
125
75
25
Detergent
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic .
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Source: "Disinfectants in Home Laundering," Paper presented May 16, 1962,
during 48th midyear meeting, Chemical Specialties Manufacturers
Association, Chicago, by Ethel McNeil and Eva A. Choper.
Note: B = Ortho-benzyl-parachlorophenol
C = Ortho-benzyl-para-chlorophenate potassium salt
D = Potassium salts of Ortho-phenyl-chlorophenol and
Orthobenzyl-parachlorophenol
E = Ortho-benzyl-para-chlorophenate sodium salt
F = Chloro-ortho-phenylphenol
(M) = muslin sheeting
S-110
-------
TABLE II
EFFECTS OF THE USE OF DISINFECTANTS IN WASH WATER AT THE HOT WATER SETTING
No. Bacteria per
Participant
Number Treatment
3 None
None
None
None
None
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (D)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
4 None
None
None
None
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
Phenolic (B)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (D)
Phenolic (E)
5 None
None
Quaternary
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (E)
Active
Ingredients
(ppm)
0
0
0
0
0
200
200
200
200
125
125
100
250
250
25 cฃ/
0
0
0
0
200
200
200
250a-/
250
125
125
100
375
0
0
200
125
250
Milliliter
Wash
Water
1,400
1,180
8,200
1,300
1,000
800
90
120
80
20
80
20
30
50
70
4,400
5,400
1,150
31,000
40
190
90
200
20
450
10
20
10
10,500
500
-------
o o o o o
O O C. f4 1-4 fl T< 1-4
i-li-l-HBBBBB
BBBOOOOO
O O O fl i-4 i-l i-l i-l
fl-rlflCeeCB
BBBOOOOO
^ -^ ^j 5S5 ฃ3 ฃ5 ฃ3 53
O O O O o O
OOi-)i-4OOOOOOi-4OUi-IOOO-r-li-l
i-i 1-4 B E 1-1 1-1 i-i i-i 1-1 1-4 c 1-1 T-I E 1-1 1-4 1-4 E B
BBOOBBBBBBOBBOBBBOO
OOi-li-IOOOOO Oi-IOOT4OOOi-li-4
ซrl E M 1-4 B i-l i-l -H E B
BOBBOBBBOO
BB
O i-l . _ _ _
B fi -rl ซrt ซr4 i-t ซi-l
O O B B B B B
M
M
M
a
ea
<|J
H
H
EH
Ed
CO
pi
1
y
PN
.rf
&
B
H
B
ซC
SB
Ed
CO
1
a
co
H
5
H
CJ
e
a
CO
H
Q
pci
0
Cd
CO
[D
fvl
1
fa
O
CO
H
CJ
e
Ed
M
CU
O.
CO
CU
4J
O
CO
pa
0
S3
l^
(0
U
CO E
CO CU
0- ฃ
in o m
CN m CN
V co
0 0 O
CO
0 0 O
O O 0
CN CO CO
-* VO CO
m in o
CN 00 IT)
r-4 CN
O 0 W
o o o
1-1 TH T4
t-l r-4 i-l
O 0 0
B B B
a) cu a)
ft FM rS
ininoooinomoo o
cNCNm mr-incNinO 10
CO
oooooooooooo
00 O O r-i O i I O ("*ซ* O CO i i O
rHOOVOV'"-'1-10 V1*
CN r-4 lO CO CO
<}" CO CO
oooooooooooo
oooooooooooo
r-iooooaooooooo
""^^SScNS^^^r^S
r-l COCOCN COr-l>s
J^
CO O
B -H
M r-4
CU O
4J C
CO CU
3 .B
o-eu
ซ^ en
CN ^1
*O Q>
ON M
U
\ o
r-4 q-l Ul
3 ill
>. B Ou
n) n) o
*EJ *y! J-j
o
T3 en
0) CU
4-1 -H *ฃ
C 1-'
cu i i cd
tn co >
U U
CX
C i-4
CO CU A
rJ 0)
e >
i -H
C ^ 4n
H -rj CJ
g
Ul ป
1J f~i f
T- "i
C -> O
CO ao -H
4J
-------
M
1
3
O
B
|i]
Pd
CO
rt
W
H
IS
y
K
s
S
t~*
H
Pi
H
*
1
B
CO
H
$Z
^
O
W
B
CO
l-l
Q
Pn
O
W
CO
p
W
H
Pn
0
EFFECTS
r-M
OJ
a
CO O
i-l B
l-l M
CU
4J CU
0 IH
CO CO
pa 3
cr
CO
o
i-l CU
cu cu
H *H
4-1 T3
O CU
^C t.
< M
B
g_4
, ,
B
CO
Q.
O
rH
^j
CO
4J
C
Q)
01
l-l
4J
CU
P
U
4-1
CO
3
CO
M-l
O
CU
|2
I-i
CO
1
D-
N^'
4J
B
S!
S
CO
cu
H
M
O en
i-i r- en
งo o
0 0
en n
i 1 CN CN CM CN i 1 CM CN
pl4 fT 1 kj f^ |"T^ [jj
H* ฃ? U .
OO CO o COCOOoO
rl T-l B -H BE *H -H -rl
1 1 r-l ^1 i 1 IJ tl i-l r-l r-l
oo cu o cucuooo
BBCU4JCUc3CU4-*4-*BCB
o)cuBcoBcu BCOCOCIJCUCU
J2j3O3Or; O33J3ฃx:
CM en > C O,
CO CO o
O
O M
CU CU
4J -rl <
0) r-l CO
in eo >
CJ 'H W
rl U
Cu CJ -O
o c1
V4 >
l-l CO CO
CU
CX i 1 i 1
CO CO -rl
(it O CJ
- 'e Q
C U r^
(, 0H f^
0) 60 -U
T3 C W
C "H
3 *-* r^l
CO CJ XI
*"^ s
CJ O
e i-i w)
O CO CO
33 CJ O
B "O1 S
rH *rH CJ
e
U J3 C
C 4-1 O
01 CO -rl
4J <) 4J
O CO
CU 00 -rl
y-4 c o
B -H o
H l-i in
ui 3
-------
ai
Cd
H
El
> r-l
3
03
IS
ai
3
5
En
O
W
CO
E3
U
s
fo
O
B
e
s
^^
e
|
^
01
fi
1-1
I-l
o
1 1
43
CJ
0)
r-l
CO
r-l
i-l
CO
tf
CO
H
t-i
ni
w
^J
CQ
pq
M
Q
'"j
ซ
4J
C
4)
W
l-i
01
4J
01
O
0)
4-1
CO
<4-l 3
O
0)
O CO
c e
M -i-l
ed
41
r-l
y
M-l -*
0 0
T3 43
C ca
W CO
&
m
CO
in
f*ป
00
o
ฃ5
ซfc
O
en
01
fi
ON
y
fi
o
c
^
y
41
43
C
P**
CO
0
in
o
o
o
o
CM
en
y
C
0
c
y
0)
43
e
^
CO
in
CM
0
o
V
o
CM
y
fi
o
C
u
01
43
fi
^)
V)
1 <
.
0
vD
O
r-i
m
en
1
0
m
0
V
o
V
o
CM
en
y y
C fi
o o
c e
^ ^
y y
4) 4)
43 43
C C
Ps ป>t
CO CO
f^
FH O
. ,
0 0
r-l 00
1 1
m en
i-i
m o
CM m
V
O 0
r^ CO
V
o o
o o
CM vO
Cn r-l
> Ul
CM M
rT\ ?
O" M
^ 3
* y
sฃ> CO
r-l 14-1 M
3 4)
s*. c a.
fO cfl o
33 ฃ 43
a w
4) 4)
4J ซri ^
C 4J
0) rH CO
01 CO >
4) -rl W
ri y
O< 4) T3
a. B
rl CO CO
(U
CO CO -H
pu y 4)
HZ
= e o
- 0> S
00 rC
C CJ rH
H 4)
(U 00 4J
o c w
C -H
to a) 42
tJ CJ
4) O
g M 00
O cfl co
S3 4) y
C "O 43
H -H CJ
(A ^
4J 43 C
C -I-1 O
CO 00 ปi-4
4J >T 4J
O tfl
4) 60 -H
<4-i c y
e -H o
H M en
in 3 in
Q
K
*
4)
y
r<
3
O
CO
S-114
-------
tvj
U
M
as
cc
s
1C O
8.-
01 X
o
V
of
*~>Q** 4J
b IM
om<-*oซOi->o'^'-<<-<
gg งง งgง
ง
d
s
in
CM fป CT> CM "* ON CM
i-l I i-l .ป CM i* O
CM ปH vO
a- o so
I ง s
^cfgS0 *
Srป in
^ CM
ooomotocrirgo
ininoซ^ooinrป
- --4cn^inOrH-
oo oo o o o oooooooooooo
o o o S o 8 ง
ddddddoodddd
I
M
I
u
o
u
H
b ^
us o b o ฃ o
Pfc >H 4J U *-4
|
ooooo-io-*o<'iin.irt
i
งo Q o in o ^*
o o o CM o o
g g S op CM ON r>
งCM O\ .
O i-l O
ง88งi
vO
in
_ o\
O vo
ScMO^^oeorx^.
m o\ oo o in <-> ~
eo >ป CM en
O OO O OOOO (n0*^4OCslOO*-lOOOO Oi rป o . _
*J3>-<; r* <* *-> e*
-------
5
S
&
i^e
5 ti ซe
r * !* o
? 4J ClM
!
"* ซ JS O
> u a S
it .o
8
ง ง
o< CM -a <*
o -H en
r*. r** o
OP PP**PPCMPPPPPP
CM CM O O
ฐf8S5S00S ฐ8S
3g|s| s is
88888
o d 6 6 d
n
\o n
*4 Ol
P P
S
o o o oooooooooooo -aooooooooooo
8 c^ p so
Sซ8S
d d d d
o o o o o o
ง 88S8ง
00
CM
p
rป rl
o
e
_ _ ^ ป^ oo
-------
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND CONTACT LIST1
See comments Appendix B, pages 11-12.
S-117
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Blannon, Janet C., and Mirdza Petersons "Survival of Fecal Coliforms and
Fecal Streptococci in a Sanitary Landfill," U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (1973).
2. Bradley, L. A., The No-Iron Laundry Manual, prepared under the direction of
the American Hotel and Motel Association, Research Committee and published
by the Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Ithaca,
New York.
3. Brown, Claude P., M.D., Ralph M. Tyson, M.D., and Frederic H. Wilson, M.T.
"Dermatitis (Diaper Rash): A Bacteriologic Study of the Diaper Region,"
The Pennsylvania Medical Journal. Vol. 55, pp. 755-758, August 1952.
4. Brown, Claude P., M.D., and Frederic H. Wilson, M.T., "Diaper Region
Irritations: Pertinent Facts and Methods of Prevention," Clinical
Pediatrics, Vol. 3, No. 7S pp. 409-413, July 1964.
5. "The Case of the Diaper Deaths," Hospital Practice, pp. 14-21, January
1968.
*
6. Church, Brooks D., and Clayton G. Loosli, "The Role of the Laundry in
the Recontamination of Washed Bedding," Journal of Infectious Diseases,
Vol. 93, pp. 6-74 (1953).
7. Cooper, Robert C., et al., "Virus Survival in Solid Waste Leachates,"
Water Research, Vol. 9, pp. 733-739, August 1975.
8. Davis, J. G., "A Bacteriological Investigation of Towels," The Medical
Officer, pp. 89-95, February 1964.
9." Disposable and Reusable Cloth Diapers," American Paper Institute, Tissue
Division, April 2, 1976.
10. Dixon, Glen J., Robert W. Sidwell, and Ethel McNeil, "Quantitative Studies
on Fabrics as Disseminators of Viruses: II. Persistence of Poliomyelitis
Virus on Cotton and Wool Fabrics," Applied Microbiology. Vol. 14, pp. 183-
188, March 1966.
11. Engelbrecht, R. J., "Survival of Viruses and Bacteria in a Simulated Sani-
tary Landfill," prepared for Diaper Research Committee, Tissue Division,
Anerican Paper Institute, Urbana, Illinois, December 1973.
12. Fahlberg, Willson J., "The 'Kleenex' Principle," The Journal of Environmental
Sciences, pp. 22-25, September-October 1974.
S-118
-------
13. Farley, Marilyn, "Non-Woven Disposables Vs. Traditional Linens," Hospital
Housekeeping, Vol. 3, pp. 13-41, January-February 1974.
14. "Food Service Sanitation Manual Including a Model Food Service Sanitation
Ordinance and Code: 1962 Recommendations of the Public Health Service,"
U.S. Public Health Service.
15. Foodborne Outbreaks: Annual Summary, 1970, Center for Disease Control,
Atlanta, Georgia.
16. Foodborne and Waterborne Disease Outbreaks; Annual SummaryT 1974. Center
for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia.
17. Fox, John P., "Opinion StatementViral Infection Hazard of Disposable
Diapers," University of Washington, School of Public Health, Department
of Epidemiology.
18. Gibson, Josephine, "China is Tops in Cleanliness," Reprinted from Food
Service, March 1954.
19. Grant, Wilson W., M.D., Luther Street, M.D., and Ronald G. Fearnow, M.D.,
"Diaper Rashes in Infancy: Studies on the Effects of Various Methods
of Laundering," Clinical Pediatrics. Vol. 12, No. 12, pp. 714-716,
December 1973.
20. Greene, V. W , "Microbiological Contamination Control in Hospitals,"
Hospitals. Vol. 44, pp. 98-103, January 1970.
21. "Hospital Study of Patient Feeding on Single Service," Single Service
Institute, p. 14 (1976).
22. Iowa, State of, "Lavs and Rules of Iowa Relating to the Operation of
Restaurants, Hotels, Food Establishments and Vending Machines Including
Sanitation Laws," Bulletin No. 56C (1974).
23. Jopke, W. H., S. D. Sorenson, D. R. Hass, and A. C. Donovan, "Air Condi-
tioning Reduces Microbiologic Levels in Hospital Dishwashing Facilities,"
Hospital Progress, pp. 22-30, August 1972.
24. Jopke, W. H., S. D. Sorenson, D. R. Hass, and A. C. Donovan, "Microbial
Contamination on Hospital Tableware," Hospital Progress, pp. 30-33,
June 1972.
25. Jordan, William E., Daniel V. Jones, and Morton Klein, "Antiviral Effec-
tiveness of Chlorine Bleach in Household Laundry Use," American Journal
of Diseases of Children. Vol. 117, pp. 313-316, March 1969.
26. Katz, J., D. Pfautsch, and P. Brandford, "Single-Use Cups and Plates: A
Review of the Available Literature," February 1976.
. S-119
-------
27. Koenig, John H., "Comparison of Some Properties of Plastic and China
Tableware," Reprinted from Ceramic Age. April 1952.
28. Litsky, Bertha Y., and Warren Litsky, "Bacterial Shedding During Bed-
Stripping of Reusable and Disposable Linens as Detected by the High-
Volume Air Sampler," He^l^hlAb^ratpry_Science, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 29-34
January 1971.
29. Livesey, Ruth Perry, "Diapering for Good Skin Care," The Journal of Prac-
tical Nursing. August 1973.
30. Lloyd, R. S., K. Kereluk, and D. G. Vogel, "Bacteriological Observations
of Hospital Commissary Environments," Hospital Management, p. 31,
August 1970.
31. Maine, State of, "Rules and Regulations Relating to Catering Establishments,-
Establishments Preparing Foods for Vending Machines Dispensing Foods
Other than in Original Sealed Packages, Eating and Lodging Places,
Recreational and Overnight Camps," Department of Health and Welfare. .
32. Mailman, W. L., "Sanitation with Modern Detergents," Proceedings of the
Third Conference on Research - American Meat Institute (1950).
33. Mailman, W. L., David Kahler, and Frederick Butt, "Studies on the Cleaning
and Sanitizing of Melamine Plastic and Vitreous China Dinnerware,"
Reprint by the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (1955).
34. Marmo, Anthony B., "Bacteria Control in the Laundry," Linen Supply News
(1969-70).
35. McNeil, Ethel, "Dissemination of Microorganisms by Fabrics and Leather,"
Developments in Industrial Microbiology. Vol. 5, pp. 30-35 (1964).
36. McNeil, Ethel, "Studies of Bacteria Isolated from Home Laundering,"
Developments in Industrial Microbiology. Vol. 4, pp. 314-318 (1963).
37. McNeil, Ethel, and Eva A. Choper, "Disinfectants in Home Laundering,"
Soap and Chemicals Specialties. Vol. 38, July-December 1962.
38. McNeil, Ethel, and Maurice Greenstein, "Control of Transmission of Bacteria
by Textiles and Clothing," Proceedings of the 47th Mid-Year Meeting of
the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, May 1961.
39. Meyers, Jack R., "Short-Time, Low-Temperature Washing Procedure Inadequate,"
Linen Supply News. June 1968.
S-120
-------
40. Mood, Eric W., "Microbiological Studies of Organisms Recovered from Paper
and Cloth Hand Towels," Tissue Division, American Paper Institute, Inc.,
September 1, 1967.
41. "National Sanitation Foundation Standard No. 3 for Commercial Spray - Type
Dishwashing Machines," National Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
April 1965.
42. "National Sanitation Foundation, Standard No. 36 for Dinnerware," National
Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan, July 23, 1970.
43. Nicholes, Paul S., "Bacteria in Laundered Fabrics," American Journal of
Public Health. Vol. 60, No. 11, pp. 2175-2180, November 1970.
44. "Ordinance and Code Regulating Eating and Drinking Establishments," Kansas
City, Missouri, Health Department (1962).
45. "Paper and Cloth Napkins," Tissue Division, American Paper Institute,
April 21, 1976.
46. "Paper and Cloth Towels," Tissue Division, American Paper Institute, April
2, 1976.
*
47. "Paper Towel - Cloth Towel: Bacteria Count Comparison," American Paper
Institute.
48. Personal Communication, Charles W. Felix, Single Service Institute, to
Ronald S. Fellman, Midwest Research Institute, May 28, 1976.
49. Personal Communication, William P. Fisher, National Restaurant Association,
to Gregory J. Ahart, General Accounting Office, January 5, 1976.
50. Personal Communication, Robert W. Foster, Single Service Institute, to ,
Richard 0. Welch, Midwest Research Institute, April 9, 1976.
t
51. Personal Communication, Jack B. Friers, Syracuse Research Corporation,
to Ronald S. Fellman, Midwest Research Institute, May 14, 1976.
52. Personal Communication (telephone), Dr. Marcus Horowitz, Communicable Dis-
ease Center, to Ronald S. Fellman, Midwest Research Institute, April 15, 1976.
53. Personal Communication, John Malloy, The Society of the Plastics Industry,
Inc., to Ronald S. Fellman, Midwest Research Institute, April 6,1976.
S-121
-------
54. Personal Communication, memorandum to Midwest Research Institute from
Single Service Institute regarding "Sanitation and Single-Service,"
April 8, 1976.
55. Personal Communication (telephone), Andy Poledor, National Restaurant
Association, to Ronald S. Fellman, Midwest Research Institute, April 16,
1976.
56. Personal Communication, Earl M. Revell, Food Products Control Division,
Iowa Department of Agriculture, to Mary L. Simister, Midwest Research
Institute, April 27, 1976.
57. Personal Communication, H. H. Wenant, Nebraska Bureau of Dairies and Foods,
to Mary L. Simister, Midwest Research Institute, April 27, 1976.
58. Peterson, M. L., "Pathogens Associated with Solid Waste Processing,"
Publications SW-49r, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1971).
59. Peterson, Mirdza L., "Soiled Disposable Diapers: A Potential Source
of Viruses," American Journal^of Public Health. Vol. 64, pp. 912-914,
September 1974.
60. "The Preventive Health Aspects of Single Service Products for Food Ser-
vice and Packaging," Resolution Adopted by the American Public Health
Association. -1
61. "Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States:
Federal Support for Restaurant Sanitation Found Largely Ineffective,"
MWD-76-42, December 1975.
62. "Resolution No. 1 Concerning U.S. EPA 'Solid Waste Management Guidelines
for Beverage Containers,"1 Adopted by the Environmental Health Associa-
tion - 62nd Annual Meeting.
63. Ridenour, Gerald M., and E< H. Armbruster, "Bacterial Cleanability of Vari-
ous Types of Eating Surfaces," American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 43,
No. 2, pp. 138-149, February 1953.
64. 'The Sanitary Aspects of Commercial Laundering," Special Report No. 224,
American Institute of Laundering, Joliet, Illinois.
65. "The Sanitary Aspects of Single-Service (Disposable) Ware," Permanent Ware
Institute (1976).
See comment Appendix J, page 36.
S-122
-------
66. "Sanitation in Home Laundering," Home and Garden Bulletin No. 97, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., October 1971.
67. Sidwell, Robert W., Glen J. Dixon, Louise Westbrook, and Florence H.
Forgiate, "Quantitative Studies on Fabrics as Disseminators of Viruses:
V. Effect of Laundering on Poliovirus - Contaminated Fabrics," Applied
Microbiology. Vol. 2, pp. 227-234, February 1971.
68. Sidwell, Robert W., Glen J. Dixon, and Ethel McNeil, "Quantitative Studies
on Fabrics as Disseminators of Viruses: I. Persistence of Vaccinia
Virus on Cotton and Wool Fabrics," Applied Microbiology, Vol. 14, pp. 55-
59 (1966).
69. Sidwell, Robert W., Glen J. Dixon, Louise Westbrook, and Florence H.
Forziati, "Quantitative Studies on Fabrics as Disseminators of Viruses:
IV. Virus Transmission by Dry Contact of Fabrics," Applied Microbiology,-
Vol. 19, pp. 950-954, June 1970. j
70. Silverberg, Alvin, and David Glaser, "Disposable Vs. Reusable Linen in.
the Nursery - Results of a Comparative Study," Hospitals, Vol. 42, pp. 58-
64, January 1, 1968.
71. Smith, P. Eugene, Ph.D., and Pauline Beery Mack, Ph.D., What You Should
Know About Laundering and Textiles, Chicago: Linen Supply Association
of America (1962).
72. Sobsey, M.D., et. al., "Enteric Viruses in Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
and Leachate: Part 1. Studies on the Survival and Fate of Enteroviruses
in Municipal Solid Waste Landfill and Leachate," A Report to Proctor
and Gamble, Department of Virology and Epidemiology, Baylor College of
Medicine, September 1974.
73. Spillard, Sister Mary Aileen, "Laundering Can Break the Infection Chain -
Or Be Just Another Link," Modern Hospital. Vol. 103, pp. 102-107(1964).
74. Spino, D. F., "Bacteriological Study of the New Orleans East Incinerator,"
Open-File Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste
Research (1971).
75. "Standards for Accrediting Diaper Services," Diaper Service Accreditation
Council, July 1973.
76. Statement of the American Restaurant China Council - "Sanitation," March
1976.
S-123
-------
77. Stout, Larry, Interview with Manager of Laundry, St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas
City, Missouri, March 15, 1976.
78. Walker, Bailus, Jr., "Bacterial Content of Beverage Glasses in Hotels,"
Environmental Health Administration, Washington, D.C., March 1976.
79. Walker, Bailus, Jr., and Melba S. Price, "The Health Profession's Attitude
Toward Single-Use Food and Beverage Containers," Environmental Health
Administration, Washington, D.C. (1976).
80. Walter, William G., and John E. Schillinger, "Bacterial Survival in
Laundered Fabrics," Applied Microbiology, Vol. 29, pp. 368-373, March
1975.
I
81. "Washing Formulas," International Fabricare Institute Laundry Reporter,
September 1972.
\
82. Wehrle, Paul F., M.D., "Food Service Procedures on Communicable Disease
Wards," Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 46, pp. 465-
467, June 1965.
83. Wilkoff, Lee J., Louise Westbrook, and Glen J. Dixon, "Factors Affecting
the Persistence of Staphylococcus aureus on Fabrics," Applied Micro-
biology, Vol. 17, pp. 268-274 (1969).
84. Wilkoff, Lu J., Louise Westbrook, and Glen J. Dixon, "Persistence of
Salmonella typhimurium on Fabrics," Applied Microbiology, Vol. 18,
pp. 256-261 (1969).
85. Witt, Cheryl Schimpf, and Jessie Warden, "Can Home Laundries Stop the
Spread of Bacteria in Clothing?" Textile Chemist and Colorist, Vol. 3,
No. 7, July 1971.
S-124
-------
Acme Cotton Products Company, Inc.
147 South Franklin Avenue
Valley Stream, New York 11582
(Ira Darbow, Vice President, Sales)
American Associated Companies
451-77 Stephen Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30302
(Mr. Charles G. Johnson,
Executive Vice President)
American Glassware Association
One Stone Plaza
Bronxville, New York 10708
(914) 779-9602
(Donald V. Reed, Managing Director)
American Hospital Association
840 North Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60611
(312) 645-9400
(George Bergstrom, Staff
Specialist, Management Resources)
American Hotel-Motel-Hospital
Linen Service
3460 Main Street
San Diego, California 92113
(714) 234-6428
(Ross G. Smith)
American Medical Association
535 North Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60610
(312) 751-6515
(Dr. Dean Fletcher, Director of
Food Science)
American Paper Institute
260 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
(212) 883-8000
(William V. Driscoll)
American Public Health Association
1015 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 467-5000
(Mr. Karl Jones, Chairman)
American Restaurant China Council
1850 East Las Tunas Road
Santa Barbara, California 93103
(805) 963-4115
(Irving J. Mills)
American Society for Hospital Food
Service Administrators
840 North Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60611
(312) 645-9499
(Mrs, Bonnie B. Miller, Secretary)
American Textile Manufacturers, Institute
1501 Johnston Building
Charlotte, North Carolina 28281
(704) 334-4734
(O.J. Miles, Director-Technical Services)
Amoco Chemicals Corporation
130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(C. E. Johnson, Vice President, Research
and Development)
Association of Food and Drug Officials
8150 Leesburg Pike
Suite 600
Vienna, Virginia 22180
(Bruce E. Phillips, Executive Director)
Avondale Mills
Sylacauga, Alabama 35150
(Donald Comer, Jr., President)
Earnhardt Manufacturing Company
1100 Hawthorne Lane
Charlotte, North Carolina 28233
(T. M. Earnhardt, III, Executive Vice
President, Sales)
1 See comment No. 2 Appendix C, page 1.
S-125
-------
Bibb Manufacturing Company
P.O. Box 4207
Macon, Georgia 31208
(William S. Manning, President)
Blair Mills, Inc.
P.O. Box 97
Belton, South Carolina 29627
(Joel T. Rice)
Broward Linen Service
P.O. Box 14610
430 S.W. Flagler Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(305) 524-0302
Alvin S. Gross
Bureau of Dairies, Food and Drugs
Department of Agriculture
1200 State Capitol
1445 K Street
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
(W. B. McCubbin)
Bureau of Health
Department of Health and Welfare
State House
Augusta, Maine 04330
(Peter J. Leadley, Director)
Burlington House
Room 1046
Merchandise Mart Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60654
(William Mandernack)
Cannon
818 Olive Street
St. Louis, Missouri
(Joel Goldman)
63101
Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc.
33 Benedict Place
Greenwich, Connecticut 06830
(Jack J. Goodman, Vice President,
Research and Development)
Chicopee Manufacturing Company
303 George Street
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
(201) 524-0400
(Louis R. Kuhlmann, Vice President
and General Manager, Nonwoven Fabrics
Division)
Dan River, Inc.
P.O. Box 6126, Station B
Greenville, South Carolina 29606
(Robert S. Small, President)
Department of Health
Robert Lucas State Office Building . .
East 12th and Walnut Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
(Norman L. Pawlewski, Commissioner)
Dundee Mills, Inc.
P.O. Box 97
Griffin, Georgia 30223
(J. M. Cheatham, President)
E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Company
Wilmington, Delaware 19898
(302) 774-6502
(Don White, Product Manager, Household
Products)
Environmental Sanitation and Food
Protection
Division of Environmental Health
and Engineering
Department of Health
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
(John E. Lobb, Director)
FabricsAmerica Corporation
Fulton Fabrics Division
P.O. Box 1726
Atlanta, Georgia 30301
(D. H. Morris III, President)
S-126
-------
Fleldcrest Mills, Inc.
Stadium Drive
Eden, North Carolina 27288
(H. A. Brown, Vice President,
Marketing)
Food and Drugs Division
Environmental Health Bureau
Texas Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, Texas 78756
(J. M. Doughty, Director)
Food Service Executives Association
2827 Rupp Drive
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805
(219) 484-1901
(Carleton B. Evans, Executive Vice
President)
General Diaper Service of New Jersey
Subsidiary of Blessings Products, Inc.
1108 Grove Street
Irvington, New Jersey 07111
(Daniel Baudouin, Vice President)
Glass Container Manufacturers Institute
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 872-1280
(Dick Powell, Director of Special
Projects)
Institutional and Service Textile
Distributors Association
305 Long Bow Road
Franklin Lakes, New Jersey 07414
(James V. McNamara, Executive
Secretary)
International Association of Milk,
Food and Environmental Sanitarians
P.O. Box 437, Blue Ridge Road
Shelbyville, Indiana 46176
(317) 392-1765
International Gotten Advisory Committee
South Agriculture Building
Washington, D. C. 20250
(J. C. Stanley, Executive Director)
International Fabricare Institute
Doris and Chicago Streets
Joliet, Illinois 60434
(815) 727-4501
(Karl M. F. Wilke, Executive Vice
President)
International Nonwovens and Disposables
Association
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(212) 686-9170 !
(Margo A. Rosenfeld)
International Society of Food Service
Consultants
P.O. Box 689
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013
(313) 335-5003
(Earl D. Triplett)
Intersociety Academy for the Certi-
fication of Sanitarians
Department of Health, Education and
Welfare
Indian Health Service
5600 Fishers Lane
Parktown Guilding >
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Hospitals
875 North Michigan Drive
Chicago, Illinois
(John Porterfield, Executive Director)
The Kendall Company
225 Franklin Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
(617) 423-2000
(William A. Ragan, Vice President
Research)
S-127
-------
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
North Lake Street
Neenah, Wisconsin 54956
(414) 729-1212
Linen Supply Association of America
975 Arthur Godfrey Road
Miami Beach, Florida 33140
(305) 532-6371
(John J. Coutney)
Linen Systems for Hospitals, Inc.
317 Linden Street
Scranton, Pennsylvania 18503
(717) 346-8761
(Vincent A. Esposito)
Manmade Fiber Producers Association,
" Inc.
1150-17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
(202) 296-6508
(Charlie W. Jones, President)
Mount Vernon Mills, Inc.
Daniel Building
301 North Main Street
Greenville, South Carolina 29602
(T. M. Bancroft, President)
.National Association of Bedding
Manufacturers
1150 17th Street, N.W.
Suite 200
Washington, D. C. 20036
(206) 383-2415
(Joseph L. Carman, III, President)
National Cotton Council of America
1918 North Parkway
Memphis, Tennessee 38112
(901) 276-2783
National Environmental Health
Association
1600 Pennsylvania
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 832-1550
(Nicholas Phlit, Executive
Director)
National Food Service Association
P.O. Box 1932
Columbus, Ohio 43216
(614) 475-3333
(Robert R. Williams, Executive
Vice President)
National Institute of Infant Services
2017 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 569-3650
(Ruth P. Livesey)
National Sanitation Foundation
NSF Building
3475 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
(313) 769-8010
(James L. Brown, Managing Director)
Opp and Micolas Cotton Mills, Inc.
Division of Johnston Industries, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 70
Opp, Alabama 36467
(G. R. Jeffcoat, President)
.Owens Illinois, Inc.
P.O. Box 1035
Toledo, Ohio 43601
(R. F. Miller, Executive Vice President
Consumer and Technical Products Group)
Parke Davis and Company
Medical-Surgical Products Division
Greenwood, South Carolina
(313) 567-5300
(Paul Creager, Jr., Vice President Medical
Surgical Products Division)
S-128
-------
Permanent Ware Institute
111 East Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(John Fanning)
Proctor and Gamble Company
301 East 6th Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45201
(James M. Edwards, Vice President
Paper Products Division)
Quip Manufacturing
18 and Jefferson Street
Carlisle, Illinois 62231
(Harold Black)
Riegel Textile Corporation
1457 Cleveland Street, Exit
Greenville, South Carolina 29606
(Robert E. Coleman, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer)
Silite, Inc.
2600 North Pulaski
Chicago, Illinois 60639
(312) 489-2600
(Dave Ettinger, General Manager)
Single Service Institute
250 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
(212) 697-4545
(Robert W. Foster, Executive
Vice President)
Society of the Plastics Industry
355 Lexington
New York, New York 10017
(212) 687-2675
(Ralph L. Harding)
South Carolina Textile Manufacturers
Association
SCN Center
1122 Lady Street
Suite 650
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(Robert M. Hicklin, President)
Spartan Mills
P.O. Box 1658
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29301
(Walter S. Montgomery, Jr., President)
Stern and Stern Textiles, Inc.
1359 Broadway
New York, New York 10018
(Mr. E. M. Stern, Jr., President)
J. P. Stevens
300 West Adams Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(Tom Philbin)
Straubel Paper Company
615 University
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54302
(414) 432-4851
(Robert E. Holl, Advertising Manager)
Sweethart Plastics, Inc.
1 Burlington Avenue
Wilmington, Maryland 01887
(Harold Plotkin, Vice President
Advertising Marketing)
Textile Research Institute
P.O. Box 625
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
(609) 924-3150
(Henry J. Jansen, Secretary-Treasurer)
Thatcher Glass Company
2 Corporate Park Drive
White Plains, New York 10604
(Dr. R. S. Arrandale, Senior Vic* Presi-
dent, Research and Engineering)
Troy Towel Supply Company, Inc.
2046 South Lafayette Street
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46803
(219) 456-2102
(Ralph M. Jones)
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Kansas City Regional Office
1 See comment No. 1 Appendix H, page 1.
S-129
-------
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Washington, D. C.
West Point Peperrel
Laclead Gas Building
720 Olive Street
Suite 612
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
(Sam Richey)
m
Weyerhaeuser Company
2525 South 336th Street
Federal Way, Washington 98002
(Bernard L. Orell, Vice President
Public Affairs)
S-130
-------
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Telephone (816) 753-7600
January 27, 1978
Mr. Charles Peterson
Office of Solid Waste
Resource Recovery Division AW-463
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Peterson:
MRI recently has been advised by EPA that a final report on our "Study of
Environmental Impacts of Disposables Versus Reusables" (MRI Project No.
4010-D) will not be published. Instead, EPA will publish the report in
draft form through the National Technical Information Service, U.S. De-
partment of Commerce. Inasmuch as a final report will not be prepared,
we would like to make a few brief comments regarding the draft report.
The MRI report fully met all the goals of the program as specifically de-
fined in the scope of the contract and as communicated during the course
of the study by the EPA project monitors. MRI's task was to gather and
present data with limited inputs regarding value judgments. Some typo-
graphical errors revealed during the review period (Vol. 1A, Table 5;
Vol. IB, Tables E7, E8, and E9) have been corrected. In each instance
involving statistical data, the correct values had been used in the
computer analysis; i.e., the errors occurred in transferring the num-
bers from the printouts to the summary tables. Thus, the corrections
do not affect the basic information presented in the draft report.
One further point of clarification: Your November 1977 letter to those
receiving copies of the draft report for review mentioned that "there
are problems with the study." As you and I discussed over the phone,
these "problems" are not with the technical content of the report but
stem from the facts that:
(1) the comments concerning the draft report have divergent
opinions; and
r-
-------
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mr. Charles Peterson
Page 2
January 27, 1978
(2) EPA will make no attempt to respond to the comments. The
letter further states that "the report is technically incomplete." The
report is incomplete only in that it is being published in draft form,
and is not a final report that incorporates responses to all the comments
submitted during the review period.
Since completion of the draft in April 1977, many companies, trade orga-
nizations, and environmental groups, among others, have had the opportunity
to review the report and submit comments to EPA. These comments addressed
such topics as the need for the study, the scope of work, the methodology
employed, the underlying assumptions, and the accuracy of the data. Under-
standably, the comments of some of the respondents lacked objectivity be-
cause many of the companies and organizations have vested interests in the
productc included in our study. In some instances, different organizations
expressed conflicting opinions on the same issues. Therefore, when evaluat-
ing the comments, the reader should take into consideration the source and
intended purpose of each comment.
This report, even in its draft version, contains useful information about
ways in which selected disposable and reusable products affect national
resources, the environment, and health problems.
Sincerely,
Richard 0. Welch
Senior Industrial Research Analyst
ROWrqa
-------
APPENDICES
REVIEW COMMENTS
As part of the normal review process, a draft of the
study was sent to 36 organizations. These organizations
had taken an active role in the preparation of the study.
Eleven review comments were received.
An examination of the comments, which express widely
divergent opinions, led to a decision to print the study
in draft form with the comments attached. This decision
was based on a review of the time and monetary resources
that would have been required to blend the review comments
and the draft study into a "final" report.
The review comments are included as separate
appendices, in alphabetical order, as follows:
Organization Appendix
American Paper Institute - Bleached
Paperboard Division A
American Paper Institute - Tissue Division B
American Restaruant China Council C
Diaper Service Accreditation Council D
Environmental Action Foundation E
Ethyl Corporation F
International Nonwoven Disposables Association G
National Wildlife Federation H
Permanent Ware Institute I
Single Service Institute J
Society of the Plastic Industry K
T-Z
-------
APPENDIX A
American Paper Institute, me.
26O Madison Avenue, New York. N.Y 1OO16/(212) 883-8OOO
cable address: AMPAPINST New York Bleached Paperboard Division
June 27, 1977
Mr. Harry Butler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
401 "M" Street, NW Room 2107
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Butler:
BE: Draft Report for MRI Project No. 4010-D, "Study of Environmental Impacts of
Disposables vs. Reusables", Volume I and n.
As you know, the American Paper Institute is the trade association that re-
presents the primary producers of pulp, paper and paperboard. The association is
divided into a number of product groups each of which represents the interests of
various sectors of the paper and paperboard industry. Our Tissue Division has been
asked to comment on the above captioned report because of its interest in paper tow-
els, paper napkins and disposable diapers. The interests of the remaining paper pro-
ducts in this Draft Report *- paper cups and paper plates - are covered at the API by
the Bleached Paperboard Division, which is part of the Paperboard Group. Although
you have not asked the Bleached Paperboard Division to comment on Has Draft Report,
we feel compelled to do so, not only because this Division was a major source of data
for the Draft Report, but also because we wish you to be fully aware that we have made
a careful review and analysis of this Draft Report and find it in need of major revision.
We have conducted this analysis in close cooperation with the Single Service
Institute, the association representing the converters of single service plates and cups,
both paper and plastic. Because we have worked so closely with the Single Service
Institute, we do not find any reason to submit a separate analysis of this Draft Report
as it relates to paper plates and cups. We fully support and endorse the comments and
recommendations of the SSI, as expressed in their covering letter dated June 27, 1977,
The accompanying analysis by Arthur D. Little of Volume I and that by the Single Ser-
vice Institute's Public Health Advisory Council of Volume II are, we feel, responsible,
accurate and comprehensive.
We thus express our strong recommendation that the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs receive these critiques with the attention they deserve and, in
turn, take the necessary steps to modify this Draft Report.
Sincerely,
;-/. /.S^''<-
Stuart J. McCampbell
Manager
SJMrv
Serujng the pulp, paper and paperboard industry
-------
APPENDIX B
American Paper Institute, inc.
26O Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y.1OO16/(212) 883-8OOO
cable address. AMPAP1NST New York
Tissue Division
June 28, 1977
Mr. Charles Peterson
Resource Recovery Division
AS463
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Peterson:
This responds to your request for comments on the Draft Report for MRI Project No.
4010-D, "Study of Environmental Impacts of Disposables vs. Reusables," Volumes I and
II.
The American Paper Institute's Tissue Division is the United States trade association for
the sanitary paper products industry. Our member companies manufacture over 80% of the
total sanitary paper products produced in the United States. Our interest on this
occasion relates to three of the products studied in 4010-D paper towels, paper napkins,
and disposable diapers.
After review and analysis of the Draft Report including careful cross-comparison with
input from a study covering the same ground conducted for us by Arthur D. Little, Inc.
we find that the MRI Draft Report is noticeably incomplete and contains a great many
errors. The net result is potentially damaging to the interests of the products with
which it deals, the companies which make them, and the consumers who use them. A parti-
cularly disturbing aspect is that the Draft Report does not state, or bring out in any
way, many key positive observations or values related to the cited sanitary paper pro-
ducts for instance:
Serving the pulp, paper and paperboard Industry
i-B
-------
. Overall perspective is not provided: no mention is made of the fact that the three
disposable paper products evaluated contribute, altogether, less than 1.5% of total
U.S. municipal solid waste nor is there any mention that these products are made
almost entirely from a wholly renewable and totally biodegradable material resource
(cellulosic fiber).
. Despite considerable editorializing, there is no observation in the Draft Report to
indicate that a majority of the most-favorable environmental/resource findings in-
the Draft Report are for the disposable products e.g., that in virtually every
instance, the disposables are shown to excel over the cloth reusables in enabling
users to conserve on our all-important energy and water resources, and are equally
superior with respect to helping to reduce air and water pollution.
. Nor does the Draft Report even attempt to set forth the many product performance and
economic benefits that the sanitary paper products offer many of which simply can-
not be matched by their reusable cloth counterparts. Some effort has been made to
provide a health and sanitation comparison of the products, but it is relatively in-
complete literature survey with no well-drawn conclusions based on a preponderance of
the available evidence.
As stated, the Draft Report contains a large number of clearly incorrect or questionable
facts and assumptions. These are summarized and discussed in detail in the attachment.
These errors inevitably present many comparisons which are misleading and potentially
damaging to the subject paper products and to the paper industry as a whole not to
mention being a source of potential embarrassment to EPA if the Draft Report should be
accepted. The magnitude of this can be illustrated by the fact that correction of the
described errors will result in totally-reversed findings of the Draft Report in approxi-
mately 20% of its basic relative impact findings.
V, -B
-------
Because the Draft Report contains many flaws particularly omissions of data which EPA
iand industry agreed at the outset would be absolutely essential to any attempt to evalu-
ate the net societal impact of disposable paper products as compared with reusable cloth
ones it clearly is inadequate as it stands to serve as a basis for policy determination.
We therefore strongly recommend that EPA declare the Draft Report invalid and unacceptable
and so advise all recipients who might otherwise quote or use parts of the Draft Report out
of context with consequent damage to EPA and industry's products. (As you know, at least
one such mis-use of the Draft Report already has appeared in the Baltimore Sun.)
If instead it should be concluded that the Project must be carried forward, then we re-
spectfully request that in equity to our industry and the consuming public, major revi-
sions must be made to the Draft Report. The errors should be corrected and the balance
of the requirements in the original contract should be fulfilled.
On the other hand, should there be a disposition to proceed with the Draft Report without
correction or revision, we ask then for an opportunity to meet with you at your early
convenience so that we might mutually agree on a plan under which we can adequately convey
correct information to those to whom the Draft Report has been exposed.
A completely detailed discussion supporting the above statements is attached. We stand
ready to review it, provide evidence and otherwise support any segment of this with you,
the research contractor, or any recipients of the Draft Report who may question or incor-
rectly interpret it.
We much appreciate the opportunity you have provided to present our findings and views on
this subject.
Sp^ftf u3Ay~>ubmitted,
KJ^2&&?24/1^
RBBrjg ซ" nwn^j. B. Bogn^T, Manager
American Paper Institute
Attachment Tissue Division
-------
American Paper Institute - Tissue Division Comments
On Draft Report for MRI Project No. 4010-D
"Study of Enviromental Impacts of Disposables Versus Reusables", Volumes I and II
iV-3
-------
American Paper Institute - Tissue Division Comments
On Draft Report for MRI Project No. 4010-D
"Study of Environmental Impacts of Disposables Versus Reusables", Volumes I and II
Our sanitary paper products industry group endorses effort to gain perspective in the
environmental and resource 'impacts area. However, we also believe the potential usefulness
of Draft Report //4010-D should be appraised in terms of several limitations that our study
of its contents have indicated. These are discussed in the following sections of this
commentary:
1. Incomplete and Misleading Nature (Pages 1-4)
2. Mistakes and Omissions (Pages 4 - 10)
3. Shortcomings in Health and Sanitation Review (Pages 11 - 16)
4. Disposable Product Performance Benefits Not Reported (Pages 17 - 18)
*
5. Economic Impacts Not Reported (Pages 18 - 19)
6. Relative Disposable/Reusable Findings as Report Stands (Pages 20 - 23)
INCOMPLETE AND MISLEADING NATURE OF DRAFT REPORT
MRI Project No. 4010-D was originated to implement EPA interest in source (or waste)
reduction meaning (as we understand it) reduction in the consumption of materials
to help conserve resources, reduce pollution, and reduce additions to the solid waste
stream. With reference to this, Project 4010-D was established to "identify product
shifts that may be desirable from an environmental point of view and to assess the eco-
nomic and other impacts of such shifts."
In an initial proposal forwarded by the research contractor for this project, Midwest
Research Institute (MRI), it was stated that paper towels, paper napkins, and disposable
diapers would be compared with their reusable cloth counterparts in part because these
i-B
-------
items "provide equivalent consumer satisfaction." During the early industry-EPA
discussions on this, it was brought out that these and other household sanitary
paper products offer product performance advantages, including particularly health
and sanitation benefits, that their cloth counterparts simply cannot match; also that
to discourage or restrict the use of such household Eanitary paper products could
inevitably create serious dislocations in the general economy, the gross national
product, and our national labor force.
As a result of these discussions, EPA revised its contract with MRI and the research
contractor was asked to not only compare the selected products in the seven specified
environmental and resource impact areas, but also to determine "relative performance
benefits," to report on the "sanitation and public health aspects of the disposable/
reusable systems," and to survey the several economic factors that would "characterize
and describe ... the disposable/reusable products industry."
It is obvious that any attempt to draw conclusions related to encouraging or discouraging
the products of an established U.S. industry must be approached in total perspective
i.e., should be .based on facts relating to all aspects of the many trade-offs involved.
However, the Draft Report that has been submitted not only contains many errors (dis-
cussed below), it does not go beyond the requested environmental impact comparisons
and" a limited amount of healthand sanitation information. It specifically does not
report comparative product performance benefits, nor any observations bearing upon
the relative economic impacts of the product areas studied.
We accordingly submit that as it stands the Draft Report is noticeably incomplete and
inadequate to serve the purpose for which it was intended. But actually the problem
goes deeper. What information is presented in the Draft Report is of questionable
utility because there are many important limitations to the methodology it necessarily
employs for example:
-------
1. Seven environmental and resource impact comparisons are made on each set of
compared products. No attempt is made (properly, we think) to assign relative
importance to each impact area, but the question remains who is qualified to
say how the findirigs should be weighted and thus combined to reach any type
of intelligent conclusion? Is energy more important today (or in 1980) than is
process solid waste? Is quantity of raw water usage more important than atmos-
pheric emissions? We believe many would answer "yes" to both questions, but
the point is who is to say so, and just how much so? Hence energy and water
remain just 2 of 7 factors studied, with implied equal weighting.
2. Assumptions are always dangerous in an analysis, but in this instance the
technique employed makes almost more use of assumptions than of verifiable
facts. To illustrate, in the so-called current "bottle battle," the number of
trips a returnable bottle makes before it is lost or broken is an absolutely
key figure, yet in the face of widely varying consumer habits, an assumption
has to be made as to a representative number for returnable bottle trips and
it may not be the right number. The same thing is true here: how many uses does
a cloth towel receive before it is washed? How many washings does a cloth diaper
receive before it is discarded? How hot does the average commercial laundry heat
its water (and thus affect the amount of energy used)? Certainly the soundness
of the assumptions made will strongly influence the results.
3. Good data are essential to a study like this, but are often virtually impossible
to obtain. Very large scale and scientific surveys are required to get good
averages when dealing with a quantification of the all-important consumer habits.
The funding of this particular project at MRI permitted little or no such broad-
scale surveying. Consumer practices and values change rapidly, and data which
3-3
-------
may appear in published literature upon which MRI has been forced heavily
to rely are usually out of date even before they appear in print.
Finally, the Draft Report is misleading because, as it stands, it contains many errors of
fact or assumption as discussed below.
MISTAKES AND OMISSIONS IN THE DRAFT REPORT
For the purpose of commenting upon the Draft Report, we have made a careful comparison
of input, calculations, and findings as between the EPA's MRI contractor and industry's-
A. D. Little, Inc. contractor, which was commissioned to make the identical study. Of
the 42 basic resource and environmental impact comparisons made (see page 20), we'found
that with but few exceptions, the relative ratings assigned to either disposables or
reusables in each comparison varied remarkably. To illustrate, our analysis shows that
the impact values assigned by MRI to either disposables or reusables in the 42 compari-
sons (84 actual values) varied by more than 10% (either way) from the values assigned
by ADL in 72 instances, or approximately 86% of the total value assignments. (This
includes value assignments which vary more than 30% from each other in 59 instances,
or 70% of the cases!)
We believe few would disagree that given the same questions and the same ground to cover,
(the exact same source for data was used in the case of the disposable products studied^
two of America's foremost research organizations could logically be expected to emerge
much closer than this to each other's findings, if indeed the findings are sufficiently
well founded to be actionable. This observation is in no way meant to be critical of
either research organization; it is rather meant to dramatize the point that the basic
concept and methodology of this type of research are highly questionable. In any event,
there is room to question that environmental and resource impact comparisons sufficiently
reliable for product policy determinations can be made with a satisfactory degree of
accuracy when the calculations must rest upon so many assumptions and be compounded by
the obvious difficulties of securing reliable data.
-------
Factual Errors
^^)ur review of the Draft Report indicates the following mechanical or data-gathering
errors. (NOTE: In a subsequent section of this commentary, a summary is provided
of those impact values which are assigned in the Draft Report which will be
totally reversed (i.e., the low or most favorable value awarded to either the disposable
or reusable product will be quite the other way around) when the mistake is corrected.)
1. In Table 5, page 11, the value for atmospheric emissions assigned to disposable
diapers is incorrectly carried forward from Appendix Table F-5. Instead of
2.232 the value carried forward should be 1.232. Correction entirely reverses
the Draft Report finding i.e., awards the low value to disposable diapers
rather than to cloth diapers washed at home.
2. Similarly, in the same Table 5, Page 11, the value for atmospheric emissions
assigned to cloth diapers/home laundered/use 25 is incorrectly carried forward
from Appendix Table F-5. Instead of 0.789 the value carried forward should be
1.789. This error significantly understates this impact for cloth diapers.
3. In assessing cloth product impacts, the Draft Report improperly bases its
estimate of fiber impact data on California statistics for cotton growing.
This is inaccurate for two reasons: (a) the average yield/acre in California
is about double the U.S. average yield (i.e., 900-1,000 Ibs./acre versus 400-500
Ibs./acre), and (b) relatively fine grades of cotton are grown in California
and these are rarely used in cloth towel, napkin or diaper production. This
deviation has major impact on the accuracy of the study findings in all seven
basic environmental comparisons for each type of product and laundering situation.
4. Similarly, the Draft Report makes no allowance for the extensive amount of
irrigation water utilized in cotton growing. Irrigation is important in every
-------
cotton growing region of the U.S. except the Texas high plains. Since
irrigation water is primarily well water or potential drinking water capable
of use for other industrial purposes, it should be considered as a substantial
resource impact in the cotton-growing process. This omission materially under-
states the Draft Report's findings of cloth "Process Water Volume."
5. The Draft Report has understated raw material flow quantities factored into the
cloth product evaluations. This results from using excessively high conversion
yields for spinning/weaving (about 8% too great) and conversion (about 2% too
great). The Draft Report uses figures apparently valid for synthetic fiber proces-
sing rather than cotton fiber processing. The uniformity of cotton fibers is far
less than synthetic fibers, meaning that cotton cannot be spun and woven as
efficiently. With these differences we estimate the Draft Report requirement
for cotton fibers is about 12% to 14% understated. This is a major difference
and it affects the validity of the Draft Report findings in all seven REPA
comparison areas for all six of the product/laundering comparisons made.
6. Again, the Draft Report's material flow estimates are too low for polyester
fiber systems employed in cloth napkin manufacture. The inaccuracy is in
relatively invalid conversion yield data. The amounts by which the MRI estimates
of requirements per pound of polyester resin produced appear too low are:
Ethylene Glycol - .06; DMT - .10; p-Xylene - .22; and Oil - .27. It is not
physically possible, for example, even assuming 100% polymerization of DMT,
to produce one pound of polyester resin from 0.97 pounds of DMT. The estimates
for p-Xylene and oil are significantly understated, possibly involving mathe-
matical mistakes. The net effect dramatically decreases the raw material and
energy impact values assigned to polyester. This affects all seven comparisons
in the home-laundered cloth napkin area.
-------
7. Related again to home-laundered cloth napkins, the Draft Report appears to
have understated the natural gas producing step significantly, failing to
recognize that nearly 6,000 Ibs. of natural gas must be processed in order
to get 1,000 Ibs. of natural gas liquids. The Draft Report assumes natural gas
containing about 17% (by weight) gas liquids, whereas current gas from off-
shore wells or very deep land wells contain less than 10% gas liquids thus
even more natural gas must be processed to get the necessary gas liquids for
ethylene production. This error affects the impact values assigned in all
seven categories for home-laundered cloth napkins. . .
8. In calculating impacts from the home laundering of cloth, the Draft Report'
incorrectly uses a washing load weight of 12 pounds for each load. A current
figure is only about half of this e.g., about 5.7 pounds. The 12 Ibs. is
approximately the rated capacity for current "large load" washers. Current
washer ownership is about 55% large load and 45% normal load. The average
mixed load for a large load machine is about 5.9 Ibs. and for a normal load
machine about 5.4 Ibs. This difference has a tremendous impact on all seven
REPA categories for all three home laundered cloth products.
9. A closely related mistake in the Draft Report, we believe, is the use of a
quantity of hot water (25 gallons) per home washing load that does not permit
a warm water rinse. Home laundry usage and practice data do not show that cold
water rinsing is significant in the care of cotton textiles. One of the principal
reasons is discussed in Volume II of Project 4010-D; on page 29 it is clearly
pointed out that cold water washing is unsatisfactory from a sanitation stand-
point. The same considerations are naturally at work in the rinsing process.
Furthermore, not all new washers make provisions for hot water washing and cold
water rinsing. A pronounced degree of warm water rinsing is thus clearly indicated,
meaning a figure for hot water usage of more like 35 gallons per load should be
-------
used i.e., 40% more hot water with consequent impact on energy usage. This
deviation profoundly affects the impact values assigned all home-laundered cloth
products in the study.
10. The Draft Report significantly understates effluent loading by waterborne wastes
from home and commercial laundering. This is because a municipality's sewage
treatment process has been considered part of the home or commercial washing
systems. This results in about an 80% reduction of detergent additives thrown"
into effluent, and, we believe, is wrong: the point source discharge from
homes or laundries is untreated water thrown onto the environment and we feel
logic says it should be evaluated with gross, not net, impact values. This .
understates the Water Pollution impact values assigned to cloth reusable products
in every comparison area.
11. In computing Process Solid Waste for cloth products, the Draft Report does not
appear to make provision for packaging material used for either commercial or
home laundry detergent additives. This omission understates the Process Solid
Waste value for all home or commercially laundered cloth products in the study.
12. The Draft Report has overstated atmospheric emission data for all disposable
products. It has taken the quantity of air pollutants per 1,000 pounds of
production as reported by upwards of 60% of the producing plants in an industry
survey and proportionately increased this figure to 100%. At the same time the
Draft Report states it assumes the non-reporting mills have the same available
discharge as the reporting mills. This clearly is a statistical or projectional-
type calculating mistake.
13. The Draft Report is also questionable in totaling the pounds of various types
of atmospheric emissions without relative weighting, thus treating all as having
-------
the same degree of impact. This appears to be wrong because Federal ambient air
standards assign different health ratings to different type emissions, ranging
on the values scale from 1 for carbon monoxide to 125 for hydrocarbon.
14. The REPA impacts for disposables are overstated in the towel data for situations
in which a cloth towel is used more than once between washings. This traces
to an apparent mistake in MRI methodology. In computing data in this instance,
MRI divided total laundering impacts by the number of uses between washing, but
did not also divide the calculated total manufacturing impacts by the same number
of uses.
15. Three discrepancies made in figuring commercial laundry energy requirements for
washing cloth products, apparently understating them in a major way, are noted
in Appendix E. First, the temperatures specified as standard for laundering
kitchen towels in Table #-4 are much higher than those subsequently used to
calculate BTU's to heat the water in Table #-5. If the higher temperatures are
used in the calculation, the energy requirements are increased by 60%!
Second, the natural gas requirements for commercial laundering as shown on Table
E-6 are different than those shown on Tables E-7 through E-9. Third, the energy
calculations shown on Table E-5 do not agree with those implied in Tables E-6
through E-9.
Invalid Assumptions
There also appear to be at least two seriously invalid assumptions used to prepare the
Draft Report:
1. Perhaps the most misleading assumption made in the Draft Report is that related
to the findings on energy consumption for the disposable products. MRI has
-------
concluded that wood wastes (principally bark, hogged wood, and black liquor)
when burned should be counted in with energy consumej) on an energy equivalent
basis rather than to be included in raw material the same as all other wood used
to make the disposable products. The Draft Report reasoning seems to be that
wood wastes are an energy source in the same way that plastics feedstocks are.
It is true that pulping operations burn wood wastes to provide process energy,
but this hardly means that this waste is confirmed as a fuel source; the waste
is burned primarily to recover costly pulping chemicals and to avoid having to"
dispose of the waste stream in some other manner.
Further, each pound of wood waste burned reduces the demand for purchased energy
in the pulping operation by about 7,000 BTU's. Since most of the purchased energy
is derived from scarce hydrocarbon resources, and wood wastes are plentiful,
equating energy from wood waste to energy from hydrocarbons distorts reality.
The only way a fair picture would be provided would be to count wood wastes as
a raw material resource.
Clearly, if a pulp mill is brought on stream or closed down, the impact felt on
the national energy pool is described by the purchased energy requirements
not by total energy requirements. To charge a process for internally-generated
energy derived from waste unfairly penalizes the process relative to those which
use only purchased energy.
2. Another assumption we feel is invalid relates to the computing of commercial
laundry energy requirements in the Draft Report. The data used seem unusually
optimistic, apparently being based on "theoretical" energy requirements derived
from equipment/process specifications secured form the Linen Supply Association
of America. If so, the energy requirements are understated because these
theorectical calculations are rarely achieved 'in actual field operations.
-------
SHORTCOMINGS IN HEALTH AND SANITATION REVIEW
*The Draft Report does not present a well-rounded discussion or evaluation of the health
and sanitation aspects of paper towels, paper napkins, and disposable diapers as com-
pared with their reusable cloth counterparts. Attention is focussed almost entirely
upon describing "concerns" that have been raised about the products, with little
effort to present health and sanitation benefits that one or the other type of
product uniquely or importantly offers. In addition, the Draft Report:
1. Fails to survey the available literature adequately,
2. Fails to examine all aspects of certain "concerns",
*
3. Has not carefully examined some of the quoted research in order "Tfo avoid
using findings in a misleading way,and
4. Fails to draw conclusions based on a pre-ponderance of evidence.
Failure to Survey Literature Adequately
Nearly half of the section in the Draft Report on diaper health "concerns" deals with poten-
tial skin irritation, or rash, as associated with disposable diapers or related to
bacteria resulting from inadequate laundering of cloth diapers. Only two references
are cited relative to the causes of diaper rash, yet over the last 50 years there are
probably a few hundred published papers dealing with this subject.
In a similar vein, at least six causes of diaper rash other than bacteria are listed,
yet no references are cited for these, nor is there any discussion of their relative
importance in the overall rash question.
-------
Also, in discussing bacterial and viral concerns related to diaper disposal in solid
waste, only five references are cited. There are at least 16 other references (see
Appendix) which would have been surveyed and would have provided much more perspective
on the question.
Failure to Examine All Aspects of Certain "Concerns"
An example of this is found in the lengthy discussion devoted to the "general concern
over the public health consequences of fecal matter in solid waste." This is a reason-
able question to raise and study with respect to which the disposable diaper industry
has sponsored considerable research at leading universities and professional research
institutions, resulting in a preponderance of evidence that no public health problems
of significance are presented. However, the observation we wish to make here is that
there is no mention at all in the Draft Report of similar-type public health concerns
related to storing soiled cloth diapers in homes (awaiting laundering or diaper service
pick-up) or related to the flushing of infant soil into toilets and sewers.
It is a well established fact that most sewage treatment is very poor at removing some
viruses. Even good secondary sewage treatment facilities discharge 1,000 to 50,000 virus
units per day per person served, leaving 5 to 10% of sewage virus in the effluent dis-
charged to rivers, lakes or oceans. The result is that viruses are often found in sewage
treatment residues, such as the sewage sludge that frequently is spread on dumps or over
tilled land. There are many published research studies on this, yet none are referenced,
analyzed nor reported in the Draft Report.
Misleading Use of Some Findings
An example is found at page 40 of the Draft Report, relating to a study which is quoted
to the effect that the incidence of diaper rash is significantly greater with disposable
diapers than with cloth diapers. The facts are that the quoted study was conducted
to help determine the economics of disposable vs. cloth diapers. The included rash
-------
lata was accumulated in an incidental and non-controlled manner, and as a virtual
afterthought to the study. The authors stated that the rashes associated with
disposables were "... caused, undoubtedly, by diaper tightness" as the result of
use of diapers too small for the baby's size. But nothing to this effect is mentioned
in the Draft Report.
An additional example of less than careful checking and reporting appears in the four
pages devoted by the Draft Report to the diaper laundry service industry "Accreditation
Program" which is operated by that industry's trade association group, the National
Institute of Infant Services. This program is represented as requiring very high standards
in the commercial washing of cloth diapers, an observation which is doubtless correct.
However, although the Draft Report indicates that something "less than half" of the NIIS
member services are so accredited, the facts (according to NIIS literature) are that
not more than a quarter of its more than 100 coast-to-coast members are so accredited.
This is an easy-to-ascertain fact and reporting it correctly would have a significant
bearing on the degree to which the commercial laundering of cloth diapers can be said
to be highly efficient from a sanitation standpoint. More importantly, the Draft
Report fails to make any mention of the fact that cloth diapers washed commercially
comprise less than 10% of all diapering done today. In other words, no perspective is
supplied as to the relative importance of the commercial laundering of cloth diapers.
Failure to Draw Conclusions Based on a Preponderance of Evidence
The Draft Report presents a series of observations from the review of literature and
contacts with interested parties, but fails to draw conclusions based on the judged
weight of the evidence. Examples follow:
Towels and Napkins; After nearly 40 pages of reporting findings on cloth products
from the standpoint of potential for contamination, the Draft Report states "in view of
-------
Che lack of substantive evidence establishing cloth towels, cloth napkins and sponges
as sources of pathogenic organisms, to which normal exposure would likely cause
infection, MRI can formulate no definitive conclusion as to the relative health
and sanitation status of paper versus cloth towels versus sponges, or paper versus
cloth napkins. This conclusion is reached despite the following previous quotes:
. Page 2 "Scientific studies have shown that fabrics can harbor microorganisms
which can be transmitted from person to person."
Page 3 "The microorganisms may survive for a relatively long period of time
under favorable conditions."
Page 6 "Other authors have reported cases of illness directly traced to
contaminated fabrics, etc."
Page 7 "A cloth towel used in the kitchen for wiping kitchen spills can
easily be contaminated by hand contact," and "spilled foods or liquids can
provide 'excellent media which can support the growth of bacteria."
Page 8 From a study entitled "A Bacteriological Investigation of Towels",
"The phenomena of communicability and invasiveness are complex and controlled
by many factors, but, other things being equal, the contact with large numbers
of potential pathogens must obviously increase the chance of infection."
Page 36 "But the paper towel, used only once and then discarded, would
virtually eliminate this potential for cross-contamination."
Page 36 "In the home setting, cloth napkins are often used for several days
before they are laundered, creating increased potential for bacterial transmission."!
-------
in with the above and similar observations is a lengthy discussion of
laundering cloth products, with respect to which the Draft Report says "the
inherent potential for disease transmission can be virtually eliminated by proper
laundering techniques." This quote is shortly followed, however, by a significant
quote attributed to the USDA "Neither the water temperature nor the detergents used
under today's home laundering conditions can be relied on to reduce the number of
bacteria in fabrics to a safe level" and (2) references to several studies which,
taken altogether, illustrate that it is quite questionable how many commercial
laundries utilize water that has been heated to the extent that laundry standards-
setting bodies recommend for assured bactericidal effectiveness.
To summarize on this point, despite having documented the unquestionable tendency
of fabrics to collect and harbor pathogens, despite having shown that most home
laundering is relatively ineffectual in eliminating the pathogens, despite having
reflected that even the more efficient commercial laundries may not regularly
achieve laundering conditions required to do the same, despite having reported
the relatively very low bacterial counts on household sanitary paper products,
the Draft Report does not even acknowledge in its conclusion on towels and napkins
that the weight of evidence thus points to the considerable risks of human cross-
contamination with cloth towels, while a paper towel used once and discarded
eliminates virtually any chance at all of this. Indeed, the stated Draft Report
conclusion simply says, as discussed above, that "no definitive conclusions" can
be formulated. This has to reflect either bias or relative failure to cross-evaluate
the available evidence.
Diapers: The same suggestion of bias or perhaps failure to amply weigh the evidence
is reflected in the Draft Report write-ups on the question of the relative safety
of disposing of soiled diapers in solid waste. After quoting studies indicating
that viral pathogens can be present in infant soil contained in disposable diapers
-------
(about which there is no argument) and then quoting some (but not all) of the
research sponsored by the disposable diaper industry at leading American universities,
the Draft Report states that "in view of the lack of consistency in the published
literature ... no clear understanding of the public health threat represented by
viruses in solid waste can be reached." This is despite (1) the fact that in the
three studies cited, one investigator was able to detect viruses from a rapidly
saturated landfill but none were able to detect viruses in leachates from normally-
saturated landfills; and (2) the fact that all the authors cited agree that viruses .
and bacteria are present in municipal solid waste, and all found no viruses in
normal leachate samples. Actually, there is even more research to support these
findings than was cited in the Draft Report. In any event, the logical conclusion
is that while there is some likelihood of finding viruses where unusually rapid
leaching takes place, there is negligible likelihood where normal leaching occurs.
Along similar lines, the Draft Report contains conflicting statements. On page 57
it says that "at 0.02% by weight, fecal contamination from diapers does not add an
amount of either bacteria or viruses in the leachate which can be detected over
the background level." Yet on Page 58, discussing the same subject, the Draft Report
says "However, the actual bioload from the source is yet unclear ... Therefore, no
final statement on the public health significance of discarding disposable diapers
into the solid waste stream can be made."
j
To summarize, while for many questions of this nature no final statement is ever
quite in order, it seems unquestionable that the Draft Report, to accurately assess
the available evidence, should bring out and comment upon the preponderance of evidence
that indicates the disposal of soiled diapers in solid waste has not introduced any
public health problems of significance.
-------
DISPOSABLE PRODUCT BENEFITS NOT REPORTED
As mentioned earlier, it is incorrect to assume that the usage benefits afforded a
^Ponsumer by a household sanitary paper product will be the same as are afforded by a
cloth product counterpart. Therefore, in making an overall cross-comparison of the
two types of product here under review, it is mandatory that the unique or "plus"
benefits available only with one or the other product be factored in. The following
will illustrate many singular disposable product benefits that have not been reported
and thus reflect relative failure to consider the consumer interest:
1. Paper towels offer a much wider range of uses than cloth towels. Research with
consumers shows that there are at least 20 major and distinct household uses for
paper towels, whereas cloth towels are considered beneficial and appropriate
almost entirely for body and dish drying. Particularly unique uses of paper towels
are for wiping up grease or messy spills, draining greasy or wet foods, and lintless
cleaning of windows or mirrors. A consumer would have to keep several cloth towels;
at hand to even come close to the performance versatility of a roll of paper towels,
and the cloth towels would not suit many purposes at all.
Paper towels offer unmistakably clean surfaces for tasks where this is especially
important. They are available virtually free of microorganisms where this is
necessary or desirable. This contrasts with cloth towels and sponges, which tend
to remain wet between uses and thus favor growth of microorganisms (salmonella,
etc.) on their surfaces.
2. Paper napkins have no practical alternative when it comes to being fM utilitarian
and economical for use in the home, restaurants or institutions. For example,
paper napkins cost food service operators about $1.65 a thousand; the cloth
alternative would run to $40-$50 a thousand considering initial costs, laundering,
pilferage. The same economics are at work in home situations, where paper napkins
cost only about 2/5th of a cent versus more than 3
-------
Paper napkins also offer the spill and grease ansorbency advantages that are
true also for paper towels, and they eliminate health risks that can Be present
with improperly-washed cloth.
3. Disposable diapers are used for over half of all diaper changes in the U.S",
because they offer unique Benefits. Special construction enables them to keep
babies' skin drier, eliminating need to "double diaper" and requiring fewer
changes. They present clean, fresh surfaces each time with no risk of carry-over
microorganisms from improper laundering, By eliminating laundering time they..
help many mothers to hold jobs, and by their very availability they are a boon
to many inner-city mothers without laundering facilities. Their many advantages
over cloth diapers are recognized by over 3,300 U.S. hospitals from coast to
coast which now use the disposable product in their OB or pediatric wards. Approxi-
mately 75% of all babies born today in U.S. hospitals are first diapered in dispos-
able diapers.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS NOT REPORTED
The research, contractor for Project No. 401O^D has not furnished any comparative data
on subject disposable and reusable projects of an economic nature. Clearly no attempts
to cross-evaluate relative benefits and contribution to society can be soundly made without
factoring in such considerations- as relative cost to use the competitive products
including laundering, contribution of the particular product category to total employ-
ment, the gross national product, etc.
Thus it is that the Draft Report does not bring out such considerations as thes.e:
1. Consumer usage of paper towels, paper napkins and disposable diapers has created
a multi-Billion dollar industry which provides employment directly for at least
-------
30,000 persons. The paper towels, paper napkins and disposable diaper industries
have an estimated fixed capital investment of over one billion dollars, with an
annual new capital investment rate of over 100 million dollars annually. Any
restriction on this activity will not only seriously affect consumer interest,
but will have obvious implication on our national economy.
2. The quality of U.S. life as reflected in economic considerations is vastly
affected by household sanitary paper products. Working women in our economy
increasingly rely on disposable paper products to enable them to function as both
homemaker and wage earner. Working mothers find disposable diapers a virtual
necessity. The economic structure of most food service operations in cafeterias,
luncheonettes, institutions, et al, mandates the use of sanitary paper products
such as towels and napkins:
3. Sanitary paper products are often the most economical alternative for many common
household tasks. As one example, according to figures prepared by A. D. Little,
Inc., when allowance for mothers' time and effort to launder cloth diapers is
taken into consideration (even at the minimum wage scale), cloth diapers laundered
at home are found to be the most expensive option for baby diapering about
12.3c each, while disposable diapers will cost the least (about 9.3c each) and
cloth diapers commercially-laundered somewhat more (about 9.8c each).
Many additional aspects to the economic comparison of disposable and reusable products
could be cited, but the important point is that as the Draft Report stands, no economic
mentions or comparisons are made, and thus the consumer interest is particularly ignored
and potentially impaired.
-------
RELATIVE DISPOSABLE/REUSABLE FINDINGS IN DRAFT REPORT
It is of particular importance to note that even before the correction of the many errors
.hat penalize disposables in the Draft Report, it still shows the majority of lower ^P
(most favorable) resource and environmental impact values for the sanitary paper
products. As noted earlier, seven selected resource and environmental comparisons
were made on three paper products, with a breakdown in the cloth napkin and diaper areas
as between home-laundered items on the one hand and commercially-laundered on the other
hand. There is also a breakdown in the cloth towel area to reflect comparison when the
towel is used just once between washings (the case when the towel has been stained
or heavily soiled when used), and when the cloth towel is used more than once between
washings (five uses is calculated in the Draft Report). Hence there are a total of
42 basic comparisons. (This excludes the findings quoted in the Draft Report for
sponges, which simply are not a widely-used nor practical alternative for several of
the most important uses of paper or cloth towels in the kitchen e.g., drying dishes,
->r hands or face, etc.).
Among the basic comparisons, the Draft Report finds lower (most favorable) environmen-
tal/resource impacts for the disposable paper products in 21 of the instances and
one additional measurement is a "tie." Thus the disposable products enjoy half or more
of the plus values.
Of more significance, should the Draft Report comparisons be revised to correct the
errors and omissions discussed above, according to our calculations, household disposable
paper products would emerge with the lower impact values in apparently another 8
additional measurements. This would give the three household paper products a total
of 29 of the 42 most favorable ratings.
-------
A comparison of these net findings by individual product categories and breakdowns
is shown below:
Towels Napkins Diapers
1 5 Home Commercially Home Commercially
Use Uses Laundered Laundered Laundered Laundered Total
As Draft Report Stands:
Disposable lower impact
Reusable lower impact
Allowing for Corrections:
Disposable lower impact
Reusable lower impact
5
2
5
2
1*
6
5
2
6
1
5
2
5
2
6
1
5
2
5
2
0
7
3
4
22
20
29
13
*This comparison actually is a "tie."
As indicated, with revision of the Draft Report along lines discussed, five of the six
category comparisons will net out in disposable' favor by a 5 to 2 or larger margin of
juperiority. A brief discussion by product types follows:
Paper Towels
As noted earlier, when cloth towels are used once between washing (as would be
the case when towels are used to clean up "spills", etc.)ป the Draft Report shows
that the alternative, paper towels, has the lowest or most favorable REPA values
in 5 instances and the cloth towels in just 2 instances.
However, when the cloth towel is used 5 times (or more) between uses, the Draft
Report suggests that the cloth towel would emerge with the most favorable values
in 6 instances and tie in the seventh instance. The A. D. Little, Inc. analysis
shows that this is wrong; and that when the Draft Report is corrected, 4 of the Draft
Report findings will be completely reversed (the energy, process water volume, water
pollution, and process solid waste comparisons). Thus even in the case of cloth
-------
towels used 5 times between washings, paper towels emerge with the lowest or
most favorable environmental ratings in 5 of the comparisons and cloth towels
in 2.
Napkins
The Draft Report awards paper napkins a total of 6 lowest or most favorable environ-
mental/resource impact rating advantages over cloth napkins laundered at home. Our
analysis shows that in one instance (Raw Materials) MRI has understated the value
computed for the disposable products. This traces to the invalid assumption dis-
cussed in point #6 on page 6, and when corrected will revert the disposable
product advantage over cloth to a 5-2 ratio.
In the comparison of paper napkins with cloth napkins laundered commercially, our
anlaysis shows the net finding on most favorable impact values for the disposable
product is affected in reverse. The advantage shown for reusable napkins
by the Draft Report in the raw material area is reversed, so that the overall count
becomes 6-1 in favor of paper napkins rather than 5-2.
Diapers
The Draft Report shows disposable diapers, as compared with cloth diapers laundered
at home, to have lowest/most favorable impact values in 5 of the 7 environmental/
resource categories. Correction of the Draft Report as discussed will add to the
degree of advantages over cloth in all categories, but will not change this favorable
ratio.
In the commercially-laundered cloth diaper area, corrections of the Draft Report
will cause 3 of the findings reverse in favor of the disposable product (energy,
A
waterborne waste, and process water volume), bringing the count on lowest or most
favorable values to 3 for disposables and 4 for cloth.
-------
As mentioned earlier, these impact areas wherein the disposable product is rated
less favorably are ones in which significant additional factors should be taken
into consideration. The first area is raw materials, wherein wood from trees is
the basic resource and is a totally renewable resource. The second area is solid
waste, wherein the basic material is completely biodegradable. This leaves
only atmospheric emissions as an area of apparent disposables deficiency, but even
this is challengeable (see pages 5 & 8). In any event, a very key point is that
commercially-laundered cloth diapers account for less than 10% of the total diapering
market, meaning that 90% or more of the consumer usage of diapers falls into the
area where cloth, if used, is laundered at home and is the area in which the
disposable diaper emerges with a 5 to 2 margin of environmental/resource superiority.
To summarize, the cloth reusable products emerge overall with lesser impacts in the
raw material and post-consumer solid waste comparisons. This comes as no surprise
when it is remembered that single-use products are being compared with multiple-use
items. However, not only do the disposables show lesser impacts in a larger number of
the comparisons including the important areas of energy and water usage but, as
mentioned above, the raw materials used are a totally renewable resource, and the basic
material (cellulose) is totally biodegradable.
Further perspective is furnished by the facts that (1) the three sanitary paper products
under consideration contribute only about 1.5% by volume to total municipal solid waste;
and (2) wood fibers used in these products amount to only a little over 2% of the total
fiber used by the paper industry. As much as 20% of these total fiber requirements come
from waste paper, and approximately 30% come from sawmill and logging residues. This is
one of the highest ratio^ at this time, in the use of recovered materials in all United
States industry.
-------
REFERENCES
Most facts used in this commentary are supported fay the following research
conducted by the American Paper Institute on the disposables/reusables questions posed
by EPA Project No. 4010-0:
Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Selected Disposable Vs.
Reusable Diapers, Napkins and Towels, A. D. Little. Inc., March 1977.
Comparative Analysis of Selected Characteristics of Disposable and
Reusable Towels, Napkins, and Diapers, A. D. Little, Inc., three separate
volumes prepared in March and April 1977.
A Comprehensive Study of Consumer Usage and Attitudes Concerning Paper
PFoducts, Market Facts. Inc., March 1977.
A Comprehensive Study of Consumer Usage and Attitudes Concerning Dispos-
able Diapers, Market Facts, Inc.', November 1976.
Exploratory Consumer Evaluation Attitudes Towards Paper Towelsand Napkins,
Consumer Diagnostics, Inc., October 1976.
Other facts used in this commentary are supported by research or experience of API-
Tissue Division member companies.
In all cases, inquiries pertaining to this privately-funded research -- most of it
conducted by leading U. S. independent research organizations -- should be addressed
to American Paper Institute - Tissue Division, Mr. Roger B. Bognar, Manager, 260
Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10016.
6/28/77
-------
APPENDIX
Some Additional Literature References on Microorganisms
and Viruses in Relationship to Solid Waste
1* Cromwell, D. L. , "Identification of 1'icroflora Present in Sanitary Landfills,"
M. S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Korgantown (1965).
2. Cook, H. Aป, et al., "Microorganisms in Household Refuse and Seepage Water from
Sanitary Landfills," Proc. West Virginia Acad. Sci., 39, 10? (196?).
3ซ Peterson, M. L., and Stutzenberger, P. J,, "Microbiological Evaluation of
Incinerator Operations," Applied Microbiol., 18 8 (1969),
4, Qasim, S. R., and Burchinal, J. C., "Leaching from Simulated Landfills," Jour.
Water Poll. Control Fed., 42, 371 (1970).
5. Peterson II. L. , and KLee, A. J., "Studies on the Detection of Salmonella in
Municipal Solid Waste and Incinerator Residue," Intern. Jour. Environ. Studies,
2, 125 (1971).
6. Peterson, M. L., "The Occurrence and Survival of Viruses in Municipal Solid
Wastes," Doctoral Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1971).
7. Gaby, W. L., "Evaluation of Health Hazards Associated iri.th Solid Waste Sevrage
Sludge Mixtures," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Report, Contract
No. 68-03-0128 (1972).
8. Smith, L., "A Brief Evaluation, of Two Methods for Total and Fecal Coliforms in
J.funicipal Solid Waste and Related Materials," U. S. Environmental protection
Agency, Open File Report (1972).
9ป Engelbrecht, R. S., et alป, "Biological Properties of Sanitary Landfill Leachate,"
in Virus Survival in Water and V.'asteuater Systems, J. ?. vlalina and B. P. Sagik
(eds.), Water Res. Symp. Uo. 7ป Center for Research in Water Resources, The
University of Texas at Austin, 201 (1974).
10. Glotsbecker, R. A., "Presence and Survival in Landfill Leachate and Migration
Through Soil Columns of Bacterial Indicators of Fecal Pollution," II. S. Thesis,
University. of Cincinnati, Cincinnati (1974).
11. Sobsey, M. D., Personal Communication, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
(1974).
12. Sobsey, !!. D., et alซ, "Development of Methods for Detecting Viruses in Solid
Waste Landfill Leachates," Applied Microbiol., 28, 232 (1974).
13ป Novello, A. L., "Poliovirus Survival in Landfill Leachate and Migration Through
Soil Columns," LI. S. Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio (1974).
14ป Engelbrecht, R. S. , and Amirhor, P., "Biological Impact of Sanitary Landfill
Leachate on the Environment," Presented at Second Nat. Conf. on Complete Water
Reuse, Amer. Inst. Chem. Zing. , Chicago (1975)*
15. Sobsey, H, D. , et al., Studies on the Survival and Fate of Enteroviruses in an
Experimental Model of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill and Leachate," Applied
Hicrobiol., 30, 565 (1975).
16. Gaby, W, L., "Evaluation of Health Hazards Associated with Solid Waste/Sei.-age
SliH^e nixv.r-'cr," u. S. Enviror.T.errt.-~i "" t-ecticm .\-.i;icy, Horor-t ^PA-670/' ^-32
-------
APPENDIX C
AMERICAN RESTAURANT CHINA COUNCIL, INC.
328 N. PITT STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA. 22314
PHONE (703) 548 2588
June 24, 1977
Mr. Charles Peterson
Project Officer
Disposables Reusables Contract (AW-4-6J)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Washington, B.C. 204-60
Dear Mr. Peterson:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
draft report comparing selected disposable and
reusable products as submitted to you by the
Midwest Research Institute.
It is our hope that our comments will be con-
sidered in the preparation of the final report
and that, in particular, our recommendations on
continued studies be given careful consideration.
Sincerely,.
'/Irving /J/. Mills
'' Executive / Director
Encl.
AMERICAN MANUFACTURES OF VITRIFIED CHINA FOR THE FOOD SERVICE INDUSTRY
MEMBER:
BUFFALO CHINA, INC , BUFFALO, N.Y.
CARIBE CHINA CORP., VESA BAJA, PUERTO RICO. _
JACKSON VITRIFIED CHINA CO., FALLS CREEK, PA. '
MAYER CHINA, BEAVER FALLS, PA.
SHENANGO CHINA, NEW CASTLE, PA.
STERLING CHINA CO , EAST LIVERPOOL, OHIO.
SYRACUSE CHINA CORR, SYRACUSE, N.Y.
WALKER CHINA CO , BEDFORD, OHIO.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF
DISPOSABLES VERSUS EEUSABLES
Irving J. Mills
TTvo f* Ti ~f~ "i "\Tf* T)"i y*o (* *H" Q T*
AMERICAN RESTAURANT CHINA COUNCIL, INC.
328 N. Pitt Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-
(703) 548-2588
June 24, 1977
-------
We have arranged our comments in the order you requested
in the transmittal letter covering the draft report
dated April 1, 1977 entitled "Study of Environmental
Impacts of Disposables versus Reusables."
! FACTUAL ERRORS
1. Volume 1A, REPA, printed page 14, Cold drink
containers (9 fluid ounces), references made
to. this information having been submitted by
the American Restaurant China Council. The
nomenclature of "cold drink container" is
non-existent in our industry. We do not claim
authorship nor are we a source of reference
for the phrase.
.2. Volume II, Health Considerations, printed page
125, the correct address of the American
Restaurant China Council, Inc. should read
328 N. Pitt Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314,
(703) 548-2588, Irving J. Mills.
II. INVALID ASSUMPTION
That public health and sanitation considerations
have a valid place in a study originally contracted
for the purpose of studying environmental impacts
of disposables versus reusables.
We cannot ignore the fact that an unknown amount of
taxpayers money was wasted because of the pressure
applied by disposable interests which aborted and
modified the original contract #68-01-2995-
-------
Undoubtedly the lack of an economic study on post
consumer waste is the result of such deviation of
purpose.
Fortunately, on printed page 10?, Volume II, the
entire matter of health considerations in dispos-
ables versus reusables was laid to rest in the
quotation,
"Questions involving the health effects of
environmental bioloads are particularly
prone to uncertainty and the health impact
of various environmental levels of micro-
organisms on food or beverage contact sur-
faces are often unknown, and infrequently
unknowable."
What is now needed is to go back to the intent of
the original contract and in much greater depth.
III. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We feel this report totally fails to explore the
original core issue - THE SERIOUSNESS OP AMERICA'S
SOLID WASTE PROBLEM AND ITS TOTAL COST TO THE
NATION.
We believe, too, an applied assumption has been
made which is invalid when the economic aspects
of the .work done by MRI are not presented "due
to lack of data".
No study of disposables versus reusables will
ev,er be useful to the President, Congress, and
-------
the general public until the, full cost impact
is studied in depth. For' example, the economic
costs of post consumer waste must be known to
anyone attempting an objective study of dispos-
ables versus reusables. The economic study
called for in the original contract must go
forward and be expanded.
The Pelham, New York, landfill is an excellent
example of improper land disposal practices.
This mountain of garbage peaks at 140 feet at
the present time and covers 75 acres. It is
being fed at a rate of five million pounds of
garbage daily.
The cost of this open dump economically, as
well as environmentally, to say nothing of its
safety hazard, should be studied in detail as
a current "today problem" with far reaching im-
plications of taking place tomorrow in other
communities.
We believe that the encouragement of reliance
on high technology forms of solid waste dis-
posal, in effect encourages the growth of solid
waste. In any study on the environmental impacts
of disposables versus reusables that, too, must
be considered.
Solid waste reduction, not disposal, is the key
issue. Any objective study should recognize
that it takes 6900 disposable plates to do the
job of one single reusable plate. That is simple,
real world solid waste management everyone can
understand.
-------
2. The energy crisis cannot be divorced from a
study of disposables versus reusables and we
strongly suggest the inclusion of a meaning-
ful energy discussion in future studies.
Specifically;
A. Establish a list of our nations'
natural resources based on current
available technology.
'B. Determine our annual usage of these
natural resources for both disposables
and reusables.
C. Study our resource availability and
product use recommending to the nation
allocations of energy and raw materials
based on a best use concept.
D. Establish a "watch dog" committee that
would keep score and report to the
nation the products that are a serious
drain on our most vital resources, such
as petroleum and forest products.
E. Develop an oversight committee that
will keep tabs on the social and environ-
mental cost in total of producing and
disposing of various products, such as
disposables and reusables.
We are not recommending nationalization of our
vital resourcesxor even that the Environmental
Protection Agency unilaterally set up oversight
committees. We do, however, believe it mandatory
that the study undertaken in the original contract
-------
be explored to a logical conclusion as out-
lined above.
3. V/e recommend that sizeable increases be made
in the allocation of funds for research into
all of the above vital areas and that the
results be widely publicized. The voters of
this country must be shown there is no such
thing as a "throw away". IF THE COST Off DIS-
POSING OF DISPOSABLES WAS FART OF THE ORIGINAL
PRICE TAG, THE ATTITUDE 01? THIS NATION TOWARDS
DISPOSABLES WOULD, WE SUBMIT, CHANGE PERCEPTIBLY.
Further, the Environmental Protection Agency, under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, of 1976,
must work with the various states to offer financial
assistance in implementing that law. It seems to
us that there should be some provision to insure that
while the federal government is giving funds to the
states for resource conservation, the state govern-
ments are not spending their own money in a counter-
productive manner in .the name of environmental health
programs.
In summary, we believe that the contracted study performed
by Kidwest Research Institute, was a reasonable and objective
first step in understanding the issues involved. It is, in
our opinion, regretable that the original contract was modi-
fied with the result that emphasis was shifted, distorted,
and aborted from the original purpose. Now that the advo-
cates of disposables and single service merchandise have
had their health considerations explored, it is time to
return to the fundamentals; environmental impact, solid
waste accumulation, resource availability, and a study of
the social and economic price the nation is really paying
for a "throw away" society.
-------
DIAPER SERVICE ACCREDITATION COUNCIL
Ruth P. Livesey
Executive Director T . . ,ซ-,-,
June 14, 1977
Mr. Charles Peterson
Project Officer
Disposables/Reusables Contract (AW-463)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Peterson:
We thank you for the opportunity to review the study of impact on
the environment of disposables vs reusables. Our interest, as you
can readily understand, lies in diapering and we will confine our
comments there.
Our consultants wish to compliment MRI for the fine achievement in
putting together this document. We look forward to its dissemination.
We do have a few suggestions.
The formula furnished by the American Institute of Laundering must date
back many years. Boric acid rinse has not been used for diapers in
many years. There were cases of severe skin burn from this material
and at least one death. Over the years other means of sanitizing have
been found without the resulting harm to the infant.
We would like to suggest that the discussion of diaper processing be
consolidated in one area. In that discussion, one very significant
and important part of the approved present-day treatment has been
omitted in the text. I refer to impregnation of the fabric with an
EPA-approved bacteriostat.
Sterility is commendable in any diaper prepared for storage. But this
sterility is fleeting the moment the diaper is exposed to air. Far
better, according to some physicians, is the diaper that is free from
disease-producing bacteria, but which is also bacteriostatic. Such a
diaper remains "clean" during shelf life. The bacteriostat is stimulated
to action in the presence of moisture from the infant's skiti. It then
retards the growth of bacteria deposited on the diaper.
This is very important. Many kinds of bacteria break down urine into
Urea and produce ammonia. Ammonia is highly irritating to the skin
and opens it to secondary invaders in the form of any bacteria that may
be present. These invaders are no longer kept out by the acid mantle
of the skin and can cause disease.
2017 WALNUT STREET PHILADELPHIA, PENNA. 191O3 AREA CODE 215 LO 9-365O
-------
The use of the bacteriostat to retard the growth of bacteria is therefore
beneficial until such time as the mother can change the infant.
Bacteriostats are not easy to use successfully. Even if available to the
mother for home washing, the automatic home machine is not adapted for
their proper use.
There are several places in the text where "sterility" is used in terms
of degrees. "Sterility" is an absolute. It is therefore incorrect to
say that one product is "more sterile" than another. Instead we suggest "a
diaper of better sanitary quality than . . ." as on page 59.
On page 39 there is reference to a paper by Brown, Tyson & Wilson, with
only part of the name shown. We suggest that the entire authorship be
included, or the usual form "Brown et al."
On page 42, there is^reference to a trade name "Diaseptic Process." Instead
the sentence might read: "The laboratory assisted in the establishment of
processing guidelines."
Again, bacteriostatic impregnation was omitted from these guidelines. We feel
it is more important than softness and absorbency, although these factors are
important for comfort.
On page 52, there is discussion of the virus population in feces. As you
know, Dr. Mirdza Peterson made a study of the sanitary landfill for EPA,
which study was reported in September 1974 in AJPH. In your document there
is almost no mention of a host of strains of Escherichia coli, some quite
virulent. The American Academy of Pediatrics has been concerned about
intestinal involvement in infants and diarrhea caused by E. coli. The
theory is that they do spread far and wide in ground water.
On page 44, bleach is included with quaternary ammonium compounds as a
bacteriostatic agent. It is more properly a bactericide. Bleach is used
in diaper service processing with hot water of 160ฐ to kill any bacteria present,
For your convenience, I am enclosing a modern diaper formula, which you will
note eliminates boric acid and includes a quaternary ammonium compound and
fabric softener.
If we can be of further help, please call on us again.
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. Ruth P. Livesey
Executive Director
Enc:
CC: Dr. Coursin
Dr. Spahr
Fred Wilson
T. J. Skillman, Jr.
-------
Oper at ion
Supplies Used
Tempera ture
Time in Minutes
Flush
Flush
Flush
Break
Suds
Suds
Strip
Bleach
Rinse
Rinse
Sour
15"
15"
15"
15"
15"
15"
15"
15"
15"
7"
water level
Same level
wa ter le ve 1
Soap
Soap
Soap
Qrtho Phosphate
Sodiom hypochlorite
Water
Water
Zinc Silico
fluorite
Quaternary
ammonium
compound
Fabric softener
100ฐ
110ฐ
140ฐ
160ฐ
174ฐ
176ฐ
172ฐ
150ฐ
140ฐ
120ฐ
110ฐ
2
2
2
4
5
5
5
T.\
2
2
5
IM -
-------
Reprinted from the American Journal of Public Health
Vol 64. Number 9. September 1974
Prinudm USA
Soiled Disposable Diapers:
A Potential Source of Viruses
MIRDZA L PETERSON, PhD
Introduction
The average production of solid waste in the United
States is 5.3 pounds per capita per day, or more than 300
million tons annually.1 Although it is recognized that the
disposal of solid waste is fundamentally a health problem,2
the biological threat to health caused by human pathogens
carried by or in association with the waste has not been
explored. Excreta and products of animals have long been a
part of municipal solid waste. The appearance of soiled
disposable diapers in this waste creates a situation that
increases the amount of human excreta in solid waste, and
thus adds another dimension to the health hazard of the
solid waste. Viruses, in particular, are a source of concern
since babies are the most effective carriers of enteroviruses
and have generally been immunized with live polio vaccine.
In an early study that we conducted in 1971 on the
occurrence of viruses in municipal solid waste, the expected
enteric virus density in this waste was calculated to be
about 32 virus units per 100 gm.3
The present investigation describes the amount of
soiled disposable diapers found in municipal solid waste,
the amount and types of enteric viruses found in these
diapers, and the implication to public health of their
appearance in solid waste.
Materials and Methods
Sampling of Waste and Detection of Virus
Municipal solid waste collected from an area in
Cincinnati, Ohio (area A), and from an area in northern
Kentucky (area B) was delivered to a pilot laboratory where
the waste was separated. The diapers picked from the waste
were placed in sterile plastic bags and brought to the
laboratory for processing. A 5-gm portion of fecal material
was removed from each disposable diaper and concentrated
for virus by methods described elsewhere.3'6
Results and Discussion
Amount of Soiled Disposable Diapers in Municipal Solid
Waste
A total of 8.2 tons of waste was separated. The results
obtained from the studies showed that, by wet weight, 0.6
to 2.5 per cent of solid waste was soiled disposable
diapers (Table 1). Because approximately 33 per cent of the
diapers contained fecal matter and each pound (wet weight)
of feces-soiled diapers contained an average of 60 gm of
feces, the average amount of fecal matter in solid waste was
calculated to be about 0.2 gm per 1 pound (wet weight).
Isolation of Viruses from Fecally Contaminated Disposable
Diapers
Of the 84 fecally contaminated disposable diapers
tested, nine contained viruses (Table 2). Viruses were
detected in 15 per cent and 2.9 per cent of samples from
area A collected during February and April, respectively;
16.7 per cent of samples from area B contained viruses
during July.
Poliovirus 3 was recovered from disposable diapers in
both sampling areas and echovirus 2 was found in two
912 AJPH SEPTEMBER, 1974, Vol. 64, No. 9
-------
TABLE 1-Amount of Soiled* Diapers in Municipal Solid Waste,
1971
Sampling
Amount of Diapers
Area
Date
Total waste
Separated Soiled Feces-contammated
A
A
B
B
February
April
July
July
Ibt
800
9,200
2,800
3,600
2.5
0.9
0.6ง
0.8 ง
% total waste J
1.0
0.3
05ง
0.3ง
* Includes diapers contaminated with urine or feces.
t Pounds (wet weight).
if Percentage (wet basis).
ง Mean values obtained from multiple samples.
TABLE 2Percentage of Virus Isolations from Fecally Contami-
nated Disposable Diapers, by Area and Month, 1971
Samples Containing
Sampling Viruses
No. of Samples
Area Date Tested No. %
A
A
B
February
April
July
20
34
30
3
1
5
15.0
2.9
16.7
TABLE 3-lsolation of Viruses from Kecally Contaminated Dispos-
able Diapers from Areas A and B. 1971
Area Month Sample No. Total PFU/Gm Virus Types
A
B
B
Februaiy 29
31
39
April 53
July 90
94
98
107
112
320
160
16
32
1920
240
65
1440
960
Polio 3
Polio 3
Polio 3
Polio 3
Polio 3
Polio 3
Polio 3
Echo 2
Echo 2
samples from area B (Table 3). The poliovirus 3 density
varied from 16 to 1,920 plaque-forming units (PFU) per
gm, with an average of about 390 PFU per gm. The average
virus density in the spring months was 130 PFU per gm and
that in July 740 PFU per gm (Table 3). These densities
were considerably lower than those reported in direct
examination of feces of older children.7'8 Since the fecal
matter removed from these collected diapers was usually
mixed with urine and since the latter invariably had a
strong ammonia odor, the lower virus densities detected in
this study could result from dilution of feces with urine and
from a rise in pH. Kelly and Sanderson9 have shown a
maximum enteric virus density of 20 units per 100 ml of
sewage during the cold months and 400 units per 100 ml
during the warm months. This difference reflects the
difference and nature of the virus carriers who contributed
the viruses to these two types of wastes.
Seven strains of the poliovirus 3 isolated from diapers
were tested for their d and T (ret/40) markers in an effort
to determine whether the strains isolated were of vaccine or
wild types.1 ฐ The results indicated that six of the isolates
had clearly defined d+ marker characteristics, and one was
doubtful (dฑ); six strains showed T+ markers, and one was
Tฑ (Table 4). These results suggest either that some of the
vaccine strains of poliovirus 3 have yielded progeny with
reverted dT markers or that wild strains were circulating in
areas A and B. If poliovirus 3 vaccine accounted for the
positive tests, the isolates were progeny with both markers
different from the vaccine strain. Studies have shown that a
significant portion of vaccinated children excrete viral
progeny with reverted dT markers.1 l Upon serial human
passage, these strains may undergo a further change
associated with a further increase in neurovirulence and
eventually reach a degree of virulence comparable to that of
wild poliovinises.
The effect of polio vaccination on virus recovery and
the relationship between the relative incidence of viral
infections and the prevalence of viruses in solid waste
cannot be assessed from these studies. A continuing
surveillance of virus in solid waste together with that of
families for polio vaccination and infections might thus
clarify these points and point to the role of solid waste in
the spread of virus infections and disease. Hopefully, such a
study will be initiated.
Until such diapers are excluded from solid waste or
until an effective method can be developed to disinfect
such diapers before they are mixed with the solid waste,
these virus-laden materials will continue to present a
potential threat to the health of those who handle the solid
waste during collection and constitute a feeding ground for
disease vectors and a source of contamination of ground
water when the waste is disposed in improperly constructed
TABLE 4-Genetic Character of Poliovirus 3 Isolates
Log, 0 Virus Titer
Strain
Bicarbonate
overlay, 37"C Markers
High bicarbonate
High Low overlay, 40''C d T
February isolates
(area A)
April isolate
(area A)
July isolates
(area B)
5.8
5.9
60
5 3
53
5.7
5.6
5.8
5.8
5.8
4.9
4 0
4.9
5.0
5.7 + +
5.8 + +
57 + +
4.3 + '
5.3 i 4-
53 4 +
5.3 + +
PUBLIC HEALTH BRIEFS
-------
landfills. The alternative for management of these and other
virus-containing wastes should be carefully assessed before
any definitive action is undertaken.
A CKNO WLEDGMENTS
The author is grateful to Dr. Shih Lu Chang for his
valuable suggestions throughout the course of this study,
and for reviewing the manuscript; to the members of the
Disposal Technology and Laboratory Support Services
Branches, for valuable technical assistance; and to Dr.
Mil ford H. Hatch, Center for Disease Control, Atlanta,
Georgia, for identifying two poliovirus isolates.
References
1. Vaughan, R. D. While Refuse Looms Like Mountains,
U.S. Spends $4.5 Billion a Year on "Inadequate"
Disposal. APWA Reporter 36:16-18, 20-21, 1969.
2. Anderson, R. J. The Public Health Aspects of Solid
Waste Disposal. Public Health Rep. 79'93-96, 1964.
3. Peterson, M. L. The Occurrence and Survival of Viruses
in Municipal Solid Waste. Doctoral thesis, University of
Michigan, 1971.
4. Berg, G., Dean, R. B., and Dahling, D. R. Removal of
Poliovirus 1 from Secondary Effluents by Lime
Flocculation and Rapid Sand Filtration. J. Am. Water
Works Assoc. 60:193198, 1968.
5. Laboratory Methods for the Isolation and Identifica-
tion of Enteroviruses. U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, National Communicable Dis-
ease Center, Atlanta, Georgia, 1969.
6. Lamb, G. A., Chin, T. D. Y., and Scarce, L. E.
Isolations of Enteric Viruses from Se%vage and River
Water in a Metropolitan \rea. Am. J Hyg, 80:320
327, 1964.
7. Sabin, A. B. Behavior of Chimpa.izee a Virulent
Poliomyelitis Virus in Experimentally infected Human
Volunteers. Am. J. Med. Sci. 230:8, 195:"),
8. Ramos-Alvarez, M., and Sa.hin, A. B. Intestinal Viral
Flora of Healthy Children ...emoristrable by Monkey
Kidney Tissue Culture. Am. J. Public Health 46:295
299, 1956.
9. Kelly, S., and Sanderson, W. W Density of Entero-
viruses in Sewage. J. Water Poll. Control Feder.
32:12691273, 1960.
10. Benyesh-Melnick,
-------
In terms of the sanitary qualities of paper towels and napkins,
the literature does provide one piece of data on unused paper towels which
can be presumed to relate to paper napkins as well. Test data supplied by
the American Paper Institute (47) indicates that typical total bacterial
counts of paper toweling from one manufacturer average 180 organisms per
square foot. This may be compared to the FDA Sanitation Code (14) standard
of 100 organisms per foodservice product contact surface. Depending on
the size of the towel or napkin being considered, the API count could be
either slightly inferior or slightly superior to the FDA standard. However,
it should also be pointed out here that the FDA standard itself may not
be based on any real evidence linking degree of microbial contamination
to attendant public health threat.
The literature has also compared typical paper towel counts to
bacterial counts on commercially-laundered cloth products in hand-drying
applications (40, 47, 8); in each comparison, paper toweling has been shown
to harbor significantly fewer bacteria than cloth toweling. While this type
of data cannot be related directly to conditions likely to prevail in the
home kitchen or commercial restaurant facility, it is still reasonable to
assume that paper would show fewer bacteria than would cloth towels or nap-
kins.
However, in view of the lack of substantive evidence establishing
cloth towels, cloth napkins and sponges as sources of pathogenic organisms,
to which normal exposure would likely cause infection, MRI can formulate
no definitive conclusion as to the relative health and sanitation status
of paper versus cloth towels versus sponges, or paper versus cloth napkins.
-------
IV. DIAPERS
The disposable diaper has become an increasingly popular product
for infant care in the home. More than 2,800 hospitals have adopted the
disposable diaper for use in their newborn nurseries. Seventy-five percent
of all babies born in hospitals are first diapered in disposable diapers
(9), and many parents continue this method of diapering in the home situa-
tion. Unquestionably, the disposable diaper provides an element of conveni-
ence not offered by the conventional cloth diaper. The disposable is merely
removed and discarded, whereas the cloth diaper must be soaked, laundered,
dried, folded, and returned to storage. In the hospital situation, utiliza-
tion of cloth diapers adds a significant burden to the laundry facility;
in the home, parents either assume the extra work themselves or employ a
commercial diaper service.
Aside from convenience considerations, both disposable and reus-
able diapers present certain health and sanitation concerns which have been
raised in the course of this study:
1. The possibility of increased skin irritation or rash associated
with the use of disposable diapers.
2. The ineffectiveness of home laundering of cloth diapers compared
to commercial laundering.
3. The health implications of disposing of single-use diapers
contaminated with urine and feces.
In order to understand the significance of diapering in the overall
health of the baby, .it is important to understand the role of the diaper
-------
in inhibiting or encouraging skin rashes. Grant, Street and Fearnow (19)
list two of the most common causes of diaper rash as: (1) Monilial or bac-
terial infection j and (2) Ammonial contact dermatitis. The diaper provides
a moist, warm environment conducive to the growth of bacteria, which may
originate from an improperly laundered diaper, from the infant's skin (es-
pecially if the skin is not cleansed following defecation), and from the
excreted stools and urine. Other factors in rash development are laundry
chemical residuals in the diaper, maceration (softening of the skin by wet-
ness causing increased permeability), marked changes in skin pH, and meta-
bolic wastes in stools.
7li4*ป+ฃj*(*^
Brown aiya T>yet
-------
by the ammonia. Both the disposable and cloth diaper can produce conditions
favorable to bacterial growth; however, actual hygienic practices of changing
the baby frequently and cleaning him adequately are still of major import-
ance.
1. The Possibility of Increased Skin Rash Associated with the
Use of Disposable Diapers; A 1968 study performed by Silverburg and Glaser
(70) at the Long Island Jewish Hospital showed that the incidence of diaper
rash was significantly greater with disposable diapers than with cloth dia-
(
pers. Two plastic-backed disposable diapers and one paper-backed disposable
were compared with cloth diapers in the newborn and premature nurseries.
Results are presented in Table 7.
The results indicate that in all cases except one, cloth showed
a statistically significant improvement in protecting against diaper rash
over either plastic-backed or paper-backed disposables. Additionally, only
9.4 cloth diapers were used per baby per day in the newborn unit, compared
to 10ป4 per day for the disposable's; in the premature unit, 7.8 cloth diapers
were used per baby per day, compared to 10.0 disposables. However, the authors
did not attempt to explain the results of their study nor did they postulate '
any reason for the difference.
2. The Ineffectiveness of Home Diaper Laundering Compared to Com-
mercial Laundering; The effectiveness of the cloth diaper in retarding bac-
terial growth and diaper rash is based on how the diaper is laundered. Within
the home setting prescribed in this study, diapers would be laundered either
in the home (or in a self-service laundry comparable to home facilities)
or by a commercial establishment, in many cases a diaper service.
-------
TABLE 7
DIAPER RASH INCIDENCE IN DISPOSABLES COMPARED TO CLOTH
Type of Diaper
Number Number of
of Diaper
Babies Changes
Newborn Nursery
Percent of Babies
Developing Rash
Plastic-backed
disposable #1
Plastic-backed
disposable #2
Paper-backed
Plastic-backed
disposable #1
Plastic-backed
disposable #2
Paper-backed
disposable
Cloth
225 2,752 (3 weeks)i/
225
3,364 (4 weeks)
67 2,648 (3 weeks)
67 4,135.(4 weeks)
67 3,864 (7 weeks)
64 3,711 (4 weeks)
4.57.
disposable
Cloth
225
173
1,668 (7 weeks)
2,092 (4 weeks)
Premature Nursery
2.57.
0.37.
10.2%
5.87.
2.67.
0.97.
Source: Silverberg, Alvin and David Glaser, "Disposable Versus Reusable Linen
in the NurseryResults of a Comparative Study," (70).
a/ Inconsistencies in number of changes compared to number of babies and test
time can be attributed to fluctuations in the length of stay for each baby.
b_/ Not statistically significant in comparison to cloth.
-------
The diaper service industry has been in existence since 1932.
Through its association, the National Institute of Infant Services (NIIS),
this industry has monitored its operations through an independent medical
laboratory--Philadelphia Medical Laboratory (formerly Usona Bio-Chem Labora-
tory). The laboratory established the TOiaseptic Process]" a specific method
^* ""
for laundering diapers so they will meet certain standards of sanitation,
fatfoftQ^'faitC' /*h Jfrf *9V**''*0h
aesthetic quality, pH balance, ..softness, anG absorbency. This process has
been considered standard in the industry, and its effectiveness is checked
by taking regular samples of commercially laundered diapers and submitting
them to the laboratory for testing.
The 100 members (representing the most active diaper services
throughout the U.S.) of NIIS must maintain the following standards:
1. The service must submit one random sample per month, taken
from a finished package of diapers, to a specified medical laboratory. The
sample must be free of all pathogenic bacteria or fungi and may contain no
more than 20 colonies of nondisease-producing bacteria per 3 square inches
of fabric. (This compares to a standard of less than two colonies per square
inch for disposable diapers. )
2. The sample diaper must read within the range of 4.5 to 6.5
pH by the colorimetric procedure (compared to pH of 7.0 in disposables prior
to use ).
3. The sample will be tested for zone of inhibition (bacteriostatic
effectiveness) against Staph aureus.
_!_/ Results from individual disposable diaper manufacturers' continuous quality
control testing programs, as reported by the American Paper Institute.
/
-------
4* Diapers served to customers must be soft to the touch and free
from stiffness*
5* Diapers served to customers must be so absorbent that water
added drop by drop enters the fabric immediately*
6. Diapers served to customers must be free from stains, tears,
and excessive wear. (A package selected at random should show no greater
than 3 percent substandard diapers.)
Additionally, in 1970, NIIS established a Diaper Service Accredita-
tion Council which is now composed of two pediatricians, a public health
director, a bacteriologist, and three industry representatives* The Council
formulated an accreditation program which requires site inspection, self-
analysis procedures, and rigorous in-plant standards in order for a service
to merit accreditation. Although less than half of the NIIS member services
are currently accredited, the Institute plans to require accreditation for
all of its members within the next 3 years. In addition to administering
the accreditation program, the Council advises the industry on new laundry
detergents, new bacteriostats and other additives to ensure their safety
and effectiveness. This monitoring is especially important in light of several
laundry components found during the 1960's to cause adverse effects on infants.
Trichloro carbanilkde (TCC), a bacteriostat used in laundry softeners, was
found to produce free aniline, a known toxin, when exposed to high heat.
In premature nurseries where diapers are autoclaved, this reaction led to
the development of cyanosis and methemoglobulinemia in some infants. Another
substance, sodium pentachlorophenate, an antimildew agent, caused two deaths
-------
and a number of cases of illness in two separate hospitals. Both of these
cases emphasize the need for careful evaluation and usage of chemicals in
laundering diapers.
Diapers can, of course, be laundered commercially outside of a diaper
service, or by a service which is not a NIIS member. In either case, the
diaper would be processed according to the standards described in the section
on general laundering. In most instances, as discussed in this section, the
commercially laundered diaper would be washed at higher temperatures for
longer periods of time and would be more effectively rinsed than a home-
launderad diaper.
This conclusion is borne out by the Grant, Street and Fearnow study
in which the authors compared the incidence of significant diaper rash re-
ported by 1,197 mothers attending a well-baby clinic as it related to the
method of laundering (disposables, commercial diaper service, or home wash-
ing) used more than 50 percent of the time. Diapers washed by a diaper service
were associated with the lowest incidence of diaper rash24.4 percent. Dis-
posables showed about the same incidence as the commercially laundered cloth
diapers. However, the home-laundered diaper was associated with the signifi-
cantly greatest incidence of diaper rash, at 35.6 percent. These results
are shown in Table 3.
The authors attribute their findings to the fact that commercially
I*
laundered diapers are virtually sterile and are thoroughly rins-ed of all
Wj/chemical contaminants. Additionally, bacteriostatic agents such as bleach
and quaternary ammonium compounds used in commercial diaper, services are
-------
00
a
03
IT
T3
4)
js
09
CO
4ป
S
Q
V
5^S| I vO
1
CM
CM
1-1
4)
J3 p- r-l
ง00 O
00 CN
2
s^
OS
p^
^^
-3
1
H*4
Q
fa
O
8
15
ง
o
^4
CD
M
Q
8
u
^*
N-
Mซ*
cn
os
a!
e
^f
M
a
fe
ฐ
8
z
u
a
u
M
M
4)
a
a
H
o
r-4
CO
80
O
o
ft
Q
5^5 1 i r**ป
i
m
r-4
W
^o ^o ^^
e en en
3 CN
Z
4)
U
>
4)
CO
4)
a
CO
H
Q
S*2| 1 O\
^f
r-l
V4
4)
"^ ** 3
3
2
^N
03
CO
4)
|J
I-l
O
0)
^i
CO
Q
eN
^_>
JS
a
CO
^4
r-4 <0
co a
U CO
O T-ป
H Q
OS vO
CM >n
1-4 en
^* in
i i i t
r-i en
O 0
o >n
r-4 CN
^f t-l
CN vO
in sf
ON >^
eM
r- oo
r-l
ซ
^N
09
CO
a
CM
H ' i-t
CU CO
ซ5 o
^-x H
js j:
a ca
(Q CO
04 (ฃ
M V4
4) 4)
e* a
ca co
-r4 t-l
a Q
M-I
o
09
a
o
,ฃi
4J
2
CO
0
o
f4
r4
ca
>
4-1
O
CO
4-1
U
CO i-l
1-1 ^^
a
M
rJ C*
CO 1-1
^4
4-1 4)
4) "O
W 3
ง 3
C3
4)
U
3
O
-------
cited as inhibitors of rash. Even with multiple rinses, the home-laundered
diaper failed to meet the standards of the commercially washed product, as
shown in Table 9. These results confirm the fact that home laundry does not
render as/sterileJa product; i.e., adequate rinsing alone does not solve
the problem.
TABLE 9
EFFECT OF NUMBER OF RINSES OF HOME-LAUNDERED
DIAPERS ON INCIDENCE OF DIAPER RASH
1 to 3 Rinses Over 3 Rinses
No. % No. %
Total 692 195
Diaper Rash
2 Days or Less 162 23.5 35 20.0
Diaper Rash
Over 2 Days 86 12.4 28 14.4
Diaper Rash Total 243 35.9 67 34.4
Source: Grant et al. "Diaper Rashes in Infancy: Studies on the
Effects of Various Methods of Laundering," (19).
Brown and Wilson (4) also tested the performance of home laundries
in washing diapers. Two loads of 12 soiled diapers each were soaked for 12
hours in water and detergent, washed in an automatic washer at 140 to 144 F
for 20 minutes, given four spray rinses, a full-water rinse for 2 minutes
at 100 F, and two additional spray rinses. Each load was then dried for 40
minutes in a home gas dryer. Results from two samples taken from each load
are shown in Table 10.
-------
TABLE 10
TEST RESULTS FOR HOME-LAUNDERED DIAPERS
Sample
Organisms Isolated
Colony Count
Agar-Plate Test
Load 1 -
Diaper 1
Diaper 2
Load 2 -
Diaper 1
Diaper 2
E.. coli, nonhemolytic
streptococci, B_.
subtilis
jj. coli. nonhemolytic
streptococci, B_.
sub t ilis
Nonhemolytic strepto-
cocci, gram positive
and negative saprophytic
bacilli
Gram positive and negative
saprophytic bacilli
9,300 per sq in.
of fabric
11,100 per sq in.
8,200 per sq in.
9.700 per sq in.
A faint zone
of partial
inhibition
No zone of
. inhibition
No zone of
inhibition
No zone of
inhibition
Source: Brown, Claude, and Frederic Wilson, "Diaper Region Irritations:
Pertinent Facts and Methods of Prevention," (4).
These results show much higher bacterial counts than are allowed
by NIIS diaper services (no more than two colonies per square inch).
It is important to note, however, that these bacterial counts were
not specifically correlated with the development of diaper rash in infants
wearing tested diapers. The significance of the results lies in the fact
that bacteria present in a diaper can break down urea into ammonia, a known
skin irritant which can initiate a chain reaction of rash development. But,
some factors other than bacteria can and do contribute to diaper rash develop-
Vปซ/U,5vปe*^
ment, notably fjreofcency bf changing. The bacteria present in home-laundered
'diapers should therefore be viewed as one potential cause of'rash.
/7-b
-------
Brown and Wilson also indicate that "home-washed diapers may have
a pH of 9.5" (4) or higher from improper rinsing. This compares unfavorably
to the 4.5 to 6.5 pH required by the NIIS, and the 7.0 pH reported for dispos-
ables. The higher or more alkaline pH is quite different from normal skin,
which has a pH of 5.5 1.5, and can in itself be an irritant.
A
A third study comparing home-laundered to commercially-laundered
diapers was done at the University of Illinois Medical College, for the
American Institute pf Laundering (now International Fabricare Institute) (64).
Investigators tested diapers which had been laundered in six private homes.
In five of the homes diaper processing consisted of a cold soak followed
by one hot suds and three rinses. In the sixth home, a fourth rinse was added.
Results of the home diaper laundering are shown in Table 11. As indicated,
bacterial count after the third rinse was 168,388j when the fourth rinse
was added, average count was reduced to 149,400. As shown in Table 12, com-
mercially laundered diapers, by contrast, were rendered sterile after the
third suds, to which two quarts of 1 percent sodium hypochlorite per 300-
pound load were added. ,ป / *
^m^LA ^^^^*J^^*^.
As in 1
-------
TABLE 11
BACTERICIDAL EFFICIENCY OF HOME DIAPER WASHING
Operation
Average Bacterial Counts Per
Cu Cm Wash Water
Cold Soak
1st Suds
1st Rinse
2nd Rinse
3rd Rinse
2,243,033
1,983,000
1,171,033
719,940
168,388
Source: "The Sanitary Aspects of Commercial Laundering,"
Special Report for the American Institute of
Laundering, (64).
TABLE 12
a/
BACTERICIDAL EFFICIENCY OF A COMMERCIAL DIAPER FORMULA-'
Operation
1st Cold Rinse
2nd Cold Rinse
1st Suds
2nd Suds
3rd Suds
Supplies Used
Soap and Alkali
Soap and Alkali
Soap and Alkali
plus 2 quarts
1% soldium hypo-
chlorite per
300 Ib load
Temperature
65ฐ F
65ฐ F
110ฐF
125ฐ F
145ฐF
Time in
Minutes
5
5
10
10
10
Average
Bacterial
Other
Per _Cu Cm
1,678,333
1,621,200
720,300
84,333
Sterile
1st Rinse
2nd Rinse
3rd Rinse
4th Rise
5th Rinse
Sour
Boric acid bath
plus bluing
Sodium acid fluoride
165ฐ F
175ฐF
175ฐF
175ฐF
140ฐF
120ฐ F
100ฐ F
3
3
3
Sterile
Sterile
1
Sterile
Sterile
Sterile
Sterile
(Source: "The Sanitary Aspects of Commercial Laundering," Special Report for
the Ameripan Institute of Laundering, (64).
-------
recommended belach level of 200 ppm available chlorine. The authors note,
however, that the virus was destroyed at water temperatures of 130ฐF and
above without the addition of bleach; but at 110ฐF (the lower range of house-
hlld laundry temperatures), bleach was requisite for viral destruction.
3. The Health Implications of Disposal of Single-Use Diapers Con-
taminated with Urine and Feces; As a result of increased use and subsequent
discard of disposable diapers, general concern over the public health conse-
quences of fecal matter in solid waste has increased in recent years. The
j
basis for this concern centers around the occurrence of bacterial and viral
pathogens in fecal matter and the potential for these pathogens to leach
into ground or surface water supplies. In evaluating the potential threat
or lack thereof inherent in land disposal of single-use diapers, one must
first assess the occurrence (numbers and types) of pathogens involved, and
secondly, the resulting effect of such conditions as measured by their ability
to survive in and leach from the landfill environment and come .into contact
with human beings.
a. Occurrence of Pathogens in Disposed Diapers
Bacteria; As the subject of several fairly recent studies
(1, 11, 59), the bioload of raw residential solid waste has been shown to
contain densities of fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci in excess of
one million organisms per gram. The presence of these organisms, which are
normal inhabitants of the large intestine of man and other warm-blooded ani-
mals, is commonly assumed to indicate a strong likelihood of the presence
of other intestinal organisms which may be pathogenic. One such bacterial
pathogen which has been observed in solid waste in Salmonellae.
-------
Viruses: In addition to bacteria, raw solid waste also contains
a variety of potential human viral pathogens, the leaching source of which is
fecal matter* Investigating the occurrence of viruses as a function of typical
soiled disposable diaper load in a sanitary landfill, Peterson (59) determined
that, by wet weight, soiled disposable diapers represent 0.6 to 2.5 percent
of mixed municipal waste. Finding one-third of these diapers to contain fecal
matter at an average of 60 grams of feces per diaper, Peterson calculated
the average amount,of human fecal matter in. solid waste to be about 0.04
percent by wet weight. In two separate areas of the country, viruses were
detected in 15 percent and 2.9 percent of fecal samples from area A (Ohio)
in February and April, respectively, and 16.7 percent of samples from area
B (Kentucky) in July. Poliovirus 3 was found in both sampling areas, and
echovirus 2 was found in two samples from area B. The poliovirus 3 density
ranged from 16 to 1,920 plaque-forming units (PFU) per gram, with an average
of about 390 PFU per gram. Densities of the echovirus 2 (positive samples)
were 1,440 and 960 PFU per gram.
Further perspective on the occurrence and potential signific-
ance of viruses in human fecal matter is provided by Dr. John Fox, an epi-
demiologist. Based on virus watch data that he collected across the U.S.,
Dr. Fox prepared an opinion statement on the "Viral Infection Hazard of Dis-
posable Diapers" (17), the results of which are summarized in Table 13.
As shown in the table, the most common virus group likely
to occur in human feces is poliovirus. However, the health threat posed by
these viruses is minimized by typically low virulence of vaccine-derived
-------
ii
3
I
cu
4J
CO
II tj
J^J u
CO
cu
O M
CU J2
งH
CO 43
ca u
< -<
CO
CU
X
*
0)
t>
Q i-l F-4
ฃ 1-4 i-^
i-l ca CO
^o e a
co 4j en en
g
en -4
pM
CO
B
>ป en
jj
en 1-1 /-x
H C -u
0 3 C
W g CU
fa ง U
WI i
H
2 eu
H c eu
o ^
Q i-l
W JJ i-4
53 cfl' CU
en 1-4 >
3 cu
en Cu iJ
l/^
M 1
0 " i=S
ca
cu
Pb CO
O i-4
in a
a o
O T3
2 >* 0)
O
2 cu ca
O en w
M <
CO
U
cu
>
cu
co cu
jj
"ป. O CO CU
ca| jj h t-i
CU 01
1 i (M 1^
W ^ ?
O o eg
C S en
f4
Z
en
< CO
S-i
sa cu
o a
Z CU CO
SO i-l
c a
< ej
ป. i . n i
> M 'I
H J-l Q
A 3
CU U JJ
U G
Q CU
U
U
CU
CU
N_/
*
O sf
CM 1
O O CM O
CN JJ 1-4
<-> X
i-l
ca
3
a
3
O
b
O
ca
14
1-1
>
U
CO 1-4
3 > CO
h O i^ < CO
i-l 1-4 JJ
> ^ ^ cu cu
o o w a a.
i-l 0. CO >, >%
^ c a H H
o o cu
P- 2 K
i-4
i-l
ง
en
O
in
u
Q
G
^4
ฃ
si-
ca
3
U
i-4
>
0
e
cu
n
<
0)
,S
cu
ca
cu ca
S C
O i-l
ca ca
JJ O
JJ
en
c
o
a
o
i
CO
>4
CU
a.
a
jj cu
ca C
1-1 1-1
X u
0) U
ca
O
ca
cu i-i
a. ca
^ -^
4J J-l
C
o ca
CU
CU M
Vi CO
ca
J-i ซ
O ca
O O
o >ป
H 4->
CO i-l
N CO
ca M
X ซ
d 1-4
o c
o
cu >,
<4-l 60
C O
ca B
M CU
^ -a
^ a
ซW CO O
Oi O i-l
JJ JJ
G H G G
Si O CU CU
O CO JJ JJ
!-5 CO O X
CU CU CU
- 4-1
X O ซ TJ
O M 43 CU
to CU
O
H >,
cu
u
u
o
en
cu B
COl
-------
strains which presently make up practically all of existing poliovirus flora
in the U.S., and by the probably high prevalence of immunity of the popula-
tion. The nonpolio enterovirus group is diverse and potentially widespread
in occurrence in fecal matter. Furthermore, type-specific immunity is vari-
able and tends toward the low end of probability, thereby presenting a seem-
ingly great health threat potential. Fortunately, medical experience indicates
that only extremely infrequently are these viruses the cause of serious ill-
ness. In virus watqh studies conducted by Dr. Fox, 50 percent of all detected
infections were subclinical and 80 percent of the related illnesses were
minor respiratory. The overall potential health threat posed by this group
of virus is therefore difficult to assess, but is certainly less than severe.
Type A hepatitis virus is a relatively benign pathogen causing temporary
disability and to which there is a high probability of immunity in the popula-
tion. Furthermore, the probability for its occurrence in soiled diapers is
quite low. On the other hand, Type J3 hepatitis virus is a tremendously virulent
pathogen to which there is a low probability of immunity in the population.
The health significance for this virus is, however, again minimized by the
extremely low probability of its occurrence in soiled diapers. Adenoviruses
are of little health concern because of the benign character of diseases
they may cause in humans, and the relatively low probability of their occur-
rence in soiled diapers.
b. Fate of Pathogens in the Landfill Environment; In the above
discussion, it has been shown that human bacterial and viral pathogens can
occur in and be isolated from solid waste, and that one potentially signifi-
cant source of such pathogens is human fecal matter discarded in disposable
-------
diapers. However, to gain a better appreciation for the extent of the health
threat, it is necessary to look at the fate of microorganisms in the land-
fill environment and the extent to which viable organisms leach from this
environment.
Bacteria: Blannon and Peterson (1) investigated the survival
of fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci in a full-scale sanitary landfill
over an 11-month leachate production period utilizing mixed municipal solid
waste. The results, of this investigation revealed that high densities of
fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci occurred in leachates during the first
2-month leaching period, with a rapid die-off of fecal coliforms noted 3
months after placing the fill. Fecal streptococci persisted past the 3-month
sampling period. Furthermore, the 18-inch clay soil lining underneath the
solid waste was observed to offer poor filtration action on the bacteria.
In view of these findings, the authors concluded "...that leachate contamina-
tion, if not controlled, may add a pollutional load to the recreational and
groundwater supplies and present a risk to the public using these waters."
In an attempt to determine the effect on leachate bioload,
Cooper et al. (7) added fecally contaminated diapers to a simulated sanitary
landfill. Overall, large numbers of bacteria of potential sanitary signifi-
cance were present.
However, the high background levels of fecal coliforms and
fecal streptococci made it impossible to measure the impact of the addition
of feces and diapers. The low ratio of fecal coliform to fecal streptococci
in freshly collected and ground refuse indicated animal waste (cats, dogs,
etc.,) to be the most predominant source of these indicator-organisms.
-------
Further information on bacterial decay rates is provided by
Engelbrecht (11). Fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci and Salmonellae typhi-
murium was added to whole leachate at two different temperatures (22 G and
55ฐC) and at two different pH values (5.3 and 7.0). Persistence of enteric
bacteria in leachate was found to be less at the higher temperature and lower
pH value. The order of stability in the leachate at 55ฐC at both pH values
was: S_. tvphimurium > Fecal streptococci ป Fecal coliforms.
Viruses; In a continuation of the same study cited above,
Cooper et al. also assessed the presence of viruses in leachate under normal
conditions and with the addition of fecally contaminated diapers. The dosage
of feces added was approximately 0.02 percent by weight, roughly equivalent
to the amount found by Peterson in the previously mentioned study. Virus
recovered from the leachate of the inoculated fill amounted to 150 and 2,310
PFU per gallon during tihe second and third weeks of leachate production,
respectively. The control landfill'produced 380 PFU per gallon of leachate
the third week only.
Noteworthy here is the fact that in each case where viruses
were detected in leachate, the associated landfill had been brought to field
capacity (saturation point) over a 3-week period to simulate exaggerated
rainfall conditions. No'viruses were detected in leachate from fills brought
to field capacity gradually over a 15-week period to simulate normal rainfall
conditions for the area.
After the third week of production, all samples were negative.
Since the control was also positive, the authors concluded that the addition
-------
of viruses through human feces had no discernable effect on the recovery
of viruses.
At the termination of the experiment, the contents of the
control fill and two fills to which soiled disposable diapers had been added
were removed and assayed for the presence of viable viruses. No viruses were
recovered from these materials, indicating that both indigenous and added
viruses did not survive at detectable levels through the test period.
In a study by Sobsey et al. (72) the survival'and fate of
( \
two enteroviruses (polioviruses type 1 and echovirus type 7) in simulated
sanitary landfills was examined. After inoculating the solid waste contents
of the fills with large quantitites of the above enteroviruses, the fills
were saturated with water over a 3-1/2 week period to produce leachate, which
was then analyzed for viruses. Although 80 percent of the total leachate
produced by each fill over the test period was so analyzed, no viruses were
detected. Furthermore, analysis of the refuse itself following the conclu-
sion of the leachate analysis revealed no detectable viruses.
In part, this outcome is explained by the tendency of viruses
to adsorb onto components of the solid waste and thus resist leaching. A
further explanation lies in the determined natural toxicity of the leachate
itself. The leachate was evaluated to determine the extent of its toxicity
to viruses. More than 95 percent of inoculated viruses were inactivated
over a 2-week exposure period at 20 C and more than 99 percent were inacti-
vated within 6 days at 37ฐC.
-------
The results of the above investigation were duplicated by
Engelbrecht (11) in a similar experiment, using poliovirus, reovirus and
Rous sarcoma to seed the simulated landfills. No viruses were recovered from
leachate samples collected throughout the 76-day test period. As was the
case above, inactivation studies showed the leachate to be toxic to viruses.
c. Conclusion; Evidence has been presented to indicate that
fecal material in soiled disposable diapers may represent as much as 0.02
percent by weight ,of normal mixed municipal refuse, and that they may be
a significant contributor of microorganisms of potential sanitary signifi-
cance. However, it has also been shown that the normal bioload of solid waste
without diapers is extremely high, due mainly to the presence of fecal matter
from domestic animals. This source also contains large numbers of microor-
ganisms of potential sanitary significance.
!
Due to this large naturally-occurring bioload in solid waste, j
\
attempts to demonstrate an increase in bioload from the addition of fecal
I
contamination from diapers to 0.02 percent by weight have been unsuccessful.
These findings thus establish that, at 0.02 percent by weight, fecal con-
!'
tamination from diapers does not add an amount of either bacteria or viruses
in the leachate which can be detected over and above the background level.
Attempts, at determining the public health significance of
the bioload from solid waste have centered around occurrence of viable or-
ganisms in leachate. In general, the physical characteristics of the land-
fill environment are inhospitable to survival and growth of microorganisms.
In addition, the leachate emanating from a landfill appears to be toxic.
-------
However, it has been clearly demonstrated that viable bacteria can and do
leach from the landfill in large numbers, thereby representing a source of
contamination to ground and/or surface water supplies and a possible health
threat to anyone using this water as a potable water supply. Unlike bacteria,
experiments measuring virus occurrence in leachate have revealed conflicting
results. One investigator was able to detect viruses from a rapidly saturated
fill while others, using similar techniques, were not. It is fairly well-
established, however, that leachate is quite toxic to viruses and that ad-
sorption of viruses to solid waste components does occur. It has been shown
that more than 99 percent of all inoculum viruses can be inactivated within
6 days at 37ฐC following introduction into landfill leachate. And yet, one
investigator has detected viruses in leachate up to 3 weeks after onset of
leachate production. In view of the lack of consistency in the published
literature on the topic, no clear understanding of the public health threat
represented by viruses in solid waste can be reached.
With regard to public health significance of disposing of
fecally contaminated disposable diapers in the solid waste stream, conclu-
sions are even more difficult to reach. However, to the extent that such
material does contain microorganisms which may leach into water supplies,
some potential for a public health threat to the consumers of that water
may exist. However, the actual bioload contribution from this source is yet
unclear, as in the relationship between degrees of contamination of the water
supply and the relationship to disease development. Therefore, no final state-
ment on the public health significance of discarding disposable diapers
into the solid waste stream can be made.
-------
Based on the foregoing data, several conclusions can be for-
mulated:
1. Although disposable diapers were associated with a greater
incidence of diaper rash than hospital-laundered cloth diapers in one study,;
they performed as well as commercially laundered diapers in another study. ;
i
On the basis of these conflicting results, no definitive statement can be |
made regarding the relative effects of the two types of diapers in inhibit-
ing rash development.
2. The average home-laundered diaper is inferior to both the
disposable and commercially laundered diaper in terms of^/terilitYJand pH
balance. Although no precise relationship exists between bacterial count
and type of bacteria present in a diaper and the development of diaper rash,
bacteria do contribute to the incidence of rash. An NIIS diaper service un-
doubtedly provides the superior laundering method, with its maximum allow-
able count of 20 colonies per square inch. A regular commercial laundry,
while probably not meeting this exacting standard, would likely produce a
i Lu H i 11. ai apery than a home laundry due to higher wash temperatures,
longer cycles, and,types of additives used. Disposables also meet a high
standard of sanitation, with less than two colonies of bacteria per square
inchj and they provide a favorable pH balance averaging 7.0.
V. SHEETS
Health and sanitation concerns relating to institutional bedding
are among the most significant within the scope of this study. Not only are
-------
Linens subjected to a greater degree of contamination in the hospital or
nursing home setting (the primary institutional environments being considered
here), but the users of these linens tend to be much more susceptible to in-
fection than is the general populace. Because of these considerations, bedding
for institutional applications must meet rigorous standards of cleanliness
and sanitation to ensure that its role in cross-infection is kept to an absolute
minimum.
The patient bed sheet, which is the focus of this investigation,
is a virtual repository of bacteria. Several studies have emphasized the
significance of skin desquamation in spreading microorganismsj the average
human desquamates an entire layer of skin over a 1- to 2-day period, which
is in large part deposited onto the bed sheet when the patient is hospitalized
or otherwise bedridden. These skin scales, as established in a study by Davis
and Noble, harbor a variety of potentially pathogenic bacteria. Additionally,
the patient may excrete urine or feces onto the sheet, or he may have wounds
which produce pus and/or blood. All of these factors interact to render the
bed sheet contaminated, and thus the object of intense scrutiny in evaluating
institutional standards of health and sanitation.
Greene (20) states two general contamination control objectives
within the hospital:
1. "(To) minimize the microbial contamination level of the environ-
ment by curtailing dissemination of contaminants from soiled and used fabrics.
2. (To) minimize the probability of microbial transmission from
infected reservoirs to susceptible hosts by destroying or removing microbes
on used linen before it is reissued to patients and personnel."
-------
APPENDIX E
environmental
action
foundation
The Dupont Circle Building
Suite 724
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone (202) 659-9682
Advisory Board
Robert Rienow, chairperson
Walter Boardman
Harry Caudill
Herman Daly
John Dow
Michael Frome
John Gofman
LaDonna Harris
Denis Hayes
Hazel Henderson
Olga Madar
Margaret Mead
Glenn Paulson
Victor Reuther
Alvin Toffler
May 19, 1977
Mr. Charles Peterson
Project Officer
Disposables/Reusables Contract (AW-463)
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Peterson,
Enclosed please find our comments regarding the
draft report by the Midwest Research Institute concerning
the impacts of disposables versus reusables.
Overall, we found it to be a fair report. We feel
that the REPA approach is a good one, however, we think
that because toxicity and persistence are not taken
into account, the REPA approach does not present a
complete approach to the problem of balancing the
impacts of various products. However, it is a start.
Thank you for the opportunity to reveiw this
report. If you have any questions, feel free to contact
me.
Yours,
Marchant Wentworth
Solid Waste Project
i - c.
This stationery is printed on 100% recycled paper.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE
DRAFT REPORT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DISPOSABLES VERSUS REUSABLES
BY
MARCHANT WENTWORTH
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION FOUNDATION
DUPONT CIRCLE BUILDING, SUITE 724
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
202-659-9682
MAY 19, 1977
-------
I. Factual Errors
There were no direct errors of fact that we observed
in the report. If errors were made, they do not appear to be
of a magnitude to change the conclusions of the report.
II. Invalid Assumptions
While we feel that the REPA approach to quantifying
impacts of selected products is a good one, the technique
fails to include toxicity and persistence of various pollutants
in the analysis. In many cases, this omissionbcould well lead
to erroneous conclusions about the impacts of the various products
studied. For example, the data reveal that in the production of
chlorine and caustics we could expect the loss - of 0.183 Ib of
mercury for every 1,000 Ibs of chlorine or caustics that are
produced. Yet, according to the data presented on the amount of
mercury emitted during this process, we find a total'of 0.000735 Ibs
of mercury escaped into the air and water through the production
of chlorine and caustics through electrolysis - a net difference
of 0.17565 Ibs apparently unaccounted for. Ignoring this problem
for a moment and returning to the initial emissions problem, we
find that, in spite of the relatively small amount of mercury
emissions for a chlprine production of 1,000 pounds, these data
indicate that, nationally, chlorine and caustic production caused
a release of over 3,500 Ibs of mercury into the environment.
This impact was ignored by this study and the assumption was made
-------
that all emissions are equal. Unfortunately, our present knowledge
of the toxicity and persistence of mercury lead us to the fact
that all emissions are not created equal. This pre&jLem of
mercury emissions is just one example of how the REPA approach
fails to take into account public health and safety impacts of
various pollutants. There are other examples.
We realize^that a detailed "weighting" of the various
pollutants is perhaps beyond the scope of this particular study.
But more mention should be made of the real-life impacts of
some of the pollutants that have been listed in this study.
A mere cataloging of the amounts is not enough.
Turning to the other areas of the study, we found that
presenting the data around a specific use factor -i.e. 1,000 uses -
is valuable but perhaps incomplete. The picture presented in
many cases was that the impacts were not cumulative for any
one product. In other words, the impacts of 2,000 uses would
not necessarily twice that of 1,000 uses. Thus, a range of
use factors would present more useful cjata for a real life
situation.
Another parameter that was not mentioned was time. Although
a difficult factor to figure into the equation, it obviously
plays a crucial role. For example, how long it takes 1,000
spills to occur in a given place is obviously a factor in judging
laundering and other use factors. Also the type of spill was
not mentioned. This too plays a part ฃn deciding use factors.
Another fact of life that could be mentioned in the reportr
z-e
-------
is the fact that a shift from reusables to disposables is generally
fmade across the board. Generally speaKing, the sh-iit involves
not just a single product, but an entire range 01 products.
We suspect that the cumulative impacts of this decision are
larger than the sum of the parts. Thus, it might not be strictly
accruate to consider what the impact of a single product shift
might be wihout considering the influence that decision might
have other products.
Again concerning the basic REPA approach, we disagree
with the assumption that no relative weighting of.the virgin
materials based on availability or scarcity was necessary.
The explanation that "timber growth exceeds the timber cut annually
at present in this country" fails to explain why timber is not
in short supply. The othfer materials mentioned, limestone,
salt, sand, etc., while not in short supply, will be' increasingly
expensive as extraction and refining costs continue to rise.
Lacking an economic section of this report, some mention should
be made in this draft as to the relative importance of these
materials.
Another invalid assumption presented in the report is that
turbidity and heat .were not included in the report as pollutants
because there was "no acceptable way to quantify their impacts."
There are, of course, existing water standards on both of these
parameters. Both can be^measured and can have injurious effects
-------
ETHYL CORPORATION
ETHYL TOWER
451 FLORIDA
BATON ROUGE. LA 7OEO1
June 29, 1977
Mr. Charles Peterson
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Resource Recovery Division AW-463
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Peterson:
A review of the Study of Environmental Impacts of Disposables versus
Reusables within our company, as well as among major polyethylene resin
manufacturers contacted by us, resulted in the attached comments directed
to that part of the study on disposable diapers and more specifically as
it pertains to the production and use of low density polyethylene resins
and films in that product.
Because of the complexities involved in a study of this magnitude, it
can be expected there will be significant differences of opinion and fact
in the other areas reviewed but not commented on here.
In addition to the above, and because of the study's stated lack of
conclusive evidence on public health aspects of disposable diaper, the
lack of consistency of published literature and the need for current
updated information, we take the position that no use should be made of
the base data without considerable additional work being undertaken.
I would appreciate being kept informed of the status and further updating
of this study.
Sincerely yours,
Michael
Marketing Manager
VisQueen Division
MJZ:cs
Attachment
-------
INVALID ASSUMPTIONS
1. Reference Page C-37 Figure C-5, Page C-38 paragraph 2 and Table C-24.
The yield of Ethylene appears to be too high.
The January 5, 1976, issue of Chemical Engineering shows yield
numbers as follows:
Pounds of Feed
Type of Feed Per_1000 Ibs. Ethylene
Ethane 1244
Propane 2112
Naptha 3707
Essentially this same information is discussed on page C-36 in
paragraph 6 but not followed through in calculation.
2. Reference Pages C-38 to C-40.
The following are quotes from major manufacturers of low density
polyethylene resin.
"The energy required for pollution control, as well as process
additions, atmospheric emissions, solid waste, etc., described
in Table C-24 would all vary significantly with the feedstock."
"We take exception to the natural gas supposedly used since we use
little or none for heating or power. The figure of 20 pounds of
additives is much too high for a disposable resin, as we ship it.
The atmospheric emission figures are far too high, at least in our
case. Hydrocarbons for example, might be 0.5 Ibs. In the case of
waterborne waste, the figures given in the report are much 'too
high for a modern plant."
"The numbers shown in Table C-25 appear reasonable. However, these
could vary widely depending on plant size, location, and other factors.
The section of this table entitled 'Waterborne Wastes' is unclear."
"The paragraph concerning low density film manufacture is inaccurate.
As you know, most people can blow film at more than 125 pounds/hour and
that the water bath process is no longer used. We again take
exception to the amount of water supposedly used since the blown
film process uses hardly any at all and the chill cast process uses
recycled water. Our laboratory takes exception to the power usage of
245 kilowatt-hour per 1,000 pounds of film, believing it should be
substantially less."
3. Reference Page C-40, Low Density Polyethylene Film Manufacture
Actual water requirements used in our plants for manufacture of film
used in the disposable diaper average closer to 50 gallons per
1,000 pounds of film as opposed to the "1780 gallons per 1,000
pounds LDPE film" used in the study.
n -F
-------
association
of the
nonwoven fahricsiiadtetry
June 22, 1977
Mr. Charles Peterson
Project Officer
Disposables/Reusables Contract (AW-463)
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Re: Draft Report MRI Project #4010-0
Study on Environmental Impacts of Disposables vs. Reusables
Dear Mr. Peterson:
INDA is an international trade association composed of over 100 indus-
trial corporations who manufacture a wide variety of products including
diapers, bed sheets and pillowcases, drapes and gowns used in hospital
operating rooms, catamenials and related products.
As President of the Association, I am addressing you relative to the
above entitled study.
A detailed analysis of the voluminous report leads us to the conclusion
that the work which has been undertaken is incomplete and subject to
erroneous interpretation or misapplication by those who have not
studied the background and use conditions in great depth. For example,
the laundering impact quotients established in the diaper premise
relate only to the cloth diaper. If only a cloth diaper is used, any
wetting will result in additional 'laundering impacts covering bed
clothing, nightgowns, etc. If an impermeable covering is used to pre-
vent this (plastic pants), then a heat incubator is created where rapid
bacterial growth takes place, drastically affecting the health impact
content in another part of the study.
The purpose of my pointing out this example of incompleteness is to
emphasize that similar problems exist in almost every aspect of the
study. Clearly those who conducted the study and prepared the data are
fully aware of the shortcomings and the misunderstandings which can
result therefrom. Our concerns do not lie with them, but rather with
those who are less well informed who may eventually be privy to these
findings.
We, therefore, urge you in the strongest way possible, to totally dis-
card this work and in no way make it any part of official records,
reference works, open, or closed file materials, or in any way endorse
or appear to endorse these findings for any work by the Environmental
Protection Agency or any other organization except that originally
j_3 (cont'd.)
to HEADQUARTERS: 10 East 40 St., New York, NY 10016/212-686-9170
WASHINGTON OFFICE: 1619 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036/202-462-0086
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection agency dune L
-------
National Wildlife Federation
12 16TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 Phone 202797-6800^
June 28, 1977
Mr. Charles Peterson, Project Officer
Disposables/Reusables Contract (AW-463)
Office of Solid Waste
TJ. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1*01 M Street, S.ฅ.
Washington, D.C.
Dear Chuck:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review and comment upon the draft of the
"Study of Environmental Impacts of Disposables Versus Reusables" prepared by the
Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Since my comments are brief and fairly general, I will confine them to the body of
this letter. I will be happy to elaborate upon any point which I raise at your
request.
I would like to start by complimenting MRI for an outstanding job. To my knowledge,
they are the first to embark upon such a gigantic task and considering its magni-
tude and all of the considerations which must be made, MRI performed a remarkable
survey. I can find no fault with any of the factual data which they provide and
found a great deal of it useful.
My negative reactions fall mainly in the area of assumptions which MRI has made.
I think that to be fair, it must be remembered that MRI was given an enormous as-
signment and only meager resources to accomplish those tasks. In the introduction,
MRI itself noted that it just could not accomplish an adequate analysis of the eco-
nomic aspects. This, of course, severely limits the value of the study. As MRI
states, before legislation is undertaken irhich would "result in deletions and ad-
ditions of products in the marketplace" a comprehensive economic survey "sufficient-
ly funded" should be considered.
MRI is asked to compare a whole variety of reusable items to the throwaway items
that are being marketed as substitutes. Compiling data on most of the substitutes
seems to have been fairly simple. These are mostly items that are used once and
then thrown away. It was in talking about the reusable items that, most assumptions
were made. Some of these assumptions wee just too limited, especially those relat-
ing to the home, non-commercial use of such items.
To cite an example, I would note the discussion of cloth towels and napkins compared
to those made from paper. The whole procedure of "counting spills" is suspect. The
relative size of the spills is never addressed, nor is the time span over which these
"spills" are taking place. Both of these are important factors that will influence
the life expectancy of the cloth items and the frequency oS the need for washing.
To proceed further, the discussion of environmental effects of washing the cloth
items seems questionable to me. MRI goes to great lengths to determine just how
much space the cloth items will take up in the average washload and, therefore,
how much of the pollution from that washload results from the subject items. In dis-
-------
Charles Peterson/
cussing commercial use of cloth towels and napkins, there is no question of the
Ldity of the environmental impacts that result from the washing of loads com-
jsed entirely of towels and napkins. In the home, however, washloads are not
handled the same way they are commercially. Most homes have a set a vash schedule.
In my home, I do my laundry once a week. The number of cloth napkins and towels
I have to wash is marginal. I would do the same number of loads whether I had the
cloth items or was using paper substitutes and discarding them. To break down the
washload and assign a set "environmental impact" on the washing of the cloth towels
and napkins is as valid as saying for every use of paper substitutes wasliloads are
being done in which the water, energy, etc. are being under-utilized because there
is less wash in the load!
My major concern about these kinds of misleading assumptions is that it is essential
that they be placed in proper perspective. Since MRI is trailblazing in this field,
more or less, we can hope that future studies will build upon MRI's base. The dang-
er now is that some of the conclusions which MSI is basing on these shaky assumptions
might be lifted out of the context of the study and used as facts as opposed to the
projections which they in fact are.
I hope my comments have been useful. If I can be of further assistance, or you wish
some clarification, please contact me.
Sincerely,
J. MAEK SULLIVAN
Solid Waste Project Director
-------
Ill East WackeFDrix
Chicago, Illinois 6060
June 24, 1977 312/644-6610
Mr. Charles Peterson
Project Officer
Disposables/Reusables Contract (AW-463)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of A1r and Waste Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report
of the contract study comparing selected disposable and reusable
products done for you by the Midwest Research Institute.
Reactions of the Permanent Ware Institute are very similar to those of
the American Restaurant China Council, there being several major companies
which are members of both organizations. To facilitate your review of
replies, we are attaching copy of those comments submitted by the American
Restaurant China Council which we also strongly endorse.
Along with the American Restaurant China Council, we hope these comments
will be considered both in the preparation of the final report'and in
consideration of any future studies.
Cordially,
ฃ7Y~Ua/
Iris Lalne
Executive Secretary
IL/cg
Enc.
i-r.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
of
DISPOSABLES VERSUS REUSABLES
MRI Project No. 4010-D
Iris Laine
Executive Secretary
PERMANENT WARE INSTITUTE
111 East Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 644-6610
June 24, 1977
-------
Comments have been arranged in the order requested in transmittal letter
from the United States Environmental Protection Agency forwarding draft
report of "'Study of Environmental Impacts of Disposables versus Reusables,"
letter dated April 18, 1977.
I. FACTUAL ERRORS
Volume II, Health Considerations, printed page 125: The individual
at the Permanent Ware Institute to whom correspondence should be
addressed is: Iris Laine, Executive Secretary. John Fanning, the
name given, is PWI's vice president and not located at the associa-
tion's headquarters office.
II. INVALID ASSUMPTION
That public health and sanitation considerations have a valid place
in a study originally contracted for the purpose of studying environ-
mental impacts of disposables versus reusables.
We cannot ignore the fact that an unknown amount of taxpayers money was
wasted because of the pressure applied by disposable interests which
aborted and modified the original contract #68-01-2995.
Undoubtedly the lack of an economic study is the result of such
deviation of purpose.
Fortunately, on printed page 107, Volume II, the entire matter of
health considerations in disposables versus reusables was laid to
rest in the quotation,
"Questions involving the health effects of environmental
bioloads are particularly prone to uncertainty and the
health impact of various environmental levels of micro-
organisms on food or beverage contact surfaces are often
unknown, and infrequently unknowable."
What is now needed is to go back to the intent of the original contract
and in much greater depth.
III. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We feel this report totally fails to explore the original core
issue THE SERIOUSNESS OF AMERICA'S SOLID WASTE PROBLEM AND
ITS TOTAL COST TO THE NATION.
We believe, too, an implied assumption has been made which is
invalid when the economic aspects of the work done by MRI are
not presented "due to lack of data."
t-r.
-------
No study of disposables versus reusables will ever be useful
to the President, Congress, and the general public until the
ful1 cost impact js studied in degth. For example, the economic
costs of post consumer waste"must be Known to anyone attempting
an objective study of disposables versus reusables. The economic
study called for in the original contract must go forward and be
expanded.
The Pel ham, New York, landfill is an excellent example of im-
proper land disposal practices. This mountain of garbage peaks
at 140 feet at the present time and covers 75 acres. It is
being fed at a rate of five mil lion pounds of garbage daily.
The cost of this open dump economically, as well as environ-
mentally, to say nothing of its safety hazard, should be
studied in detail as a current "today problem" with far
reaching implications of taking place tomorrow in other com-
munities.
We believe that the encouragement of reliance on high technology
forms of solid waste disposal, in effect encourages the growth
of solid waste. In any study on the environmental impacts of
disposables versus reusables that, too, must, be considered.
Solid waste reduction,not disposal, is the key issue. Any
objective study should recognize that it takes 6900 disposable
plates to do the job of one single reusable plate. That is
simple, real world solid waste management everyone can under-
stand.
2. The energy crisis cannot be divorced from a study of disposables
versus reusables and we strongly suggest the inclusion of a
meaningful energy discussion in future studies.
Specifically;
A. Establish a list of our nations' natural
resources based on current available
technology.
B. Determine our annual usage of these natural
resources for both disposables and reusables.
C. Study our resource availability and product
use recommending to the nation allocations of
energy and raw materials based on a best use
concept.
D. Establish a "watch dog" committee that would keep
score and report to the nation the products that
are a serious drain on our most vital resources,
such as petroleum and forest products.
-------
E. Develop an oversight committee that will keep
tabs on the social and environmental cost in
total of producing and disposing of various
products, such as disposables and reusables.
We are not recommending nationalization of our vital resources
or even that the Environmental Protection Agency unilateral^
set up oversight committees. We do, however, believe it
mandatory that the study undertaken in the original contract
be explored to a logical conclusion as outlined above.
We recommend that sizeable increases be made in the allocation
of funds for research into all of the above vital areas and
that the results be widely publicized. The voters of this
country must be shown there is no such thing as a "throw away".
IF THE COST OF DISPOSING OF DISPOSABLES WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL
PRICE TAG. THE ATTITUDE OF THIS NATION TOWARDS DISPOSABLES
M SUBMIT, CHANGE PERCEPTIBLY.
Furthers the Environmental Protection Agency, under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, of 1976, must work with the various
states to offer financial assistance in implementing that law. It
seems to us that there should be some provision to insure- that
while the federal government is giving funds to the states for
resource conservation, the state governments are not spending their
own money in a counter-productive manner in the name of environ-
mental health programs.
In summary, we believe that the contracted study performed by Midwest Research
Institute was a reasonable and objective first step in understanding the issues
involved. It is, in our opinion, regretable that the original contract was
modified with the result that emphasis was shifted, distorted, and aborted
from the original purpose. Now that the advocates of disposables and single
service merchandise have had their health considerations explored, it is time
to return to the fundamentals; environmental impact, solid waste accumulation,
resource availability, and a study of the social and economic price the nation
is really paying for a "throw _a_w_ay" society"
3-1-
-------
APPENDIX J
I Single Service Institute
250 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017 (212) 697-4545
June 28, 1977
Mr. Charles Peterson
Project Officer
Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Re: "Study of Environmental Impact of Disposables Vs. Reusables1'ป
(Disposables/Reusables Contract AW-463, MR1 Project # 4010-D),
dated April 1, 1977.
The Single Service Institute submits two enclosed papers which
cover in detail our reactions to the sections on disposable and reusable
food service ware. These critiques bear out fully our strong conviction
that the MR1 report Is inadequate and must be substantially revised
before it can be considered valid.
When the study was announced, SSI's first reaction was that it would
serve no useful purpose. In particular we criticized the proposed study's
concentration on environmental impacts to the exclusion of such important
considerations as sanitation, public health, economic factors and con-
venience. Without consideration of all of these factors a REPA study is
of little value in the development of public policy on environmental
matters.
Although we held serious reservations about the MRI study, the indus-
try wished to make a positive contribution to as meaningful a report as
possible and so cooperated fully with EPA. While much of the information
offered has been used by MRI in its draft report, there is at least one
crucial and damaging omission of materials which will be described later.
The two volumes of MRI's report have been analyzed by our staff, by
member companies and by expert consultants. The latter include Arthur D.
Little, Inc., for the REPA report and a panel of public health professionals
for the Health Considerations report.
The report suffers from the lack of an economic impact study. There
is no appraisal of the potential economic consequences of policy options
that might impinge on the distribition and use of disposables and reusables.
These economic consequences are of obvious concern to the single service
industry (and to its suppliers, customers and related industries), where
many thousands of livelihoods and many hundreds of millions of dollars in
investments are involved. But beyond this, by omitting economic considera-
tions, the report also ignores the entire area "economics-in-use" -- the
i -T
The Trade Association for Manufacturers of Disposable Products for Food Service and Packaging.
-------
comparative costs of using either disposables or reusables in actual
food rvice operations, the economic and management factors that
lead nod service operators to choose one utensil system or the other
or to combine both.
Also totally ignored, and closely related to economic considerations,
is the factor of convenience. "Convenience" Is a term for very specific
and important benefits provided by single service utensils. Conve-
nience means flexibi1i ty the ways in which paper and plastic cups
and plates allow food service establishments to design their operations
to meet a variety of customer needs and demands. From fast foods to
take-out, from self-service to vending machines to school lunch service
to family dining with ease and safety single service permits versa-
tility and flexibility in the design of food service operations. Single
service also plays an important role for working mothers -- a large
and growing segment of the population. For them, as well, as for thou-
sands of food service operators in both commercial and institutional
settings "convenience" in fact turns out to be "necessity".
Beyond these major.concerns, following are some of the specific
criticisms of the MRI REPA report with references to the ADL Critique
where these are elaborated:
1. The report appears biased toward reusables (ADL Critique, p.ll).
2. It ignores the problem of product comparability and fails to
point out those instances where disposables and reusables are not equi-
valent (p. 12-13).
3. It presents misleading environmental impact totals ... (p. 11-12).
4. It omits any discussion of solid waste recovery technologies,
including energy recovery from paper and plastic waste materials...(p.lA).
5. The report contains inconsistent data ... (p.l4).
6. It makes highly questionable assumptions regarding wood wastes
and trim, and does not include any impacts for saucers as integral to
the major part of the reusable hot drink system... (p.17-21).
7. Finally the report substantially understates the impacts related
to the washing of permanent ware... (p.22-32).
These major flaws along with other deficiencies of lesser signifi-
cance plus technical errors are fully discussed in the accompanying
critique of the MRI REPA report.
Similar analysis of shortcomings of the Health Considerations report
is also presented for your consideration. We see the major problems in
the Health document as follows:
1. The MRI health report does not include the results of the Syracuse
Research Corporation's comparative microbiological study of disposable
and reusable food service ware in food service establishments... (SSI
Health Critique, pp. 13-16).
ii-J
-------
2. The health report dismisses the potential hazards of food
service ware in communicable disease wards and completely ignores
the American Hospital Association's recommendations for the use
of disposables ... (pp. 22-23).
3. The report selectively and improperly quotes from an im-
portant statement by a leading public health scientist, and impro-
perly manipulates statistical findings in a professional paper...
(pp. 16-20).
k. The MRI health report seriously errs in its appraisal of
the potential hazard of disease transmission by means of food service
ware and grossly underestimates the prevalence of food poisoning in
the. United States... (pp. 9-13).
5. The MRI report consistently tends to minimize the health pro-
tection afforded by bacterial standards established for food service...
(pp. 10-11).
6. The report fails to evaluate the sources quoted or suggest
their relative significance... (pp. 22, 31, 37).
7- Finally, the listed authors of the MRI report on Health Con-
siderations do not appear to be expert in microbiology, a prerequisite
for proper evaluation of the scientific literature in this field and
of the technical issues involved ... (p. 5).
The key question now arises: What is to be done? The Single
Service Institute respectfully recommends that both the REPA and
Health Considerations volumes be substantially revised and that this
revision take into account the comments we have made in our critiques
of the MRI report. We feel that the report should not be published,
released or kept on hand as a "file" item available for reference.
We take this urgent position for a number of reasons. First,
the present version of the report is inadequate. It fails to clear the
air with respect to the issues surrounding "disposables versus reusables",
and can be of little or no use in the complex task of formulating
meaningful public policy on environmental problems.
Second, the report, even though it is considered preliminary and
even if it is not widely released and publicized, will be a potential
source of misuse and damage. The report has already been leaked to a
Washington columnist who has used it as the basis of a premature story
in the daily press.
The potential is there for damage not only to the issues and public
understanding of them, but to an industry which provides valuable prod-
ucts and plays a responsible role in seeking solutions for our real
environmental problems. It is an industry that directly employs more than
28,000 people in communities throughout the nation, with a capital invest-
ment of over $700,000,000 and annual sales approaching a billion dollars.
pf-
ปป1 --T
-------
In addition, the single service industry is linked to a network
of suppliers and customers, with many more employees and their
own substantial capital investments. For example, over 45,000
persons are employed in wholesaling and distributing operations
in which single service products represent a major merchandise
line. An estimated 8,000 employees are involved in the manu-
facture of paperboard for single-use cups and plates in plants
with a capital investment of $500 million. An entire and growing
industry -- fast foods -- is built and operates around the
availability of single service items. The Department of Commerce's
projection is that in 1977 there will be 53,018 franchised fast-
food establishments with sales of over $16 billion.
The single service industry recognizes the need for protection
of our vulnerable environment. As citizens, we and our employees
are hurt when the environment suffers. But actions toward solutions
of environmental problems must be based on full and accurate infor-
mation, on comprehensive and conclusive data, on thorough and unas-
sailable technical analyses, and on a deep understanding of the
needs of people.
We urgently request a re-thinking and re-writing of the MRI
report. To this end, we hope that our comments will be helpful.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Foster
RWF/mc Executive Vice President
Encls.
V-T
-------
CRITIQUE OF THE MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
"STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
DISPOSABLES VERSUS REUSABLES"
Report to:
Single Service Institute
June 1977
Elliot H. Barber
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures and Tables . iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
A. Purpose and Scope 1
B. Findings 1
C. Recommendations 4
I. CHARACTERISTICS OF A REPA ANALYSIS 6
A. Strengths 6
B. Weaknesses " 8
II. GENERAL COMMENTS ON REPORT 11
A. Summary Appears Biased Toward Reusables 11
B. The REPA Impact Totals are Misleading 11
C. The REPA Analysis Ignores Product Utility 12
D. Inadequate Discussion of Key Future Technologies 14
E. Inconsistency of Summary Tables in Appendix F 14
III. QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS IN THE REPA ANALYSIS 17
A. Wood Wastes Counted as Energy 17
B. REPA Impacts for Waste Trim 18
C. Definition of the Reusable Cup System 19
IV. DATA SOURCE ^ 22
A. Disposable Cups and Saucers 22
B. Reusable Cups and Plates 22
V. TREATMENT OF DATA 33
A. Estimates of Solid Waste Impacts 33
B. Estimates of Waterborne Wastes 33
C. Reusable Usage Assumptions 34
VI. ALTERNATE REPA IMPACT SCENARIOS 35
VII. MATHEMATICAL ERRORS AND TYPOS 39
-------
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure No.
I
REPA Flow Diagram
Page
7
Table No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Heat Content of Selected Industrial
Solid Waste Products
Energy and Post Consumer Solid Waste
Impact Before and After Energy Recovery
Incineration Processes
REPA Impact Credits for Trim Waste
Recycle
REPA Impacts for Hot Drink Reusable
Systems
Energy Impacts for Reusable Tumblers,
Cups and Plates
Energy and Water Requirements for Flight
Rack Dishwashers
Data for Single Rack/Time Cycle Washer
REPA Impact Estimates Single Rack/Time
Cycle Washing Unit
REPA Impacts for Dish Washing with Single
Rack/Time Cycle Washer
ADL Versus MRI Energy Estimates for
Permanent Ware Washing
REPA Impacts for Washing
Cold Drink System Alternate REPA
Impact Estimates
Hot Drink System Alternate REPA
Impact Estimates
Plate 'System Alternate REPA Impact
Estimates
15
16
20
21
23
25
27
28
29
30
31
36
37
38
" IT"
II - J
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Midwest Research Institute has recently published a study commissioned
by the Environmental Protection Agency in which it examined the environ-
mental impacts of selected disposable and reusable cups and plates using
the REPA approach. It is generally accepted that the REPA approach is
heavily dependent on a variety of qualifications, assumptions "and subjec-
tive evaluations and that the results of the analysis are limited by
these subjective aspects. Since the production of disposable cups and
plates is very important to member companies, the Single Service Institute
wants to assure itself that the assumptions and subjective evaluations
which bear heavily on the final outcome of the study are reasonable and
realistic. Thus, the Institute has asked ADL to review the methodology,
assumptions and subjective evaluations in the MRI study and comment on
the overall reasonability and accuracy of MRl's REPA comparisons and con-
clusions.
B. FINDINGS
We do not feel that the MRI report presents a reasonable and
accurate comparison of disposables versus reusables. Our major criti-
cisms of the report are that it:
Appears Biased Toward Reusables:
The apparent bias of the summary comparing reusable versus
disposables is no doubt unintentional. However, terms denoting
product ranking are only used when reusables have lower REPA
impacts. In addition, it contains three instances of specula-
tion beyond the scope of the study; while none of the speculative
situations are commercially important, they are presented as a
potential scenario for reducing impact of reusables.
1-3""
-------
Ignores the Issue of Product Comparability:
A basic assumption underlying a REPA comparison of competing
products is that they are reasonably equal in usefulness. MRI
does not point out those instances where disposables and re-
usables are not equivalent (e.g., fast food businesses) and that
these instances limit the usefulness of a disposable versus re-
usable comparison.
Presents Misleading Impost Totals:
Adding REPA values in each category results in sums which are
not accurate reflections of resource use and environmental im-
pact. For example, the sums for raw materials do not distinguish
between scarce and plentiful (or renewable) resources: summation
treats these impacts as equivalent. The impact totals for energy
likewise do not distinguish between scarce and relatively avail-
able energy sources.
Omits Discussing Solid Waste Incineration Technologies:
Although futuristic technologies relevant to reusable products
are discussed, MRI does not mention energy recovery from cellu-
losic and plastic waste materials. While consideration of these
technologies do not eliminate solid waste impacts for disposables
and reusables, solid waste is greatly reduced and valuable energy
can be recovered.
Contains Inconsistent Data:
The summary data for reusable products presented in the Appendix
are not consistent with those data reported in the main report.
Since the on-site impact data for the specific process steps are
consistent with the tables in the main body, those in the Appendix
appear to be wrong.
2 - -J"
-------
Includes Three Questionable Aaeumptiona:
1. Wood Wastes are Counted as Energy Consumed
The MRI assumption that wood wastes should be counted as
energy is questionable and inconsistent with its position
on hydrocarbon fuels. Material scarcity and its viability
as a major energy source are the Important criteria used to
classify plastics feedstocks as an energy source rather than
a raw material. Wood wastes meet neither criteria; therefore,
should be counted as raw materials.
2. REPA Impacts for Waste Trim
MRI also assumes that the process producing a reusable
waste material should be charged with the environmental
impacts created by that waste. Recycled waste in fact
reduces the total demand for virgin raw materials and as
such paper process wastes are pulp substitute coproducts.
If these were internally recycled, credit for the environ-
mental impacts as a wood pulp substitute would automatically
be given. If it is preferential to recycle this in another
process, that process should be charged with the pulping im-
pacts associated with the waste products.
3. Reusable Hot Drink System Does Not Include Saucers
MRI does not include saucers in the reusable hot drink
system. This is clearly a serious omission and significantly
understates the REPA Impacts for reusable cups.
3 -T
-------
Includes Understated Permanent Ware Washing Impacts:
While MRI does not reveal its sources for commercial permanent
ware washing impacts, its treatment of data suggests that the
impacts are based on equipment specifications obtained from
suppliers. These data rarely reflect what actually exists in
a commercial operation. Our data suggest that the impacts are
understated. Since more than 90% of the total REPA impacts are
associated with the washing process, the understatement is sig-
nificant.
Improperly Treats Data for Process Solid Waste and Waterbome
Wastes:
MRI uses an average process solid waste density of 74 Ibs/cubic
foot to estimate the land fill impacts; this understates the
impacts for lighter solid waste streams. Finally, MRI also mis-
takenly treats BOD and COD as separate waterborne wastes while
in fact COD includes those pollutants included as BOD plus others,
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the SSI press for the following revisions in
order to make the MRI report a more meaningful document.
1. Revise the chapters summarizing the reusable versus disposable
comparisons to:
remove terms suggesting product ranking
strike process technology speculation
4 -
-------
2. Recognize and discuss those cases in which disposables and
reusables have different product utility.
3. Discuss the impact of solid waste energy recovery technologies.
4. Revise MRI's position on:
wood wastes to classify it as a raw material rather than
energy
recyclable waste products to charge REPA impacts to those
industries using such wastes and credit those processes
which provide it
the reusable cup definition to include reusable saucers
and impacts associated with them
5. Correct the inconsistencies and errors in the report.
5-3"
-------
I. CHARACTERISTICS OF A REPA ANALYSIS
REPA means resource and environmental profile analysis. The
approach is an analytical tool that permits resource and environmental
comparisons to be made between specific products manufactured from
different materials which have similar end uses.
There are six basic REPA impact categories. Energy, materials,
and water are inputs to the product system. Solid waste, atmospheric emis-
sions and waterborne wastes are outputs from the product system. Figure
1 shows that the analysis measures these impacts through a complete
product life cycle.
Taking a paper cup as an example, the REPA study would begin in
the area of woodlands harvesting. The study would then progress through
pulp and paperboard production, cup converting and use/discard/final
disposal. The analysis also includes impacts associated with the
transportation of these materials and products from site to site, and
any recycling that takes place within the production process.
A. STRENGTHS
The comprehensive systems concept which the study employs allows
for a broader assessment of a product system's overall impact in terms
of resource depletion and environmental degradation than most other
analytical methods. Unlike studies which focus on only a single impact
category, e.g., water pollution, this analysis measures impacts from
six different major categories. Also, unlike studies which focus on
only a single manufacturing step, e.g., pulp/paperboard making, this
analysis considers impacts at each stage of a product's life
beginning at the raw materials point of origin and ending with the final
disposal of the product. For these reasons, the analysis can be a
helpful decision-making tool for both public institutions and private
6 -T
-------
~1
Raw Materials
Harvesting/
Extraction
Materials
Processing
Recycled
Materials
Processing
L
Product
Fabrication/
Converting
Use/
Consumption/
Discard
PT
Final
Dispos.il
FIGURE 1
REPA FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
corporations. Public agencies can use this analysis as one input to
public policy formulation. Private corporations can use the analysis
to identify processes or operations that have abnormally high REPA
values and that may benefit from corrective action that could result in
increased overall operating efficiency and lower production costs.
B. WEAKNESSES
PERSPECTIVE As previously mentioned, single service products
must be viewed from many perspectives functional, economic and public
health and other social factors as well as environmental. This analysis
deals with only the environmental perspective. Thus, there is a danger
that certain readers will view these studies with too narrow a perspective.
This danger is enhanced by the wide variety of audiences that will prob-
ably have access to the study. Dramatic quantitative comparisons are
sometimes easily taken out of context. For example, the losing product
in any one REPA comparison could still have an insignificant impact on
environmental quality.
DANGER OF GENERALIZATION Extrapolations of REPA findings
from studied products to the general product class can be dangerous.
The analysis is specific to the products being studied and cannot be
applied to other products that may (1) contain different amounts of
raw material; (2) involve other fabricating processes; or (3) have
different usage characteristics. Also, the analysis involves only the
six impact categories previously discussed. For example, it does not
include consideration of factors such as toxicological effects,
community desires or social values. Thus, generalizing from specific
REPA conclusions to broader observations regarding a product's overall
value in our society tan be highly misleading.
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS Many subjective evaluations and assump-
tions are required in order to keep the scope of a REPA study manage-
able. Assumptions that have an important impact on REPA results include:
8-T
-------
1'he Comparability of Products Studied
A key assumption in the analysis is that products being compared
(e.g., a disposable versus reusable plate) are substitutable
for each other. In the real world, this is often not the case.
In many situations, the products being compared may be comple-
mentary to each other.
Usage Assumptions
ri
The assumptions relating to the use and reuse of reusable
products are critical for two reasons. First, the reuse portion
of the total life cycle for reusable products is dominant as far
as REPA impacts are concerned. For many REPA impacts, and
particularly for energy, the values related to reuse (e.g.,
washing and drying) account for well over half of the total
impact category. Second, these reuse parameters are subject to
a great deal of variability and uncertainty; in many instances
it is difficult to pin down these numbers precisely. Thus,
assumptions relating to reuse, such as washing efficiency, and
water temperature, and a sensitivity analysis developed to put
the uncertainty around these assumptions into proper perspec-
tive are critical to the outcome of the analysis.
Time Frame
REPA studies are typically undertaken on a static basis. Thus,
potential technological improvements that could result in more
efficient operations, lower energy intensity or greater material
productivity in the future are not quantitatively considered.
Given trends toward lighter weight or less energy intensive
disposable products, it is appropriate that these are introduced
qualitatively in the analysis.
9 - T
-------
C. POLICY ACTIONS AND THE REPA ANALYSIS
Given the significant weakness inherent in a REPA analysis, great
care must be taken when setting public or private policy based solely on
a REPA analysis. If a REPA analysis is properly and objectively conducted,
it is valuable as one tool among several for guiding policy decisions.
If improperly done or if any assumptions made are not based on a thorough
industry understanding, the analysis will have little meaning and be
without value as far as public or private policy decisions are concerned.
It is our opinion that this REPA analysis, since it involves many criti-
cal assumptions and large uncertainties in the data inputs, runs a great
risk of being of limited usefulness.
10-
-------
II. GENERAL COMMENTS ON REPORT
A. SUMMARY APPEARS BIASED TOWARD REUSABLES
Several aspects of the summary comparing reusable and disposables
suggest that it is biased toward reusable products. While much of the
interproduct comparisons simply state which class has higher or lower
impacts, in several instances the emotional term "favor" is resorted to.
Reference to a "most favorable REPA profile" appears on page 7. Of the
three instances where the term "favor" is used, all refer to instances
in which reusable products have lower REPA Impacts.
In addition, the summary contains process technology speculation
outside the scope of the report which casts reusables in a more
"favorable" light. On page 7 reference is made to a product which
is not specified in the product list on page 4 or graphically
presented in Figure 3 on page 42. On page 9, there is speculation
about a commercial cold water system but the report flatly states
that commercial cold water wash systems were not encountered.
On page 17, chemical sanitization of permanent dishware is described
which to date is not commercially significant. In no instance
does the summary speculate in favor of disposable products. We feel
that any potentially biased references, especially those involving
speculation should be stricken from a responsible, rigorous study or
at least grouped together in an appropriately identified section of the
report.
B. THE REPA IMPACT TOTALS ARE MISLEADING
Adding the REPA values to each category results in sums which are
not accurate reflections of resource use and environmental impact.
As presented in this report, all the components of any category are
added together to give a single, supposedly all inclusive, number.
11 -
-------
However, the size of this number does not necessarily reflect the real
impact on the environment. For example, even though paper products
consume substantial quantities of raw materials, more than 90% of this
material is wood, limestone and salt. None of these materials is
currently in short supply nor is it likely to be in the near future.
In addition, more than 70% of the raw materials consumed is wood fiber
which is a renewable resource. Therefore, even though disposables con-
sume substantially more resources than reusables, the impact on poten-
tially scarce world resources is not as large as the numbers would
suggest.
A second case in point is the energy totals. More than 60% of
the energy requirements for reusables is derived from natural gas.
Disposable products rely on natural gas for less than 30% of the
energy need. The shortage of natural gas in the United States is
most acute, therefore, the energy mix for reusable products is
environmentally more significant than for disposable products.
MRI should not ignore these issues but rather present an impartial
discussion of the limitations of the REPA totals in order to try to in-
sure that the REPA data be used responsibly.
C. REPA ANALYSIS IGNORES PRODUCT UTILITY
The REPA analysis does not establish equivalent product utility.
Because the REPA analysis requires quantification of environmental
impacts, the analysis cannot include more subjective considerations
such as economic benefits, social impacts and quality of life differences
implied by each product being compared. This limitation is even more
apparent in the study of reusables versus disposables. A basic assump-
tion underlying the use of a REPA analysis is that any two products
12 - J"
-------
which re being compared are reasonably equal in usefulness. If this
condition is not true, then policy decisions based totally on a REPA
analysis will have significant economic, social and life style impacts.
Reusables and disposables are not always equivalent functionally.
While at a very simplistic level reusables and disposables can be thought
of as suitable alternatives for a given task, disposables are usually
chosen because they offer benefits not possible from reusables. As an
example, the fast food industry is totally dependent on disposables and
could not exist in its present form without them. Part of the utility
of disposables is that the consumer can take the cup, plate and napkins
with them. If only reusable products were available, fast food cus-
tomers would be required to bring their own napkins, utensils, food
containers, and beverage containers or eat the food at the restaurant
site. Thus, the restaurant floor space and number of employees would
have to be larger to accommodate laundering and dishwashing facilities.
At the other end of the spectrum, the fanciest of restaurants
would seldom entertain the idea of using disposable products. The
image of fine china, glassware and table linens is a subjective cri-
terion which a REPA analysis cannot possibly quantify.
ซ
The REPA analysis need not Ignore these Issues. Rather it
should recognize that they exist and properly identify and characterize
them in order to minimize the possibility of REPA comparisons being
made out of context.
13 -JT
-------
D. INADEQUATE DISCUSSION OF KEY FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES
While MRI does speculate on process technologies such as cold
water commercial washing practices and chemical sanitization of per-
manent ware, no mention is made of energy recovery technologies based
on municipal waste streams. For the past several years, much has been
written about incinerating solid waste materials to recover energy for
municipal use and at least one firm has developed a commercially viable
route to "synthetic fuels" from cellulosic waste materials. Much work
is currently under way to recover energy from plastics and other mate-
rials. It is not considered prudent in this analysis to credit each
system with the heat content of the raw materials based on energy recovery
systems but this process should be described and the impact on energy and
post consumer solid waste categories mentioned. The BTU content of
various waste materials is shown in Table 1 and the REPA impacts for
energy and post consumer waste before and after heat recovery incinera-
tion are shown in Table 2.
E. INCONSISTENCY OF SUMMARY TABLES IN APPENDIX F
We note that the data for reusable systems presented in Tables F-6,
F-7, and F-8 in Appendix F do not correspond to the corresponding 51-60
summary tables in the main body of the report. The primary discrepancy
lies in the input data. The detailed summary tables 51-60 do appear
consistent with the on-site REPA impact data for individual process
steps suggesting the summary tables in the Appendix contain an error.
This inconsistency should be checked and eliminated.
14 - T
-------
TABLE 1
HEAT CONTENT OF SELECTED INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE PRODUCTS
Heat Content Ash
(BTU/lb dry) (weight %)
Corrugated Board and 7600 5.0
Paper Products
Hardwood
Textiles
Plastics
Metals, Glass
Misc. Rubber
Food Waste
8300
8000
14,600
120
11,300
8400
3.0
3.0
1.5
95.0
15.0
5.0-
Source: H. Hollander & J. D. Lesslie, AATCC Symposium
"The Textile Industry and the Environment 1973"
page 101.
15 -
-------
CM
Cd
co
51
H
CO
en
w
i
3
CO
I~E
W
P-J
Q
ง
*3
W
J_J
W
CO
O
PH
CO
M
Q
PH
O
CO
H
CJ
^J
f\ .
s
R
w
H
CO
^
s
Q
CO
PS1
pj
ง
5
en
[23
o
CJ
CO
o
PH
Q
5
S*
O
PH
M
^
H
co
M
co
co
H
ง
PH
0
M
H
PH
W
^
r-l
CJ
M
f2
N
>
0
CJ
3
b^
0
W
ง
LH
p"ป
5
H
M
&
Q
|i
e
.3
4-1
cd
cu
s
H
CJ
fj
H
43
4J
H
a
~ 0
CO i-l
co cd
3 M
d ฃ
O -H
H O
H a
H H
-ป. 3
4-1 O
0 43
Cd 4-1
&
msumer
Waste
w
O T)
H
4J i 1
CO O
O CO
PH
Kj
OC
l^
CU
c
^1
cu cu
H ^
3 co
co cd
Q
CJ -d
H
4J H
CO O
O CO
^*
M
M
d
W
*
3
O
V/
g-
E*^
PP
S
ง
NM/
^^
44
M-<
v
3
O
^.^
uD
H
PQ
g
N-/
oo H ON r^ ON m
i-4 O >^ CO ซ* O
H r-l
^J 00 CD O^ ^^ ""^
O O H O rH 00
cปj c>j co m vo in
oo *^ rH r^* o> PO
* ซ^ oo
H r-) CM H Sf in
^ ON vO r^ H r-4
O O i 1 ON i 1 ON
CM CM ^j- \o vo in
d
t^ fl
S 0
V4 >4H
"ฐ ง
3 i
0 43
U 4J
- 1
N !
O
p.
ON ?
MO) CJ
cu |3 . i a
i-l CU 1 CU 3
fH C! CJ
ฃ & g 81 ซ
H o n cj >^ u d
M CU 4J -H
CO pu r-4 |H CO Cd 0
CO P*ป 4^ CU ^> d Co
Cd i t 8 P! i-l "rl r-l
i 1 O 3 Cd O 43 CU
O PH H PH PH CJ S
^^ ^X
* sf
r-l
r-l lปs
m o
CM m
t^ ' H
CO vO
CM r->
vO r-l
CO
a
H
M
d
O
43
N
O
r^ ง*
CJ
I
I cu
a cu
3 M
CJ >>
rl CO
0) >.
CU i-l
cd o
PH PH
O vO CO
CO O CM
CM
^^ ^i" ^D
CO ON O
ซ* CO CM
.
00 vO 00
VO
co
ON CM CO
co o in
d
cu
4-1
cd
8
ง
cu
4-1
2
12
CU I
.U j
cd
CU r-l CU
ij Du 4J
cd cd
H CU H
CM cl PM
*H
Cd g rl
d cd cu
H H CU
O S PH
o
co
CM
*H^
vO
rH
r-4
CM
00
m
*^f
ON
,_!
g
cd
o
<4-l
1
1
CU
4J
cd
PH
CU
g
rl
&*>
^J
co
rH
o
PH
g
Cd
CU
rl
4-1
CO
CU
CO
cd
j^
MH
0
4-1
00
rl
CU
*
^
JQ
6-S
00
co
H
CU
3
TJ
i-l
CO
CU
f-l
43
CO
cd
*
4J
14H
3
U
CO
f>
r-l
m
r^,.
A
CO
cd
<4H
O
^t
4-1
CO
CU
p
,ซ
g
H
4-J
B
3
CO
CO
O
16-T
-------
III. QUESTIONABLE ASSUMP1IONS IN THE REPA ANALYSIS
A. WOOD WASTES COUNTED AS ENERGY
MRI identifies two alternatives for treating organic hydrocarbons
consumed as raw materials: (1) count it as raw materials or (2) count
it as energy. MRI prefers option 2 and the basic argument it presents
states that "counting organic hydrocarbons as a raw material equivalent
to limestone is not equitable since hydrocarbons are scarce and lime-
stone is not." Since hydrocarbons represent the major source of energy
in the United States, MRI feels that counting raw material hydrocarbons
as energy more accurately reflects current environmental concerns.
Using the same logic, MRI states that wood fiber used as raw
material should be counted as a material resource rather than as an
energy source because (1) wood is not in short supply and (2) "cellu-
losic materials are not now a viable (fuel) energy source in the same
way that plastics feedstocks are."
MRI seems to feel, however, that wood wastes (principally kraft
black liquor) when burned should be counted as their energy equivalent.
The logic is apparently that wood wastes are in short supply or that
they are a viable multi-use (fuel) energy source in the same way that
plastics feedstocks are. Pulping operations do burn wood wastes to
provide process energy, but that hardly confirms the viability of these
as a fuel source. After costly pulping chemicals have been recovered
from black liquor wastes, it along with other wood wastes are burned to
recover valuable energy thereby avoiding disposal of waste stream in an
environmentally unacceptable manner.
17 -
-------
As a further consideration, each pound of wood wastes burned
reduces the demand for purchased energy in the pulping operation by
about 7000 BTU's. Since most purchased energy is derived from relatively
scarce hydrocarbon resources and, at least at the pulp mill, wood waste
is not scarce, counting energy from wood waste equal to energy
from hydrocarbons distorts reality. A more accurate picture would
exist if wood wastes are counted as raw material resources rather than
as energy.
Finally, if a pulp mill is brought on stream or closed down,
the impact felt on the national energy pool is described by the pur-
chased energy, not total energy requirement. To charge any process for
internally generated energy derived from waste materials unfairly
penalizes that process relative to those which use only purchased energy.
B. REP A IMPACTS FOR WASTE TRIM
Recycling of waste materials reduces the total systems need for
virgin raw materials. For each pound of trim waste recycled, one less
pound of wood pulp is required for producing paper products. The
recycled raw materials are not disposed of in any solid waste 'stream,
rather they are used as raw material substitutes in other processes.
The only question of policy in the REPA analysis is which process
should be charged with (and given credit for) the environmental impacts
associated with the production of the pulp which gets reused.
MRI has adopted the position that the process which generates the
waste trim should be charged with the environmental impacts.
If waste materials have no alternate use values then this approach
is justified. But for process wastes which can be recycled into other
processes, an equally valid alternative in our opinion is to allocate
the REPA impacts associated with the raw material content in the waste
material. In the instance of cup and plate stock producers, the REPA
18-
-------
impacts associated with the pulp content in the waste trim should be
allocated to it and be absorbed by those processes using it. If the
waste material were not available, those processes relying on waste trim
would have to purchase additional virgin pulp and would in that instance
incur the same REPA impacts which we suggest should be allocated to the
waste trim. This approach favors neither the process generating nor
the process using the trim wastes. It also avoids the inconsistent
position of charging the cup and plate stock producers with trim waste
impacts when for good product sanitation reasons internally
recycling of trim wastes is not acceptable.
Table 3 shows our estimate of the REPA impacts which should be al-
located to the pulp substitute trim waste in the bleached kraft paper-
board process. These values, although small, should be credited to the
disposable product systems and charged to any other process choosing to
use these wastes in place of virgin pulp.
C. DEFINITION OF THE REUSABLE CUP SYSTEM
MR! is not specific in the report as to what the reusable cup
system includes. It is obvious that, unless the data are specifically
limited to ceramic mugs, MRI has omitted the impacts from saucers
which are usually used with standard coffee or tea cups. While we have
not developed data on the relative percentages of cup/saucer units
versus mugs in use, we have assumed that 50% of the reusable cup users
involve the cup/saucer units. We have estimated the REPA impacts for
500,000 mugs plus 500,000 cup/saucer units based on MRI data and this
is shown in Table 4. It is clear that the omission of saucers has re-
sulted in seriously underestimated REPA impacts for the hot drink system.
19 -
-------
w
w
i-j
CJ
>*
CJ
ง
w
H
CO
<
s
S
M
Pi
H
PS1
O
f*
CO
H
M
CJ
H
3
* vO rH
P-i ^
^i
c!
.3 w m .
i^ Q, ^* * * * *
Q 5 ซ* o> r^ oo co
w rj ซ vO fO CN rH
Q Q, O
M 5 H r^ o vo vo
^ T3 c5 n CN >d- ro
CO rH H
4J O
H U
rj
ง
H
rH
rH
H
J3
co "^
4J CO D.
CJ 4J rH
crlCja^O^^CN^r
Q.cda.oorHo-' CU
4J CO CO ^3
cd >. ca co a.
SJ 60 CU CU CO
Vi CJ 0 0
U cu o o S
cd C Vi M 4-J
O! W PH PH <
rH rH
o o
H r-~
ซป Oi
ซ* -*
CO
(X
CJ
Jx!
ti
H
Vi co
Q CU
4J
4J Cd
0 H
SB PL,
Less transportation
1 1
CU
4J
bstitu
3
CO
rS"
3
A
co
cd
D-
cd
M
CJ
co
Vi
o
>4-l
4J
H
T)
CU
Vi
o
>
00
Vi
CU
c
w
CN
emission) for each
o
H
M
rS-
a
CO
ง
4-1
cd
co
rH
r~f
ro
o
TJ
(3
cd
B
M
ง
rH
o
**^
co
4-1 a
U O
Cd 4-1
a co
a t*.
H CO
co
CU
4-1
ง
H
4-1
co
H
CJ
c
CU
rH
4J
4-1
H
rJ
O
3
4-1
CU
CJ
r4
o
20 - r
-------
CO
p.
3
U
CU
c
J3
4J
H
3:
to
CU
u
3
cd
co
CM
0
rH
a-
in
m
CM
co
co
00
CO
*
m
cd
H
CU
a
4J
3
O
43
4J
H
t*
CO
M
CU
CJ
3
cd
CO
00
1-1
!-
CO
CM
o
CM
CTi
CM
CM
CM
H
o
o
m
*
co
u
CO
CD
CO
3
g
co
4-1
O
cd
CO
p.
3
O
cd
u
43
4J
H
^
4-1
3
0
f*f
4J
H
s
CO
M
CU
O
3
cd
CO
co
en
m
CO
M
CU
u
3
cd
CO
00
r-
r-
ป^
00
iH
J
CU
CJ
n
o
co
21 -
-------
IV. DATA SOURCE
A. DISPOSABLE CUPS AND PLATES
MRI's principal source for the environmental impact data on dis-
posable cups and plates was information submitted by the Single Service
Institute and the data included in MRI's report are consistent with that
which was submitted. Since ADL assisted with developing this informa-
tion, we sought no further checks on the reasonableness of the plate
and cup data.
B. REUSABLE CUPS AND PLATES
1. Manufacturing Processes
The overall manufacturing scheme, the flow of raw material and the
reasonableness of the key REPA impact data for each step were checked
for each reusable raw material. While we did not independently deter-
mine the REPA impacts for each process step, we did use ADL in-house
data and industry expertise to confirm that raw material and energy
requirements were neither significantly understated nor overstated.
Since the REPA impacts from the manufacture of reusables contributes
such a small percentage to the total REPA impacts, we did not check
impacts other than raw materials and energy.
2. Washing Process
Permanent ware washing is the most critical process step with
regard to estimating the total REPA impacts for reusables. As shown
in Table 5, washing contributes over 85% of the total energy impact;
therefore, even a small error in these data will significantly affect
the REPA totals. For this reason, we independently determined the
REPA impacts for permanent tableware washing.
22 - -T
-------
TABLE 5
ENERGY IMPACTS FOR REUSABLE
TUMBLERS. CUPS AND PLATES
(impacts/million uses)
Glass Tumblers
Process Steps Washing Process
3%
97%
Polypropylene
Tumblers
95%
China Cups
Melamlne Cups
China Plates
Melamine Plates
6%
3%
14%
6%
94%
97%
86%
94%
Note: All estimates based on data for
service lives of 1000 uses.
Source: MRI Report "Study of Environmental Impacts of
Disposables Versus Reusables"
23 -
-------
Although MRI does not reveal their sources for permanent ware
washing data, the wash equipment is characterized as a flight-rack
commercial dishwasher commonly found in large institutional and commer-
cial settings. It seems apparent from the REPA impact calculations on
pages E-l through E-4 that MRI used equipment specification data supplied
by equipment producers to determine the theoretical REPA impact data for
permanent ware washing.
This approach is deficient for the following reasons:
1. Flight rack commercial dishwashers are not the most common
type of dishwashers in restaurants today.
2. Equipment specifications tend to be "optimum" numbers and
are not usually realized after one or two years of operation.
3. MRI assumes continuous one hour operation to determine the
REPA impacts for dishwashing when, in reality, continuous
operation for washing dishes is approached only in the largest
institutional and commercial settings. In many discontinuous
operations, the wash water must be reheated before reuse thereby
greatly increasing the ejiergy consumed.
The actual REPA impacts for a flight rack washing system could,
therefore, be as much as 10-20% higher. We attempted to obtain informa-
tion from china ware associations and dishwasher manufacturers in order
to check MRl's data, but both groups were uncooperative.
Published data by Molzahn and Montag at Iowa State University
(The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly, May 1974) suggests that MRI's data are
somewhat understated.' Table 6 compares the average energy requirements
for reusable tableware washing according to MRI (Table E2 on page E3)
with data in the Molzahn and Montag study. It suggests that MRI's
data are significantly understated. We do recognize that the mix of
permanent ware is not identical in both comparisons; and this may ex-
plain some of the data differences, but it is not likely to explain it
all.
24 - 3"
-------
TABLE 6
ENERGY AND WATER REQUIREMENTS
FOR FLIGHT RACK DISHWASHERS
(per million items)
. Molzahn and
MRI Montag2
Energy
Electric (M KWH) 11.3 22.0
Natural Gas (M cu. ft.) 146 165
Water Volume (M Gal.) 138 145
Averages of data presented in Table E-2, page E-3,
of MRI report "Study of Environmental Impacts of
Disposables Versus Reusables."
ป
o
G. M. Molzahn and G. M. Montag, The Cornell H.R.A.
Quarterly, Volume 15, No. 1, (May 1974), page 98.
25 -
-------
We were successful in developing data on the most common type of
dishwasher found in restaurants today. Our source was a major dish-
washing detergent supplier who requested that its identity remain con-
fidential. The data obtained was the average one month operating
requirements for six different restaurants geographically distributed
throughout the United States. These average data are shown in Table 7.
The REPA impacts for process solid waste, atmospheric emissions and
waterborne waste are estimated in Table 8 and are based on MRI data.
Table 9 lists the total REPA impacts for washing one million tumblers,
cups, cup/saucer units and plates. It should be noted that these
estimates are themselves optimistic since we assumed that racks
are completely loaded with only one kind of permanent ware item.
This may not be true in actual service where racks may be washed only
partially loaded. It is not likely, however, that operating efficiencies
lower than 90% would be tolerated except in the smallest of restaurants.
It is apparent that MRI's data are understated as shown in Table 10.
The reason for this understatement is either that single rack, time
cycle washers are less efficient than flight rack washers or that the
"theoretical approach" used by MRI based on equipment producers'
specifications understates average field consumptions. Since we could
not develop any data on flight rack washers, we assumed that the single
rack, time cycle washers are less efficient than flight rack washers.
Based on sales of permanent ware items to restaurants and insti-
tuional groups, we estimate that about 55% of permanent ware is washed
in single rack, time cycle washing units and 45% in flight rack type
washing units. Therefore, we have reestimated the REPA impacts (Table 11)
for permanent ware washing assuming that 55% of the permanent ware is
washed in the single rack, time cycle washer. (The data for cups
assumes that half of the uses are cup and saucer units and half are
mugs used without saucers). These data indicate that the REPA data
for all impacts except raw materials, process water and waterborne
wastes are significantly understated.
26-3
-------
TABLE 7
DATA FOR SINGLE RACK/TIME CYCLE WASHER
ENERGY
Natural Gas (cu. ft.)
Soak Water
Dishwasher
Total Natural Gas
Electric: Booster Heater (KWH)
Tank Heater (KWH)
Pump (KWH)
Total Electric (KWH)
Total BTU (000)
WATER
Soak/Rinse (gal.)
Fill (gal.)
Final Rinse (gal.)
Total Water (gal.)
DETERGENT
Powder (Ibs)
Rinse Additives (Ibs)
Total Detergent
ITEMS WASHED Units /Load
Tumblers 36
Cups 16
Saucers 30
Plates . 20
2000
Loads
500
6380
6880
436.2
307.9
20.8
764.9
15,656
451
1818
2318
4587
75.0
11.3
86.3
Per
Load
0.25
3.19
3.44
0.22
0.15
0.01
0.38
7.83
0.23
0.91
1.16
2.30
0.038
0.006
0.044
Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., Estimates
27 -
-------
CO
0)
4-1
CO
H
PH
-ป CM
O\ CM
CM
VO
CO
rH 00
VO OO|
CO
co
CO
en
o o
co
o-
vO
o
B
PS
GO
CO
M
CN
vO 00
vO
00
10
CM
rn
vO ro
CM -*
co oo
CM
CO
CM
W
d
oo
w
J
PQ
) CM
oo
vo
rH CO O
Vt rH U-l
CM m
oo
CO CM
vO i-H
m
rH O\
O 0
o
(0
(X
4J
C
0)
00
M rH
CO rH
JS cfl
CO 4-1
Cfl O
& H
M
CU
o
r-l
O
28 -
-------
TABLE 9
REPA IMPACTS FOR DISH WASHING WITH SINGLE RACK/TIME CYCLE WASHER
(impacts/mi11ion items)
Cups and
Tumblers Cups Saucers Plates
Raw Materials (Ibs) 1222
Energy (MM BTU) 218
Process Water (M Gal) 64
Process Solid Waste (cu. ft.) 17.5
Atmospheric Emission (Ibs) 750
Waterborne Waste (Ibs) 356
Post Consumer Solid Waste (cu. ft.)
2750 4217
489
144
750
220
2200
392
115
39.5 60.5 31.6
1687 2586 1349
804 1232
643
Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., Estimates
29 -
-------
co
cu
4J
rt
r-l
CM
ON
ro
cu
o
ซ
CO
CN
w
CO
%
&
W
>
H-)
ON
00
PS
s
CO
w
H
H
H
CO
H
>-"
O
erf
w
w
H
e
o
H
rH
rH
H
,0
1
*H
s
^^
CO
M
01
H
g
H
O 00
00 rH
rH CS
0)
J=
CO
0)
rH
O
CO
0)
4J
tfl
I
4-J
W
W
O
c
4-1
H
hJ
4J
a
CJ
0)
Pi
0)
rH
00
4J
J-l
CO
0)
o
Vj
o
oo
30-3"
-------
CO
CU
4J
cd
^H
PM
.
O
>
<
m
m
vO
CN
o
1-5
g
<
0
CN
CN
M
pi
s
CN
rH
CN
en
a\
r~*
en
CN
a\
en
CN
vo
en
in
cn
cr,
CN
CN
en
m
CN
en
CN
en
vD
oo
o
o
CN
en
en
H
co
M
*
CO
&
CJ
o
2
^
B
c/:
^f
ฃ
ฃ
fe
c/3
H
CJ
ซ!
H
M
PM
8
I
o
s
r4
5
0
m
CJ\
en
>*
CO
>*
^r ป
*
*
o
CN
in
_*
NJ
/"%
co
cu
co
3
ง
rl CO
-I M
rH m
S 5
1
EH
*
ง
H
vD
en
rH
_i
5
CN
CN
CN
rH
M
rH
en
m
H
O CTi
r* o
in CN
O CN
CN 00
VO rH
oo en
0 st
m CN
2 **
O r~.
CN
oo vo
r^ oo
T^
sr
ป
en
vD
m
en
o
00
en
CO
co
rH
4H ^0
**^s
gsg
IT) 0)
6-S
cd m
m
CO
H T3
-n c
H cd
CU
4J
o
>
4J
rf
CO
C
CU
T)
(X
G
X
m
r-|
co
I-l
cu
o
cd
co
M
ฃ
t>l
4J
H
co
c
01
T3
T3
cd
O
rH
00
c
1
CO
co
ed
co
cu
4-1
rl
4J
CO
H
*
*
co
cu
H
4-1
co
4J
H
cu
o
M
3
31-7
-------
3. Service Life Assumptions
MRI tries to avoid the issue of product service life by claiming
that any service life above about 100 washing cycles does not signifi-
cantly affect the total REPA estimates. While this is reasonably true,
a rigorous analysis would provide the reader with an estimate of the
actual service life for glasses, cups and plates in order to make the
sensitivity analysis meaningful.
Published data on service life suggest that between 1000-2000 uses
is a reasonable estimate for most permanent ware. Rippe and Montag at
Iowa State University (The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly, November 1969,
page 70) report service lives ranging from about one year for cups to
nearly nine for salad plates. The estimate of service life for items
in this study is 1.1 years for cups and 4.7 years for dinner plates.
Assuming a usage rate of 3-5 times per day for cups and 1-2 times per
day for plates, the service life (assuming 300 days operation) in number
of uses is 990-1650 uses for cups (probably true for glasses as well)
and 1410-2820 for plates. These estimates were considered reasonable
by two major restaurants in the Boston area as well. MRI quotes a
service life estimate for plates of 6900 uses, but we cannot Justify
so large a number. Therefore, we feel that all comparisons are better
made at 1000 uses for reusable tableware items.
32 ~
-------
V. TREATMENT OF DATA
A. ESTIMATES OF SOLID WASTE IMPACTS
We do not believe MRI's methodology for estimating process solid
waste impacts is suitable to a credible comparison of reusables and
disposables. MRI appears to have used a standard density estimate of
74 pounds per cubic foot in converting pounds of process solid waste
into cubic feet in landfill displaced. This practice favors the dis-
posable products and penalizes the reusable products since the process
waste streams from paper processes are lighter than for glass and
possibly plastic manufacturing processes. A more rigorous process would
be to independently estimate the solid waste density of each process
waste stream and measure that impact as cubic feet rather than as pounds.
MRI attempts this in their estimate of post consumer solid waste
impacts. An estimate of the solid waste density for each product is
made in order to more accurately estimate the waste disposal impact.
While we accept the estimate as reasonable, we doubt that 100% compac-
tion is achievable and rather that "60-70% is a better estimate of short-
to mid-term compaction of discarded waste material.
B. ESTIMATES OF WATERBORNE WASTES
MRI has overstated the waterborne waste impact estimates by adding
BOD and COD numbers. BOD is defined as biological oxygen demand and is
a measure of the waste streams demand for oxygen from its surroundings
as biodegradable carbonaceous materials decay. Because this number is
difficult and time consuming to measure, a second measure of the oxygen
demand COD was defined. COD is defined as the chemical oxygen
33 ~
-------
demand based on permanganate oxidation of chemically degradable carbon-
aceous material. Since some chemically degradable materials are non-
biodegradable, COD numbers always come out higher than BOD; however,
COD always includes that carbonaceous material which was measured as
BOD. Thus, to add BOD and COD numbers would be to double count BOD
pollutant numbers.
C. REUSABLE USAGE ASSUMPTIONS
MRI does not adequately present a sensitivity analysis for the
highly uncertain service life assumptions. It is clearly pointed out
that, at service lives greater than about 200 for plates and cups, the
impact of this variable is small. But the reader is not given any
information as to what the service life is or could be and how large a
range around this estimate is considered reasonable. A rigorous
analysis could estimate the actual service life and include REPA impacts
at upper and lower service life estimates.
34 - T
-------
VI. ALTERNATE REPA IMPACT SCENARIOS
Tables 12-14 present alternate REPA impact scenarios which we
believe are "more representative" of reality. We have included in
these tables:
Revised raw material and energy totals based on classifying
wood wastes as raw materials rather than energy
REPA impact credits for waste trim
Revised estimates of permanent ware washing impacts
Revised estimates of china plate service lives
Reusable saucers for one-half of the reusable cup uses
We have used MRI's data for flight rack dishwashers since we do
not have an independent estimate for this type of washing unit. It is
likely that MRI's data are understated; therefore, the REPA data for
reusable products may also be understated by 5-10%.
It should further be noted that both the MRI and ADL data are
based on full dish racks. In some instances this situation is not
achieved; therefore, the REPA impacts will be understated. We cannot
estimate the extent to which partial loads increase the washing impacts
but can state that to the extent partial loads are significant, the
actual REPA impacts for permanent ware washing will be higher than the
estimates we provide.
35 -3
-------
0)
S
60
W CJ
O
P-i
oo
a-
CTi
vO
If)
fl
vO
vO
vO
CM,
oo
(-1
0) p.
0. 3
ซ o
00
VO
CM
vO
in
O
CTi
00
in
o
CM
CM
CO
0)
CO
3
CM
lซx
CO
O
CM
m
oo
m
r^
ro
W
M
M
0)
(X
CO
4-1
U
cd
H
CO
fH
co
co
-------
to
w
CO
o>
SB-
to o
o
CM
in
m
vD
m
oo
ro
m
CM
vO
in
co
m
vO
m
CM
[--4
w
s
ฃ
g
a
<3
I
I
S
r__i
x^
to
0)
to
3
cs
o
H
rH
H
H
^S
to
4-1
U
cd
Of
$
N*-'
rH
0) 01
C U
H 3
S id
S co
i-H >ป,
oi a
a 3
U
^N.
to
O
CM
0) to
o
H
4-1
to
10
to
w
o
PI
01
4-1
H
Q
h
3
3
O
CO
37 -
-------
0)
c
0)
M (U
>> 4J
4J CO
03 r-l
00
o
-3-
ON
CM
o
O
vD
CM
00
H 0)
01 4J
a
co
3
o
H
rH
r-H
0
CO
(J
cd
ft.
01
C oi
d w
F3 W
cd H
Q)
^ฃ4
*^
H
00
CS
cd -i
C/5
JJ
CO
3
M
(U
I
X-N
rH
cd
0
X
^^
^,4
0)
4J
-------
VII. MATHEMATICAL ERRORS AND TYPOS
The following is a list of mathematical and typographical errors
we found during the course of our critique on the MRI report "Study
of Environmental Impacts of Disposables Versus Reusables."
Page
Line
7
11
14
27
28
30
52
76
C-19 )
C-22 }
C-59
C-73
D-9
D-23
E-5
E-13
R-3
R-5
33
5
16-21
30-31
7
4
38
4
Air poll.
estimates
Title
22
Water
volume
4
last para.
Table E-ll
Ref. 33
Ref. 69
Error
41 should be 42
column 1 should be 1.785
column 7 should be 1.232
error in estimating waterborne waste
impact
Statement belongs in different study
garbled sentence
far should be for *'
cotton-rayon should be polyester-rayon
column 1 should be ^6.0
improperly estimated
particulate .32 should be 3.32
9-ounce should be 7-ounce
81 should be 61
should be 36,375 gal.
waste should be wash
18.2 should be 1.82
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
39 ~ JT
-------
Comments and Reactions
of
THE SINGLE SERVICE INSTITUTE
concerning
Volume II
Health Considerations
Final Draft Report
Study of Environmental Impact
of
Disposables versus Reusables
(MRI Project No. 4010-D)
Submitted to:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Oate of Submission
June 28, 1977
Jo-T
-------
In response to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's request for comments on the Final Draft Report, Study
of Environmental Impact of Disposables Versus Reusables (MRI
Project No. 4010-D), the Single Service Institute submits the
following analysis and review of Volume II, Health Considera-
tions, Section VI, Disposable and Reusable Foodservice Ware.
-------
Review Procedure
The Single Service Institute felt that the subject areas re-
lating to disposable and reusable foodservice ware covered in
Volume II, Health Considerations, were of such a technical,
highly specialized nature, that the most meaningful review would
not be that o! laymen but of professionals in the field of pub-
lic health sanitarians, environmental scientists, members of
the academic community in public health and environmental
sciences.
Accordingly, copies of Volume II, Health Considerations, were
sent to the following members of the Single Service Institute's
Public Health Advisory Council:
Dr. George Kupchik, Program Director and Professor, Environ-
mental Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences,
Hunter College of the City University of New York.
Dr. William Walter, Acting Vice President for Academic Affairs
and former Chairman, Department of Microbiology,
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.
Dr. Sam H. Hopper, Professor.of Public Health and Director,
Graduate Program in Health Administration, School of
Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Following their individual review of Volume II, members of
this group met in Chicago on May 6, 1977, for a comprehensive
and detailed discussion,of the Health Considerations report. The
report as a whole, and the individual comments and reactions of the
members of the group, were subjected to searching and objective
professional analysis.
-------
The members of the professional review panel prepared the
following commentary on Volume II, Health Considerations, repre-
senting a consensus of the reactions and observations of the group.
-------
Summary of Review Panel's Comments
General Reactions
The MRI report omits important data, improperly manipulates
other data and seriously misquotes a most significant state-
ment by a leading public health scientist.
The report is flawed by errors in methodology, fact and in-
terpretation. It claims to provide a consensus of the avail-
able literature and professional opinion but actually does
neither.
The report does nothing to promote adequate understanding of
the health issues involved in the disposables versus reusables
question and fails to provide an objective summary of current
knowledge of these issues.
The report should not be used as a guide in the formulation
of public policy.
Major Flaws
1. The MRI report does not include the results of the Syracuse
Research Corporation's comparative microbiological study of re-
usable and disposable foodservice ware in food service establish-
ments. These results demonstrated conclusively that disposables
were consistently of significantly better bacteriological quality.
(See pages 13-16.)
2. The report dismisses the.potential hazards of foodservice
ware in communicable disease wards, completely ignoring the
American Hospital Associ-ation's recommendations for the use of
disposables. (See pages 22-23.)
3. The report manipulates the statistical findings of an
article by Dr. Bailus Walker, Jr., entitled "The Health Pro-
fession's Attitudes Toward Single-Use Food and Beverage
Containers." (See pages 35-36.)
4. The report omits highly significant sections of a con-
cluding statement by Dr. Walker in an article entitled "Bacterial
Content of Beverage Glasses in Hotels." In the missing sentences
Dr. Walker'stresses the need to render eating and drinking utensils
free of pathogens and to reduce bacterial counts to the safe levels
specified in public health codes and ordinances. (See pages 16-20.)
-------
5. Tl ft I report dismisses the findings of higher-than-
acceptab srandard plate counts and the presence of coliform
organism^ or beverage glasses washed in hotel commissaries, as
described in Dr. Walker's article "Bacterial Content of Beverage
Glasses in Hotels." Coliform organisms are re.cognized as in-
dicators of unsanitary conditions. (See page 37.)
6. The report does not evaluate the sources quoted or suggest
their relative significance. It quotes extensively from a 1963
address by a hospital pediatrician and from a telephone conver-
sation, and gives these sources at least equal weight with the
results of scientific studies. (See pages 22, 24, 31, 37.)
7. None of the listed authors of the MRI report on Health
Considerations is a member of the American Society for Micro-
biology. Recognized expertise in microbiology would seem to be
a prerequisite for proper evaluation of the scientific literature
in this field and of the technical issues involved.
Invalid Assumptions
1. The MRI report states that available dishwashing procedures
are capable of producing sanitized foodservice ware, on the
assumption that operating personnel are properly trained. All
reports in the literature, however, indicate that such training
is broadly lacking or inadequate. (See pages 24-26.)
2. On the basis of a telephone conversation with an official
of the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, the report assumes
that "microorganisms left on foodservice ware after washing would
likely be too low to cause disease." Such an unqualified state-
ment would be challenged by most epidemiologists and environmental
scientists. (See pages 30-31.)
3. The report seriously errs in its appraisal of the potential
hazard of disease transmission by means of foodservice ware and
grossly underestimates the prevalence of food poisoning in the
United States. (See pages 9-13.)
4. The MRI report consistently tends to minimize the health
protection afforded by bacterial standards established for food-
service ware. Yet in other environmental and public health areas
the Environmental Protection Agency continuously seeks to develop
protective standards. (See pages 10-11.)
Other Flaws
1. The MRI report does not refer to the 1976 Revision of
the Food Service Sanitation Manual of the U.S. Food and Drug
-------
Administration, which requires the use of single service utensils
for mobile facilities and temporary foodservice operations.
(See pages 26-27.)
2. The report does not consider the demerit scale set for
deficiency items in the model inspection reports of the FDA.
Proper consideration would tend to diminish substantially the
significance of the specific deficiency noted for storage,
dispensing and handling of single service articles. (See pages 27-29.)
3. The report minimizes the problem of breakage and safety
of reusables although there are studies indicating this is a
serious health problem. (See pages 31-33.)
4. The report refers to the use of chlorine and other
chemicals as satisfactory sanitizing solutions but does not
consider the potential carcinogenic and other toxic haza.rds of
the reaction products discharged with dishwashing wastewaters.
(See page 38.)
5. The URI report fails to credit single service articles
with widespread professional support for their sanitation values
as evidenced by resolutions passed by the National Environmental
Health Association and the International Association of Milk,
Food and Environmental Sanitarians at national meetings. (See
page 36,)
--/
-------
Geioral Appraisal, Volume II, Health Considerations
(disposable and reusable foodservice ware)
The value of the report must be judged in terms of the extent
to which it may contribute to several important purposes:
1. Does it promote adequate understanding of the public
health and sanitation issues involved in the use of
single service and reusable food and beverage utensils?
2. Is it a useful, representative summary of up-to-date
knowledge and thinking on the part cf sanitarians and
environmental health scientists relating to "disposables
versus reusables?"
3. Is the report likely to be useful as a guide in the for-
mulation of public policy with regard to "disposables
versus resuables?"
A close reading of the report shows that these key questions
must be answered negatively. As currently conceived and written,
the foodservice ware section of the report can only be judged
inadequate and in need of substantial revision.
Critical analysis of this section of the Health Considerations
report shows it to be flawed by serious errors of methodology, fact
and interpretation. In one specific instance, there is a grave
misuse of a key quotation from a public health authority. This
is inexcusable.
-------
As presently organized, the foodservice ware section of the
report is a grab-bag of facts, suppositions and references which
obscure the issues surrounding "disposables versus reusables."
Overall, the report is without direction or form, proceeds
toward no resolution or recommendations, and therefore is of little
or no value as a guide to the development of public policy.
If Volume II, Health Considerations, is published in its pre-
sent form, we anticipate that there will be widespread .cirticism
of the report's contents by public health professionals.
In the following pages, the report will be analyzed in detail,
starting with its major flaws and continuing on to lesser errors,
weaknesses, and inconsistencies. As far as possible, in accordance
with the request of Mr. Charles Peterson, EPA Project Officer, the
review panel's criticisms will be grouped as (1) factual errors;
(2) invalid assumptions; and (3) other.
-------
Major Flaws, Foodservice Ware Section, Volume II
Exception roust be taken to the report's handling of health
and sanitation aspects in three major respects:
1. Appraisal of the potential seriousness of disease trans-
mission via foodservice ware.
2. Omission of the Syracuse Research Corporation research
findings submitted by the Single Service Institute.
3. Misuse of a crucial, summary statement by Dr. Bailus
Walker, Jr., Director, Environmental Health Administration,
District of Columbia.
Points 2 and 3 actually relate directly to the issues raised in
connection with point 1, but are considered serious enough to be
dealt with as separate items.
Disease Transmission Potential
The foodservice ware section consistently "downgrades" the
public health dangers and implications of improper foodservice
sanitation levels.
On page 82 of the report, for example: "The distinction must
be made, as it has throughout this report, between the potential
for health problems and the existence of definably pathogenic condi-
tions. Again, there is no clear relationship between 'inadequate'
foodservice sanitation and an attendant threat to the public health."
On page '106: "Additionally, bacteriological standards alone do
not measure the capacity of foodservice ware (or any other product)
-------
[to transmit disease; the most such standards can do is to indicate
potential for disease transmission."
In response to this statement, many public health professionals
would immediately raise the question: "Isn't that enough?" And in
raising this question, such professionals would really be expressing
a basic, operational viewpoint toward public health responsibilities
and actions quite different from that of the report.
The attitude of the report seems to be that provable numerical
links between sanitation levels and the incidence of foodborne
disease must be demonstrated before public health issues are
deemed live and urgent.
The position of public health professionals, on the other hand,
is that if the facts in a given situation reveal that the "potential
lor disease transmission" presents a reasonable danger to the public,
then preventive action is called for. This is comparable to the
rationale for other "preventive" programs by the federal govern-
ment the strictures against lead in gasoline, for example. It is
worth noting that, in upholding EPA regulations on lead additives
in gasoline, the U.S. Court of Appeals in March, 1976, in effect
made the case for the public health viewpoint of preventive action
despite less than 100 percent certainty on health issues. The
following is from the Court's dec.ision:
"Sometimes, of course, relatively certain proof of
danger or harm from such modifications can be readily
found. But, more commonly, 'reasonable medical con-
cerns' and theory long precede certainty. Yet the
statutes and common sense demand regulatory action
to prevent harm, even if the regulator is less than cer-
tain that harm is otherwise inevitable.
60-3"
-------
"Undoubtedly, certainty is the scientific ideal to
the extent that even science can be certain of its truth.
But certainty in the complexities of environmental medi-
cine may be achievable only after the fact, when
scientists have the opportunity for leisurely and isolated
scrutiny of an entire mechanism. Awaiting certainty will
often allow for only reactive, not preventive, regulation."
The problem, of course, is that one can never "prove" the
"non-incidencp" of foodborne disease to be the happy result of
proper sanitation of foodservice ware. One simply cannot prove
beyond doubt that, because certain acceptable levels of sanitation
prevailed, a given number of cases of foodborne disease therefore
failed to occur. There simply are no statistics for occurrences
ttfat did not occur.
But the weight of opinion among public health professionals is
that the higher the number of bacteria on the surfaces of eating
utensils, the greater the chance of disease transmission. That
is why standards set for bacterial counts both total plate counts
and microbial indicator (or pathogen) counts are important. When
such counts exceed public health limits, the experts responsible for
protecting public health are professionally concerned and prepared
to take action. In public health matters, professional practitioners
don't wait for people to die. Their job is prevention, and they
take it seriously.
Consistent with the Midwest Research Institute report's down-
playing of the potential for disease transmission via foodservice
ware is its treatment of statistics for the actual incidence of
foodborne diseases contracted in foodservice establishments. On
page 84, after first referring to "100,000 persons (who) become
ill from foodborne diseases contracted in restaurants during 1970,"
-------
the MRI report goes on to make this statement: "This statistic,
credited to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), disagrees with
the actual CDC report (16) which shows a total of 24,448 persons
becoming ill in 1970 as a result of 371 outbreaks, 114 of which
occurred in foodservice establishments."
Apart from this confusion of numbers, the MRI report's authors
might have consulted the most recent CDC figures, issued in 19;6
for the year 1974. This Annual Summary of Foodborne and Waterborne
Disease Outbreaks (Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Publication No. (CDC) 76-8185) offers a figure of 456 outbreaks
involving 15,489 cases of foodborne illness, by far the greatest
number of outbreaks ever reported to the CDC. Of these outbreaks,
the place of outbreak is specified in 183 instances, of which 49
percent are designated as foodservice establishments.
What is important is that the CDC summary, pointing to great
gaps in the reporting of foodborne illnesses, emphasizes that "the
number of outbreaks of foodborne disease reported by the surveillance
system clearly represents a minute fraction of the total number that
occur." In short, the cases reported are just the tip of the iceberg,
as most public health professionals are fully aware.
How big is the iceberg? In 1969, one indication appeared in
the National Academy of Sciences' Publication No. 1683, "Evaluation
of the Salmonella Problem," which estimated two million human cases
of salmonella each year, at a total cost to the economy of at least
$300 million annually.
-------
In 1971, the National Conference on Food Protection heard figures
for foodborne illness ranging up to 11 million cases a year.
Because of the reporting problems already mentioned, compre-
hensive, accurate statistics on foodborne illnesses contracted
in foodservice establishments are now unavailable, although the
number of actual cases undoubtedly exceed those reported. It as
unrealistic, however, to base public health policies on the "minute
fraction" of cases officially reported to CDC. And it is no service
to the health and.welfare of the American public to treat a large
problem as though it were a small problem.
Public health professionals, although they may come up with
varying numbers, agree generally that the numbers for foodborne
illness are large, and therefore that sanitation in foodservice
operations is a matter of substantial and genuine concern.
It follows from this that anything that might contribute to
improvement in sanitation levels should be given serious consid-
eration. In the comparative study of disposable versus reusable
foodservice ware, the sanitation issue must be seen in proper per-
spective, and proper weight must be given to studies showing the
comparative bacterial levels of disposables and reusables.
Omission of SRC Research Findings
Proper weight is precisely what was not given to one key stuo'
of the comparative bacterial levels of disposable and reusable
foodservice ware. This study, conducted by the Food Protect,j--,:
Laboratory of the Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC), is entitle^
-------
"Comparative Study of Potential Health Hazards Associated with
Disposable and Reusable Food Service Items." It was submitted to
MRI by the Single Service Institute as part of the single service
industry's effort to cooperate with EPA.
The SRC research not only was n_ot given proper weight it
was omitted entirely, both from the text of Volume II, Health Con-
siderations, and from the bibliography of reference materials.
This orr-ission is particularly mystifying in view of the fol-
lowing paragraph on page 106 of the MRI report:
"Within the commercial or insitutitionaH setting
where there are facilities for washing and sani-
tizing permanent ware, it is extremely difficult
to make direct comparisons between reusables and
disposables. As previously discussed, the impact
of human variables, from day to day, from restaurant
to restaurant or institution to institution, negates
virtually every attempt to quantify differences 'in
the sanitary status of disposables versus reusables.
As correctly stated by the Single Service Institute,
'the only precise way to assess the health values
of disposables versus reusables would be to survey
the bacteriological quality of one versus the
other by testing the utensils in food-serving
establishments just prior to their use,' (48).
And even then, the scope of the investigation
would have to be massive in order to be equitable."
The omitted SRC study is exactly responsive to the research
requirements set forth in that paragraph. The authors of the MRI
report explicitly agree with the research definition as stated
in a quote from the Single Service Institute. This definition
formed the basis of the SRC study, the design for which was for-
mulated by members of the Single Service Institute's Public Health
Advisory Council all public health professionals.
By taking "swab" tests of sample utensils according to approved
public health procedures and by "testing the utensils in food-
W-
-------
serving establishments just prior to their use," the SRC research
did precisely what the MRI report asked for. Yet the MRI authors
made no reference to the SRC study in their report.
According to the Midwest Research Institute, the SRC study re-
sults reached MRI too late to be incorporated into Volume II, Health
Considersations, which was completed on November 4, 1976. However,
this volum<" was not issued at that time. It was not released for
review until April 18, 1977, simultaneously with the issuance of the
MRI REPA report, Volume I.
In the more than five months between completion and issuance
of the Health Considerations report there was ample time for in-
clusion of the SRC study results, either in the text of the MRI
report or as a reference in the bibliography. The SRC study
findings are crucial to any comparison of sanitation values be-
tween disposable and reusable foodservice ware.
In brief, the SRC microbiological testing clearly shows large
and meaningful differences between permanent ware and single
service in both total plate counts and pathogen counts, as follows:
Average TPC, All Samples
(number of microorganisms)
Permanent Ware Sing1e Service
275 " 18
Average Bacterial Counts, Pathogens
Staphylococcus Streptococcus Coliform
Permanent Ware 13 11 1
Single Service less than 1 less than 1 less than 1
-------
The MRI report concedes that such microbiological do ;umentation
is hard to come by. Yet here it is, and it goes to the heart of
i
the sanitation issue. Why, then, doesn't it appear in the MRI
report?
What does appear in the paragraph quoted earlier from the MRI
report is this note of caution: "And even then, the scope of the
investigation would have to be massive in order to be equitable."
This comment merits a mention of the scope of the SRC study.
It was originally .intended to be nationwide. However, a pilot
study was undertaken first in 15 food service establishments
selected at random in the Syracuse, New York, area.
In reviewing the results, the SSI Public Health Advisory Council
noted the consistent pattern of substantial microbiological dif-
ferences between permanent ware and single service at the test sites
and decided that there was no point in going beyond the Syracuse
area tests. They felt that the tests already completed were
conclusive and representative, and that going to other cities and
test sites would simply be repetitive and unnecessary.
The question remains open: Why did the MRI authors exclude the
SRC study findings? Why this consistent downplaying of the sanita-
tion issue?
Misuse of Dr. Walker's Statement
Further questions are raised by the MRI report's treatment
of a highly significant statement by a leading public health sci-
entist and administrator, Dr. Bailus Walker, Jr., Director,
Environmental Health Administration, government of the District
of Columbia. This statement appears in a study paper entitled
-------
"Bacterial Content of Beverage Glasses in Hotels," submitted to
MRI prior to its publication in the Journal of Environmental
Health,* professional journal of the National Environment Health
Association.
This is the way the statement reads as quoted in the MRI
report, Volume II,.Health Considerations, page 107:
The problem in assessing sanitation standards on
foodservice ware is summarized quite effectively
by Bailus Walker, the author of several studies
in this field: "Anderson in an extensive review
of the epidemiological basis of environmental
sanitation in 1943 stated 'I wish I could cite
evidence that the lack of decent cleanliness in
handling dishes in food establishments is likely
to result in demonstrable diseases, for I would
welcome a basis for enforcing better diswashing.
And yet I know of no evidence of this character.'
. . . Almost four decades later there is still
little or no evidence of this character. Ques-
tions involving the health effects of environmen-
tal bioloads are particularly prone to uncertainty
and the health impact of various environmental
levels of microogranisms on food or beverage con-
tact surfaces are often unknown, and not infre-
quently unknowable." (78, page 10)
*Scheduled for publication in the October 1977 issue.
-------
Now read the full statement by Dr. Walker as he wrrae it and
as it actually appeared in his paper:
^ i
"Anderson in an extensive review of the epi
demiological basis of environmental sanitation
in 1943 stated 'I wish I could cite evidence
that the lack of decent cleanliness in handling
dishes in food establishments is likely to re-
sult in demonstrable diseases, for I would wel-
come a basis for enforcing better dishwashing.
And yet I know of no evidence of this character.'
"Almost four decades later there is still little
or no evidence of this character.
"This does not mean that public health authori-
ties should relax their efforts to ensure that
eating and drinking utensils served the public
are rendered free of pathogens or that the bac-
terial count is reduced to safe levels specified
in public health codes and ordinance.
"Questions involving the health effects of envi- .
ronmental bioloads are particularly prone to
uncertainty and the health impact of various
environmental levels of microorganisms on food
or beverage contact surfaces are often unknown,
and not infrequently unknowable. In addition,
speculations, conflicts in evidence and theoret-
ical extrapolations typify environmental monitor-
ing and surveillance services. Yet public health
laws, basic esthetics and common sense demand ac-
tion to prevent harm even if the regulators or
other responsible persons are less certain that
harm is otherwise inevitable.
The underlined parts of Dr. Walker's full statement are the
ones left out of the edited version in the MRI report. In omit-
ting them, the authors of the MRI report, consciously or other-
wise, substantially altered the significance and intent of
Dr. Walker's commentary. This is clear from any objective read-
ing and comparison of the two versions. It also happens to be
the opinion of Dr. Walker, who has expressed strongly his
feeling that his words have been misused.
-------
By excising sections of Dr. Walker's statement, the MRI re-
port leaves the reader with this sole impression: There Is no
evidence of a link between cleanliness in handling dishes in
public eating places and the spread of disease, and the health
effects cf microorganisms present on contact surfaces are uncer-
tain, unknown, or unknowable. The reader comes away with a
sense of helplessness in the .face of such lack of knowledge, and
the implication is that not very much can be done about it.
However, when the missing passages are returned to Dr. Walk-
er's statement it takes on quite a different tone a reaffirma-
tion of professional responsibility and action with respect to
levels of bacteria present on the surfaces of eating and drinking
utensils. While acknowledging areas of uncertainty, Dr. Walker
firmly rules out such uncertainty as a reason for relaxation of
public health code standards concerning pathogens or bacterial
counts. And his final sentence is a clear call for vigilance:
"Yet public health laws, basic esthetics and common sense demand
action to prevent harm even if the regulators or other responsi-
ble persons are less certain that harm is otherwise inevitable."
The Walker quotation -- or misquotation -- appears as the
very last passage in the MRI report, Volume II, Health Considera-
tions. It would seem to have been placed there purposefully as
a kind of summing up of the facts and positions reviewed in the
report. If indeed it was used in this way, it is not an accurate
representation of current thinking among public health profes"-
sionals. And the edited statement does a serious injustice to
the author to whom it is attributed.
-------
Perhaps most important, it shows deep misunderstanding of
he seriousness of the sanitation issues in foodservice opera-
tions, and can only be seen in the context of the MR1 report's
general downplaying of sanitation as a concern in the comparison
of disposable and reusable foodservice ware.
-------
Volume il, Health Considerations, Fpodservice Ware Section
Invalid Assumptions
On "Consensus,"
Page 1, Introduction and Methodology, bottom paragraph.
This paragraph reads as follows:
"In accordance with the contract scope of work, no original
research was to be conducted in the development of information for
this study. Yet, MRI believes that the report presents a consen-
sus of the available literature and of the opinions of industry
and government officials regarding the public health impacts of
these selected disposable and reusable products."
Insofar as foodservice ware is concerned, the report does not
present a consensus, either of the available literature or of the
opinions of industry and government officials. As already pointed
out, at least one highly significant research study the SRC
microbiological comparison of permanent ware and single service --
was not included in the MRI report, although it was submitted as
documentation. Its omission surely makes the "consensus" referred
to somewhat less than complete.
As for the opinions of industry and government officials, the
report may present a collection of opinions but it does not re-
flect any consensus or agreement. The report cannot presume
to present a consensus of the opinions of uublic health pro-
fessionals (many of whom are government officials) certainly
not those public health professionals who have reviewed the
MRI report and join in this appraisal of it.
-------
On "disposables and communicable diseases"
Page 77, first paragaph
The MRI report here refers to an address riven by Dr. Paul F.
Wehrle in 1963. The second sentence of this paragraph reads as follows
Wehrle (82) reiterated the reliability of proper
machine dishwashing in his study of "Food Service"
Procedures on Communicable Disease Wards," in
which he states that disposables, though used for
convenience, are not necessary (even for patients
with highly infectious diseases) "since the usual
mechanical dishwasher, properly maintained and
operated, will remove hazardous microorganisms
likely to be found on any eating utensil,"
(Page 466).
The authors of the MRI report make no attempt to evaluate or
verify this reference, simply dropping it in without comment as
though it were unassailable. The assumptions of Wehrle's state-
ment, however, are as invalid as its facts are wrong. Wehrle is
specifically discussing procedures in hospitals, and even more
specifically hospital procedures relating to "patients with
highly infectious diseases." Although disposables are conveni-
ent, in this context they are not used for convenience but for
genuine health and sanitation reasons. The American Hospital As-
sociation confirms this (and refutes Wehrle) in its standards for
food service in caring for patients with contagious diseases, as
the following citations show:
From "Food Service Manual for Health Care Institutions,"
American Hospital Association, 1972, Chicago, 111., page 21.
"An appropriate plan for serving food to patients
in isolation should be developed with the nursing
service. Disposable tableware is generally used
instead of china, glass, and flatware, which must
be sterilized before being returned to the dish-
washing unit."
12.-I"
-------
Frp"> "Infection Control in the Hospital," American
Hospital Association, revised edition, 1970.
Page 49, under Specific Responsibilities Within
Hospitals, The Foodservice Department:
"To develop procedures, and put them in writing,
lor cleaning and sanitizing trays and tableware
after use in patient and personnel meal service.
Service in isolation rooms should be planned in
cooperation with the infection control committee
and the nursing service, utilizing disposable
materials whenever possible."
Page 51, under Equipment:
"Disposable service suitable for hospitals is
now available and is used by some hospitals.
Total disposable tray service is recommended for
patients in isolation. Use of disposable trays,
dishes, plastic flatware, and packaged condiments
permits incineration of these items and eliminates
sterilizat ion problems."
Page 79, under Prevention and Control of Infection,
Isolation Techniques ar.d Procedures, Sanitation:
"... Disposable plates and utensils should be
usea for the isolation patient. If regular hospi-
tal dishes and utensils are used, they should be
washed last. In either case the dirty dishes
should be removed from the room in a plastic or
wax paper bag."
The American Hospital Association and Wehrle clearly disagree
on the special usefulness of single service in connection with
the handling of contagious diseases. What, is troubling about
this example -- and there are others throughout the MRI report --
is the uncritical use of reference sources with no apparent ef-
fort either to evaluate statements cited or to double-check
their validitv.
-------
On "personnel and dishwashing"
Page 90, bottom half of page
On Page 90, the MRI report again cites Dr. Paul F. Wehrle as
an authority on the adequacy of dishwashing procedures, as follows
Wehrle (82) in a previously mentioned study of
foodservice on communicable disease wards, re-
ports that normal foodservice ware washing and
sanitizing procedures are adequate in removing
even highly infectious organisms from utensils
used for patients, with communicable diseases.
He stresses that the problems in handling these
utensils lie with personnel who often fail to
wash their hands properly before and after
touching the dishes, rather than with the sani-
tizing procedures themselves. Wehrle suggests
a cycle involving prewash at 140ฐ to 160ฐF, and
a flow rinse at 180ฐF. The significance of
Wehrle's study is that, given proper personnel
training, the facilities and processes availa-
ble in the institutional setting are capable
of producing sanitized foodservice ware, even
when that ware has been heavily contaminated.
A question must be raised in connection with this MRI comment
on the Wehrle study: How likely and widespread is the "given"
on which the statement rests its conclusion? "Given proper per-
sonnel training" is a very large "given" indeed. Proper person-
nel training is recognized by public health professionals as a
critical area in foodservice sanitation. The widespread lack or
inadequacy of such training is of great concern to public health
agencies and one reason why they are moving toward certification
programs and other efforts to improve sanitation by upgrading
personnel. But if "proper personnel training" does not broadly
hold true, then what happens to the conclusion that "the facili-
ties and processes available in the institutional setting are
capable of producing sanitized foodservice ware, even when that
ware has been heavily contaminated'"?
-------
In a way, the MRI report responds to this question by making
frequoat reference to the human factor as a key (and questionable)
element in the sanitizing process involving permanent ware. Like
a refrain, the proviso about human variables keeps reappearing
throughout the MRI report's foodservice ware section.
On page 76, second paragraph: "In the 1940's, investigators
noted that ignorance among foodservice workers as to proper wash-
ing times, temperatures and detergents resulted in sanitation
problems."
On page 77, end of first paragraph: "Investigators such as
Litzky, Lloyd, Jopke and Hass in the late 1960's and early 1970's
reemphasize the problem of poor sanitation techniques among hos-
pital foodservice workers, as well as improper environmental ex-
posure of clean utensils."
On page 79, bottom of page: "Thus, the human factor is ulti-
mately of far greater significance than are the washing and
sanitizing procedures themselves. Although there is a trend
toward mechanization of detergent dispensing and other elements
within the total process, human variables still play a role in
utensil sanitation."
But, while including these provisos about the human factor,
the MRI report seems unwilling to come to grips with the practi-
cal significance of this highly conditional element in the sani-
tizing process for permanent ware. If the effectiveness of
dishwashing procedures is viewed as dependent on the performance
of foodservice workers, the evidence would indicate, as stated
-------
earlier, that this is a very slender "given" indeed on Men to
base the protection of the public. It is a "given" which, as a
matter of reality, many public health professionals today would
not be ready to accept.
On Standards for Foodservice Sanitation
The MRI report devotes pages 69 through 73 to a summariza-
tion of the U.S. Public Health Service "Model Food Service Sani-
tation Ordinance and Code," as revised in 1962.
This document is now at the point of replacement by a further
revision completed in 1976, bearing this title: Food Service
Sanitation Manual, Including A Model Food Service Sanitation Or-
dinance , 1976 Revision, United States Department of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare, Public Health Service, Food and Drug
Administration, Division of Food Service.
The latest revision is briefly referred to at the bottom of
page 68 of the MRI report as a "proposed revision" published in
the October 1974 Federal Register. An updating of this would
seem to be in order, along with details of the changes' recorded
in the 1976 version.
This version, for example, for the first time distinguishes
mobile and temporary food service from permanent food service
establishments. Single service utensils are now required for all
mobile facilities as well as for temporary foodservice operations
not properly equipped for dishwashing.
For permanent foodservice establishments, the 1976 model ordinance
no longer includes this provision of the 1962 version which appears
on page 71 of the MRI report: "Foodservice establishments which do
-------
noc hav., adequate and effective facilities for cleaning and sani-
tizing utensils shall use single-service articles." However, Food
and Drug Administration officials have clearly, confirmed in commun-
ications with Single Service Institute staff personnel that, al-
though now not spelled out, this requirement still holds for per-
manent foodservice establishments. The dropping of this paragraph
from the mcx.ol ordinance suggests that the usefulness of single
service when dishwashing facilities fail is now so fully recognized
that it no longer needs to be spelled out, particularly with the
clarification now on record with respect to mobile and temporary
foodservice operations.
OnThe GAP Study of Restaurant Sanitation
Starting on page 81 of the MRI report, the authors make ex-
tended reference to the General Accounting Office study of res-
taurant compliance with foodservice ware sanitation requirements.
"The study was conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and
involved inspections of 185 restaurants based on reporting stan-
dards set in the 1962 Model Ordinance. The key finding: 89.8
percent of the restaurants were considered to be "inadequate"
and "insanitary."
-------
SUMMARY OF SANITATION VIOLATIONS RELATING TO FOODSERVICE WARE
Item
Tableware clean to sight and touch
Utensils and equipment preflushed,
scraped and soaked
Tableware sanitized
Facilities for washing and sanitizing
equipment and utensils approved,
adequate, properly constructed,
maintained and operated
Wash and sanitizing water clean
Wash water at proper temperature
Adequate and suitable detergents used
Cleaned and sanitized utensils and
equipment properly stored and
handled; utensils air-dried
Suitable facilities and areas provided
for storing utensils and equipment
Single-service articles properly
stored, dispensed and handled
Number of
Violative
Restaurants;
24
2
52
100
9
7
2
116
77
117
Percent
of Sample
in Violation
12.9
1.0
28. 1
54.0
4.8
3.7
1.0
62.7
41.6
63.2
Public health professionals would agree with the authors of
the MRI report that the GAO study "findings in regard to sanita-
tion of foodservice ware are noteworthy for the purposes of the
present investigation." But they would raise questions about the
listing of violations with respect to foodservice ware.
As presented, all the types of violation in the summary ta-
ble seem to be equal in their level of seriousness from a sani-
tation standpoint. For example, under the heading "Facilities for
washing and sanitizing equipment and utensils approved, adequate,
properly constructed, maintained and operated" some 54 percent of
the sample are shown to be in violation. Under "Single-service
articles properly stored, dispensed and handled," 63.2 percent
are in violation. There is no evaluation of the relative serious-
ness with which sanitarians view these deficiencies and the others
listed.
-------
The fact is that there are different levels of gravity for
the various types of violation, and a system of demerits defines
these levels. For dishwashing procedures covering "sail i t izat ion
rinse, clean, temperature, concent i*ation, exposure time, equip-
ment, utensils sanitised" the 1976 Model Ordinance allocate.? four
demerits. Dut for "single-service articles, storage, dispensing,
use" the Mo,.ol Ordinance lists only one demerit.
Consideration of the demerit scale puts the violation percen-
tages in a very different perspective from the way they appear in
the table in the MR I report. Without clarification ol" the demer-
it scale, the summary table leaves a wide opening for misinter-
pretations and misuse of the statistics. Perhaps more important,
it beclouds any attempt at rational comparison of disposable and
reusable foodservice ware in terms of sanitation.
Continuing its discussion of the GAO study, the MRI report
makes the following statement at the top of page 84:
The implications of these violations are difficult
to assess. While 54 percent of the . restaurants
were reported as having inadequate washing and
sanitizing facilities, only 28 percent showed
failure to comply with the requirement that table-
ware be sanitized. This inconsistency would indi-
cate, once again, that the ultimate level of
sanitation of foodservice ware in commercial es-
tablishments is dependent upon a wide range of
variables, which cannot be fully addressed
through the vehicle of health inspection reports.
This statement shows a lack of understanding of the inspec-
tion process. What seems to be an inconsistency between the 54
percent figure for inadequate washing and sanitizing facilities
and the 28 percent for violations may be explained by the way in-
spections are often made. If an inspector checks the "inadequate
washing ar.r.
-------
sanitizing facilities" category, with its four demerits, he may
feel he has covered the situation and nay not go on to "double-
debit" by checking the "Tableware sanitized" category as well --
even though such double-debiting, with another four demerits,
might well be justified in following the inspection form.
Another explanation of the seeming inconsistency lies in the
possibility that some of the restaurants shown by the GAO to have
inadequate washing and sanitizing facilities may have been using
disposables as a substitute for reusables. This would account
at least in part for the drop down to 28 percent for violations.
under the "Tableware sanitized" inspection category.
In any case, the apparent "inconsistency," as the MRI report
terms it, in no way justifies the conclusion of the paragraph
"that the ultimate level of sanitation of foodservice ware in com-
mercial establishments is dependent on a wide range of variables,
which cannot be fully addressed through the vehicle of health
inspection reports." Many public health professionals would take
exception to this.
On Dose/Response Relationships
At the bottom of page 84, the following paragraph appears as
part of a discussion on disease transmission via foodservice ware;
Relating to the practical relationship between
the sanitary condition of machine-washed utensils
-------
nd the associated public health threat, Dr. Mar-
cus Harowitz of the Center for Dicease Control
in Atlanta offered the opinion that "the inoculum
count ซof microorganisms left on foodservice ware
after washing would likely be too low to cause
disease," (52). However, the entire area of
dose/response relationships between pathogenic
organisms and disease is poorly understood and
little documented.
The Quotation above, according to the Bibliography, is taken
from a telephone conversation between Dr. Harowitz and Ronald S.
Fellman, who is listed as one of the authors of the MRI report.
Perhaps the full conversation contained more detail than is re-
corded in the report detail that might make the quotation
both meaningful and analyzable. As it stands, the Harowitz
statement is so broad and so without reference to specific cir-
cumstances that it cannot be taken seriously. As a flat state-
ment, it would certainly be disputed by microbiologists, who
would want to know how high a count is involved and what specific
types of microorganisms might be present before appraising the
disease-causing potential.
On Breakage and Safety
On page 77, the MRI report lists three major "foci of discus-
sion" in evaluating the sanitary status of permanent v.are, of
which the third is described as follows:
7/-J"
-------
3. Handling and storage of dishes after washing:
i.e., impacts of airborne contaminants and
contamination from the soiled hands of hos-
pital personnel. Also involved in handling
is the possibility of breakage of china and
glassware.
The phrase "possibility of breakage" merits comment and ampli-
fication. Experience demonstrates that more than "possibility,"
there is a likelihood and even certainty that breakage will occur
with permanent ware. Commercial and institutional users of per-
manent ware allow for an estimated amount of breakage in their
budgeting and purchasing plans. They can't accurately predict
the exact percentage of breakage, but they can predict that it
will occur sometimes more, sometimes less than estimated.
What can also be predicted as more than a "possibility" is
the danger of injuries from breakage of permanent ware. In this
connection, recent figures from a survey by de Kadt Marketing
and Research, Inc., of Greenwich, Connecticut, are instructive.
These figures are from a consumer research study, not commercial
or institutional, but the results are relevant. The de Kadt sur-
vey uncovered this startling fact: 26 percent of the households
studied report injuries from broken drinking glasses during the
past year. That figure is even higher 31 percent -- in house-
holds with children under the age of 13.
That's reality, not possibility. Perhaps not the same fig-
ures, but the same real dangers from permanent ware breakage
exist in public eating places.
-------
Recognition of these dangers by public health professionals
is documented in "The Health Profession's Attitudes Toward
Single-Use Food and Beverage Containers," by Dr. Bailus. Walker,
Jr., a study published in the February 1977 issue of the Journal
of Food Protection (and quoted in the MRI report). According
to Dr. Walker, Director of the Environmental Health Administration,
Government of the District of Columbia, 51 percent of the public
health professionals queried in his survey view the safety
aspect (non-breakage) as "very important," while 27 percent see
it as "somewhat important."
On Single Service and Sanitation
The second paragraph on page 101 of the MRI report reads as
follows:
In light of the above reservations, the position
of SRC, and the fact that these were the only two
studies encountered in an extensive literature
review which indict disposable foodservice ware
from a sanitation standpoint, the "Eight Hospital
Study" and the Rosner-Hixon Report do not -present
substantial or conclusive evidence indicating the
sanitary quality of single service items. How-
ever, in light of the finding by the GAO that
63.2 percent of sampled commercial establishments
do not properly store, dispense and handle sii ;le
service articles, it is possible t6 conclude tuat
problems may well exist in the handling of those
products; and that these problems could represent
the potential for disease transmission. Again,
it is not the products themsvelves but the human
factor which may threaten sanitation. (Note:
Italics by MRI.)
73-r
-------
It is difficult to understand why the GAO report wa-s brought
back by the MRI authors at this point, since the GAO-generated
facts repeated here were already covered much earlier on page 83
and the MRI authors seem to be reaching for the conclusions they
draw from the facts.
What is known, and what the "Eight Hospital Study" and the
Rosner-H.' xon Report failed to refute, is the high sanitary quali-
ty of single service products as delivered to foodservice estab-
lishments and ready for use. This is confirmed not only by the
Syracuse Research Corporation spokesman quoted by the MRI
authors earlier on page 101, but most importantly by the SRC
comparative microbiological research study which was omitted
from the MRI report.
-------
Factual Errors. Volume II. Health Considerations
(Foodservice Ware Section)
Page 101, bottom
In introducing the survey of the attitudes of public health
professionals toward disposable products, the MRI report refers
only to "tho Environmental Health Administration."
There is no further identification given no indication of
what government level or jurisdiction the "Environmental Health
Administration"' is linked to (in this instance, the District of
Columbia). The survey'stauthors are referred to only in foot-
notes to tables drawn from the survey report.
In any case it was not the Environmental Health Administra-
tion that undertook the survey, but Dr. Bailus Walker, Jr., Dir-
ector of the Environmental Health Administration, and Melba Price
Research Assistant of the E.H.A., in their personal, professional
capacities.
Page 103
In discussing the survey of attitudes of public health pro-
fessionals toward single service, the MRI authors take liberties
with the figures in two of the tables drawn from the survey. In
the first case, referring to Table 32 on page 104, the authors
bunch together percentages for various "sanitation-related fac-
tors" as benefits of single service and produce a composite
figure of 69 percent for these factors.
There is no 69 percent figure, either in Table 32 or in the
text of the survey. And there i r -"> "r.dication by the MRI
7S--J-
-------
*
authors of the specific "sanitation-related factors" they .selec-
ted from the table to come up with the 69 percent figure they
use in their discussion.
The same manipulation occurs with respect to Table 33, also
on page 104, in the authors' discussion of the disadvantages of
single service. Here, they group together unspecified disadvan-
tages of single service to produce a figure of 71 percent -- a
non-existent number, either in the table or in the text of the
survey.
Page 122, Bibliography
Number 60 in the bibliography listing reads as follows:
"The Preventive Health Aspects of Single Service
Products for Food Service and Packaging," Reso-
lution Adopted by the American Public Health
Association.
The American Public Health Association did not adopt such a
resolution. The National Environmental Health Association did.
So did the International Association of Milk, Food and Environ-
mental Sanitarians.* Neither of the latter resolutions was listed
in the bibliography.
In any case, there was no reference to such resolutions any-
where in the text of the MRI report. What professional sanitarians
and environmental specialists have to say about the preventive health
aspects of single service would seem to be directly relevant to
the "Health Considerations" study undertaken by MRI and should
have been included.
* See attached copies of these resolutions
-------
Other Comments, Volume II, Health Considerations
(Foodservice Ware Section)
On Study of Hotel Beverage Glasses
In commenting on commissary-washed glasses studied in "Bac-
terial Count of Beverage Glasses in Hotels," by Dr. Bailus Walker,
Jr., the MRI authors make the following statement:
"Although standard plate counts were higher than
accepted bacteriological standards in all cases,
no pathogenic organisms were detected in the
commissary-washed glasses."
What they failed to mention, however, and what was clearly
shown in Table 21, page 88, is that the count of coliform bacter-
ia was above standard. Coliform organisms are usually considered
as indicators of unsanitary conditions.
The effect of the statement as written is to make it seem as
though commissary-washed glasses are acceptable in terms of their
bacteria counts, when in fact they are nojt acceptable. The re-
sults clearly demonstrate this.
On The Use of Sources
Many different types of "expertise" are drawn on by the au-
thors of the MRI report papers written by specialists for
professional journals, articles from trade magazines, official
government publications, personal communications (telephone con-
versations, letters, memoranda).
But there is almost no attempt made to evaluate the sources
used to place them in perspective or to suggest their
77-
-------
significance. For the most part, it is a matter of "so-and-so
said this" on the one hand, but "thus-and-thus said that" on the
other. All sources seem to be equal in validity, weight and
their contribution to the review of health considerations
There is an exception to this criticism: On pages 96 and 99
in their review of the "Eight Hospital Study" and the Rosner-
Hixon Report, the MRI authors evaluate the methodology of these
studies, find it wanting, and, in effect, apply a discount to
the results.
This raises a question: Why an evaluation of these studies,
but not of the others referred to in the MRI report? And a second
question: V.'hy use discredited studies in the first place? -- or
at all?
A review of the literature in a given area need not simply be
a listing of the literature nor an uncritical presentation of
selected contents from the sources chosen. The use of sources by
the MRI authors has the effect of turning the report into a ca-
talogue, rather than an analysis.
Another Health Consideration: Toxicity
On page 73, in describing the standard procedures for washing
and sanitizing reusables, reference is made to sanitizing solu-
tions and the use of chlorine and other sanitizing agents.
It might have been useful and timely for the authors of the
MRI report to have indicated here their awareness of the problems
of concentrations of sanitizing agents and their toxicity poten-
tial. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are now under suspicion as possible
-------
cancer-producing substances. Sanitizing agents may give rise to
toxic or carcinogenic substances that are discharged into waste
water systems and may become part of the water supply.
-------
Conclusion and Recommendations
It seems clear that the foodservice ware section of Volume II,
Health Considerations, did not have the benefit of professional
public health input in its design and execution. Had public-
health specialists been brought into the project, this section
would not be the ambiguous, inconclusive, and only marginally
useful work it now is.
To repeat, the foodservice ware section of the disposables
versus reusables report, as now written, is inadequate and should
be re-thought and revised.
It is hoped that the comments and criticisms herein submitted
will be given serious consideration in any revision that is made
for the publication of a final report.
Another recommendation: The benefit of professional
thinking would be gained if the present version and any revision
are submitted to the United States
Food and Drug Administration for review by public health experts.
In conclusion the following paragraph from the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act of 1969 may be germane to the issues under
discussion in the MRI report and this response:
"A hazardous substance is an element or compound,
designated by the Administrator, to be an imminent
or substantial danger to'the public health or
welfare."
(42 U.S.C., Paragraph 4332 (2) (c), 4344 (5) 1970,
EPA #335, December 1972)
-------
The same public health standard applies to foodservice ware
as a potential transmitter of infectious diseases and foodborne
illnesses. That such ware can be hazardous is demonstrated by
the Syracuse Research Corporation comparative microbiological
study of single service and permanent ware and other research
efforts.
These potential hazards are central to the thinking and
planning of public health professionals and agencies charged
with protecting the health Of the American people in public
places.
-------
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARDS
ASSOCIATED WITH DISPOSABLE AND REUSABLE
FOOD SERVICE ITEMS
Syracuse Study
Cups and Plates
Prepared for
The Single Service Institute
by
The Food Protection Laboratory
Syracuse Research Corporation
September 1976
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Summary of Results - 2
III. Test Procedures 2
IV. Test Data
V. Results and Discussion 25
Appendix - Sanitary Surveys 29
83-
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a study conducted by the Syracuse
Research Corporation comparing the sanitary quality of disposable and reusable
food service items at the point of use. The study was conducted for the
Single Service Institute by the Food Protection Laboratory of Syracuse
Research Corporation, an independent research and development company.
The Food Protection Laboratory has had over twenty-five years of
experience in testing utensils, and materials associated with food packaging
and serving. It is certified by the United States Public Health Service
for the microbiological testing of raw materials and finished containers
used for milk and milk products.
The specific purpose of this study was to compare the levels and types
of bacterial contamination present on disposable and reusable food service
items being used in commercial and institutional establishments. Seven
hundred and forty-three food service items categorized as "Cups and Plates,"*
both disposable and their reusable counterparts from fifteen food service
establishments, were tested for total bacterial content and for three
specific bacteria commonly associated with disease.
The results are summarized in Section II and detailed description of
test procedures, results and recommendations in the sections that follow.
Field work for this report was conducted by Ms. T. Parrow and Ms. W. Persse
of the Food Protection Laboratory. They were assisted in data analysis by
Mr. L.C. Parrow and Dr. G. Butler of FPL; Professor Seymour Sacks, SRC Senior
Statistician; and Professor K. Mehrotra, Syracuse University.
*
Category includes glasses and bowls.
-------
II. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Statistical analysis of the data indicate that:
1. In twelve of thirteen food service establishments, the average
bacterial counts of disposable food service items were lower
than those of reusable items. In two establishments only
disposables were used.
2. In the specific bacteria categories of staphylococcus,
streptococcus and coliform, disposables had significantly
lower bacterial counts than corresponding reusable items
in all but one case where,comparison was possible.
III. TEST PROCEDURES
Site Selection
Fifteen testing sites (food service establishments) were randomly
selected in Syracuse for participation in this study. This was done by
giving each establishment in Syracuse (as listed in the current yellow
pages of the phone directory) a number and then generating a series of
random numbers for selection. The statistical base for city and site
selection is outlined in detail in Comparative Study of Potential Health
Hazards Associated With Disposable and Reusable Food Service Items -
Development of a Statistical Base and Test Protocol, February, 1976,
Revised April, 1976.1
Prepared for Single Service Institute.
-------
The fifteen sites and the number in each group consisted of:
1. Public Eating Establishments
a. Restaurants (7) - Establishments engaged in serving prepared
food and beverages selected by the patron from a full menu.
Waiter or waitress service was provided and the establish-
2
ment had seating facilities for at least 15 patrons.
b. Cafeterias (2) - Establishments engaged in serving prepared
food and beverages primarily through the use of a cafeteria
line where the customer serves himself from displayed
selections. Table and/or booth seating facilities were
provided.
c. Fast Food (2) - Establishments primarily selling limited
lines of refreshments and prepared food items for con-
sumption either on or near the premises or for "take home".
2. Institutional Feeding Establishments
a. Hospitals (2)
b. Schools (2)
The proposed selection of seven fast-food establishments, two family
style restaurants and two cafeterias was not realized. Many of the fast-food
establishments are chain operated, and the local manager could not authorize
permission for testing on the premises. Ultimately, the selection of public
eating establishments consisted of two fast-food establishments, two
cafeteria style, and seven family style restaurants.
Definitions of Public Eating Establishments from 1972 Census of Retail
Trade RC-72-A Series.
2
These are identified as Family Style in computer data.
-------
All restaurants participating in the study used both reusable and
disposable food service items with the exception of the fast-food establishments
which used disposable items exclusively. Although reusable utensils were used
for in-house means by the family and cafeteria style restaurants, approximately
half of these establishments had a moderate to heavy take-out service.
Consequently, disposable items were well represented.
Point of Testing
Utensils were selected for testing at their point of use. In this study,
point of use is defined as the location where utensils are stored in prepara-
tion for use by the customer or the establishment personnel serving the food.
Utensils Tested
Commonly used utensils chosen for testing included main course plates,
sandwich or butter plates, sour and/or salad bowls, hot beverage cups and
cold drink cups or glasses.
Surfaces Tested
The entire food contact and mouth contact surfaces of each utensil was
swabbed, one utensil per swab. Cups and glasses were swabbed on all inner
surfaces and around the lip. The top surface of each plate and the inner
surface of bowls, up to the lip, were tested. The area tested for each
item was recorded.
Sample Size
The number of samples tested was based upon the square root concept for
-;ซ lection of normal distribution of small populations. To assure an adequate
-------
representation of samples, a minimum of 7 items of each type were tested. In
cases where fewer than 7 items were available, all available items were tested.
Testing Method
Materials:
1. Screw-capped tubes containing 5 mฃs of buffered rinse solution
after autoclaving.
2. Q-tip cotton swabs, 6" wooden applicator stick, sterilized
in capped glass tube.
3. Standard Methods agar (Difco)
Staphylococcus Medium #110 (BBL)
Streptosel Agar (BBL)
M-Endo Broth (BBL)
Nutrient Agar (BBL)
4. Sterile Millipore filter funnels
5. Sterile Millipore filter membranes, type HA, 0.45y pore size
6. Sterile Millipore dishes
7. 100 x 15 mm sterile, disposable Petri dishes
8. Sterile 2.2 mฃ pipettes.
9. Quebec colony counter
Swab Method:
The swab method was performed according to recommendations in
Chapter 16 of Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products,
Thirteenth Edition.
Testing was performed by removing a sterile swab from its container
so that only the lower 2" of the swab stick is handled. The swab was immersed
: i a tube containing sterile buffered rinse solution, and the excess liquid
"(ueezed out against the side of the tube. The moistened swab was then
-------
rubbed /er the test surface 3 times, reversing direction between successive
strokes. At the same time the swab was rotated between the fingers. The
swab was returned to the tube of rinse solution, and the swab stick broken off
so that the handled portion of the swab stick did not enter the tube.
Upon completion of the testing, the tubes containing the swabs
were taken back to the Syracuse Research Corporation laboratory and plated.
Chilling of the tubes was not necessary because of the short time lapse
between testing and return to the laboratory. However, the tubes were
refrigerated at the laboratory if media preparation prevented immediate
plating.
Plating Procedure:
The tubes containing the swabs were manually shaken 50 times to
dispense any microorganisms into the buffered rinse solution. The contents
of each tube was aseptically dispensed by pipette into Petri dishes,
appropriate media added, and incubated according to the following scheme:
1. Total plate count - 0.1 mฃ and 1.0 mJl plus Standard Methods
Agar. Incubated at 32ฐC for 48 hours.
2. Staphylococcus - 1 mX, plus Streptosel Agar, Incubation at
35ฐC for 48 hours.
3. Streptococcus - 1 mฃ plus Streptosel Agar. Incubation at
35ฐC for 48 hours.
4. Coliform - 1 mi filtered through a sterile Millipore filter
which is placed in a Millipore plate containing M-Endo Broth
plus Nutrient Agar. Incubation at 35ฐC for 24 hours.
Media control plates were made from each bottle of medium, and
fncubated in the same manner as the inoculated plates. Buffered rinse
water and air (laboratory) control plates were also made.
-------
Bacterial Counts:
After incubation, the number of bacteria on each plate was counted
and recorded. Stained slides of questionable bacterial colonies growing in
the Staphylococcus #110 and Streptosel plates were microscopically checked to
insure accurate tallies.
Sanitary Survey
Each establishment was evaluated according to handling practices and
environmental conditions. These evaluations, Appendix A, are not stressed
in this report because no standard method or rating system is available to
evaluate the sanitary quality of an establishment with respect to its potential
for bacterial growth.
The fifteen food service establishments were rated as poor, average or
good according to the investigator's opinion of the overall cleanliness
of the establishment and personnel, and the food and food service utensil
handling practices.
-------
IV - TEST DATA
-------
TAbtE
L8CATI8N
CJTV: SYRACUSE
TtST SITE! 1
LATEG9HY!
S PLATES
8AN1TAWV SUM"ARY| tana, FL.BPRS. "ALLS,
CEILING euo, DIRTY. EOUIPMENT, SINKS OLD*
BREASE CWATE0. "EBปIS, DIRT BN FLttBKS IN
AREA, TABLE PU9FACES STICKY.
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
UISP6SABLE
DISPeSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAPLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSAFLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSAbLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSA8LE
KfUSABLE
KEUSA6LE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSA6LE
KEUSABLE
KtUSABLE
KEUSAHLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSAPLE
CSLD CUป
Cป)L1 CU"
COL? CUP
COLD cup
CUL? CUP
CHLP cuฐ
CBLP CUP
BREAD t. BTR PLT
BREAD t. BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD i BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
H9T CUP PLAi> LA"
HBT CUP PLAS LA"
H8T CUP PLAS LAM
HOT CUP PLAS LAM
HBT CUP PLAS LA"
HUT CUP PLAS LAM
H8T CUP PLAS LA"
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
B"WL
B8*L
BBWL
BOWL
BRtAD & BTR PLT
BREAD i BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD i, BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD S BTR PLT
BปฃAD & BTR PL*
OISPBSABLE SU"
DISP8SA8LE
DISPOSABLE AVEKAUE
REUSABLE SUM
REUSABLE MIMBEK
REUSABLE AVEKAUE
10
1
2
3
ป
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
IS
13
It
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
50
51
52
53
5*
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
6*
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
7*
75
76
77
(
JE
<
IE
TPC
130*0
5."
P
0
0
"0
ซ0
10-0
0
0
0
0
0
5.0
0
55.0
0
0
c
ซ0
"0
C1
0
10ซ 0
70ซ0
*Qซ0
l*5.o
5.0
50ซ0
5000ซC
0
0
*0ซ0
?VO
130.0
*00ซ0
1100-0
ป35.0
?0ซ0
30ซ 0
130.0
5550ซ0
5.0
TNTC
0
19950.0
15.0
20ซ?
.0
205.0
21.0
9.8
33ซ>00'0
27.0
12**ซ*
STAPH
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
ซ0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35ซo
"0
"0
3
0
0
0
"0
0
85-0
75. 0
25ซ0
0
0
25ซ0
710'0
0
0
10-0
ซ0
0
"0
.c
0
21. 0
0
965-0
28.Q
3ป-5
STREP
0
"n
"0
0
ซo
.0
"0
0
.0
0
ซ0
0
"0
-0
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
ซ0
.0
0
0
.0
RO'O
0
0
0
"0
0
?0'0
0
.0
0
0
5.0
2?80ซ0
.0
0
.0
.0
0
-0
.0
.0
21ซ0
0
23S5-0
2ซซ0
85.2
E.CBLI
0
u
0
u
ซu
0
u
n>
u
0
0
0
0
-0
ซo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
"0
0
0
u
u
0
15ซ0
a
ซu
0
0
0
ซ0
.()
u
"0
0
0
80ซU
u
ซ0
0
u
ซ0
"0
-0
0
21-0
ซ0
95" 0
28ซU
3ซป
-------
TABLE
LBCtTlBN -
CITY: SYKACUSE
TEST SITE' ?
TEST TYPE: ^MILY STYLE
CATEGORY: ru^s i PLATES
ITฃ'1
SANITARY SUMMARYt QWBO, FL8BRS HAULS,
CEILING GENERALLY CLEAN EXCEPT FON DIRT
WUILDUP IN HARD T<> CLฃA*< AKEAS BF FLOOR.
AREA CLEAN, NEAT,
TPC STAPH STPEP E.CBLI
NB
DISPOSABLE
OISPPSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPBSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
OISPSSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPBSABLE
DISPOSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSA6LE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSAtLE
REUSABLE
HEUSAttLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSAtLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
KfcUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAHLE
HtUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSAhLE
KEUSปBLE
REUSABLE
KEUSAPLE
HEUSAbLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSAPLE
HtUSABLE
HtUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
CBLD CUP
CBLP CUP
CNCD CUP
CBL:I CUP
CIL'J CUP
CMLI1 CUP
CfซLD CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
OtN'^EK PLATt
DINl-EK PLATt
DINNEK PLATE
OJNNEK PLATt
DINNEK PLATt
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
OLASS
GLASS
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
DIWEK PLATE
DINNgK PLATt
DINVEK PLATE
OIN\'EW PLATt
oiNf'EK PLATE
DINปฃK PLATE
DINf'E" PLATt
BREAD & BTR PLT
BRtปD 5 BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD s BTR PLT
BOfAD & BTR PLT
BWEAO & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
CUP
CUP
CUP
Cl'P
CUP
CUP
CUP
DISPOSABLE
UISPBSABLE
DISPOSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
98
93
9*
95
96
97
98
109
no
111
112
113
181
IS?
123
18*
125
126
187
l?ft
189
130
131
132
148
1*9
150
151
158
, 153
15*
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
16*
165
166
167
169
SUM
NUMBER
AVERAGE
SUM
NUMbER
AVERAGE
0
0
5.0
C
10ซ0
15ซ0
0
10tO
0
0
5.0
5.0
10ปC
0
175.0
.n
0
0
0
ป5.o
45.0
5.0
10ซ0
15.Q
5.0
8*00ซ0
750ซ0
60ซ0
lO.n
8ป00ซ0
80ป0
295.Q
130^0
0
.0
0
0
0
10ซ0
0
5.0
5-0
15.0
0
ป0ซ0
1650ซ0
45.0
10. C
65-0
5.0
950ซ0
15.0
235.0
1*ซ0
1?.*
9565.0
33.0
?89.8
0
"0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
5.0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
"0
"0
0
"0
0
0
0
C
.0
155.0
6Qซ0
0
.0
"0
0
"0
10ซ0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
285.0
0
0
"0
0
80-0
)
5.Q
19. 0
3
*70ซ0
33ซ0
!ป?
0
ซ0
ซ0
0
0
0
0
"0
"0
0
0
0
ซ0
0
"0
0
0
"0
.0
"0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
ซ0
.0
.0
ซ0
65ซ0
"0
.0
.0
.0
0
ซ0
.0
0
0
.0
u
.0
.0
"0
.0
.0
0
ซ0
0
0
.0
19. 0
.0
65. 0
33.0
8ป0
0
"0
0
ซ0
0
0
0
u
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
"0
0
"0
u
u
u
0
0
u
0
.0
0
0
0
ซu
0
0
"0
0
u
0
"0
.0
0
0
"0
0
ซ0
0
19ป0
>0
"0
13" 0
"0
-------
TABLE 3-1
L9CATI8N . R(
TEST
TtST
LATI
SEKVICfc
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPBSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSป>iLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
rGISN- N'BRTHEAST
"CITY: SYRACUSE
SITE! 3
TYPE: FAMILY STYLE
:G8*Y! CUPS S PLA1ฃS
ITE".
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC cup
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
CUP
C'JP
CUP
CUP
CUP
C'JP
CUP
8MซL
BซHL
Bhil"L
BBWL
BPWL
se*L
BtfcL
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
SANJTARY SUMMARY. P98R. WALLS.
IN NEED 8F CLEANING. DEBRIS BN KJTCHฃN
FLB8R. EQUIPMENT QREASF C9ATEO, *ป6D RESIDUE
IN F88D HANDLING AR^AS. DINING
CLEAN.
DISPOSABLE SUM
DISPOSABLE:
DISPBSABLE AVERAGE
REUSABLE SUM
REUSABLE NUMBER
REUSABLE AVERAQE
N8
201
202
203
2Q*
2Q5
2Q6
207
?15
216
'17
218
219
220
173
174
173
176
177
178
179
ISO
181
182
183
18*
185
186
187
185
189
190
191
192
193
221
222
223
28*
228-
?26
227
EK
AGE
Eซ
A'QE
TPC STApH STREP -E-CBL1
r
5.0
5.Q
lO'O
0
0
5.0
ป0'0
"0
200ซ0
SQO'O
0
0
0
35.0
170-0
5-0
*5ซ0
100-0
0
5.0
15.0
300ป0
215.0
60ซ0
310ซ0
75oซn
95.0
*0ซ0
1500ซ0
1*5. 0
5oซ0
5.Q
20ซ0
0
5.0
0
5.Q
0
0
0
765.0
.. 13.0
58. R
3915.Q
28. 0
139.8
"0
5.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50ซ0
0
0
0
20ซ0
125. 0
5.0
0
10*0
5.Q
0
0
7oซ0
25.Q
0
0
0
35ซ0
0
0
65. 0
20-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55ป0
13'0
*ซ2
37oซ0
28> 0
13.2
.0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
ซ0
35.0
ซ0
"0
0
"0
ซ0
.0
0
0
0
3C"0
5.0
5.Q
0
5.0
25.0
5.0
0
.0
0
0
ซ0
0
0
ซ0
.0
0
13.0
0
110.0
28.0
3.9
ซ0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
13ซ0
0
0
28ซ 0
0
-------
TABLE
T_
CJTY: SYKACUSE
fST SITE: 4
TtST TYPE! FAHILY STYUE
SC"H\/ T ft
" b " * * * t
UISPOSABLF
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
UlbP"SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
UISpogABLE
DISPOSABLE
UISPOFABLF
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABUE
REUSABLE
KEUSAbLE
KEUSAf-LE
KEUSAbLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
Kf USAHLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSA8LE
KEUSARLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABUE
REUSAhUE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABUE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABUE
REUSABUE
KEUSABUE
REUSABUE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
LATEG9ซY. t U^S S PLATES
T TC ^;
i TE '
CPLD CUP
CHLP LUP
CHU'J CUP
Gnu?. CUP
CBLP CUP
COLD CU"
CซU% CUP
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PUATE
DINNER PUATE
DINNER PUATt
PINNER "LATE
DINNER PUATE
DINNER PUATfe
BHWL
BO*L
bOWL
BซWL
Bปl"U
B"WL
BHปL
BREAD & BTR PUT
BREปD 5 BTR PUT
BปEAD & BTR PUT
BREAD & BTR PUT
BREAD & BTR PUT
BREAD S BTR PUT
B"ฃAO S BTR PUT
BREAD 5 BTR PUT
BREAD & BTR PUT
BปEAD S BTR PUT
BREAD & BTR PUT
BREAD & BTR PUT
BREAD & BTR PUT
BREAD S BTR PUT
GLASS
GLAbS
GLASS
GLASS
GLAfcS
GLASS
GLASS
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
. CUP
CiJP
CUP
BOซL
BBปU
BOWL
BHKiL
BHWL
BOWL
B8WL
SANITARY SUMMARY | AVERAGE. WALLS, C-EIUIN3
FLBBRS, GENERALLY CLEAN, feso
CLEAN, NEAT TRASH, JANITORIAL
ST8PED IN SAME AREA. FซUL 8DI?R FKBM
UISHWASHER DRAIN.
Ne TPC STAPH STREP E.CBLI
253
254
255
256
257
?58
259
H62
263
245
?46
247
265
266
?67
?68
?69
C73
?76
277
?78
?79
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
ซ90
291
313
314
315
316
317
sia
319
DISPOSABLE SUM
UISPOSABUE NUMBER
UISP8SABUE AVERAGE
REUSABUE SUM
REUSABUE NUMbfTK
REUSABUf AVERAGE
5.0
100'C
15. 0
5.0
0
0
0
0
lO'O
0
0
80*0
10ซ0
TNTC
5.Q
15.0
44Q.O
0
0
0
0
0
0
10ซ0
5.0
10.0
55.0
0
5.Q
5-0
150ซ0
5.Q
0
5-0
5.Q
0
0
5.0
0
5.0
30ซ0
95.Q
30-0
10.0
45.0
125.0
.0
175.0
S5.0
0
0
0
0
0
190.0
14.0
13*6
1270ซ0
41.0
31.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ซ0
0
0
5-0
0
aoซo
0
lO'O
0
.0
0
lO'O
0
0
0
0
0
"0
14ซ0
0
45.Q
42.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
"0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
.0
0
.0
"0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
"0
"0
0
10ซ0
.0
5.0
35.0
.0
.0
.0
"0
0
0
0
.0
.0
14.0
0
42. 0
o
u
u
o
0
u
0
u
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
ซ0
ซu
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
ซ0
0
14.0
0
0
42-0
0
-------
CITY!
TtST SITE'
TtST TYPE:
LATEB8HY!
TABLE 5ป1
"BKTHEAST
bYHACUSE
"5
FAMILY STVLE
CU^S i PLATES
GBBD. FLBSRS, *ALLs,
CEILINGS CLEAN. WBRKlNG AซEA, EQUIPMENT
IN KITCHEN KEPT CLfAN. DINING ARtAS VtRY CLEAN.
SERVICE
ITtl
SER MB TPC STAPH STREP
DISPOSABLE
DISP"SA8LE
UISP'.ISABLF
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
D1SP9SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
ซEUSABLE
KEUSAPLE
KLUSABLE
KEUSAbLE
KEUSABLE
KEUS'BLE
KEUSABLE
KtDSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAHLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAbLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAELE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSAHLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAbLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSA8LE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
KE.USABLE
KEUSA&LE
KtUSAgLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAPLE
DINNER oLATt
DINNฃK ฐLATE
DIN'EK PLATE
DIWEK PLATE
OINNEK PLATE
DINNEK PLATE
DINNEK PLATE
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC cup
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUp
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
B9WL
B*WL
BShL
BBWL
BRWL
BH*L
BtfWL
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
BWEAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
.BREAD 5 BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
DISPOSABLE
DJSPBSABLE
DISPOSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
333
334
135
>36
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
375
376
377
37?
379
380
381
389
390
391
392
393
394
395,
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
410
411
412
413
414
445
416
SUM
NUMBE"
AVEKAUE
SUM
NUMBEK
AVERAGE
15.0
ซ0
15. 0
15.0
5.Q
15.0
15.0
10ซC
sซo
0
5.0
"0
"0
0
80ซ0
285.Q
20.0
0
0
0
10ซC
IIO'O
4QOซ0
0
40ซ0
5ซ0
0
5.Q
16BQซ0
130.0
55oซ0
"0
500*0
0
.0
115.0
10ซ0
85.0
35.0
80ซ0
5.0
40.0
155.0
5.0
"0
150ซ0
0
10.0
.0
100*0
14.Q
7.1
4415.Q
35.0
126.1
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
lO'O
0
0
0
5-0
5.Q
0
3Qซ0
0
0
0
0
ซ0
15.Q
85. c
0
5.0
0
0
0
6Qซ0
5.0
.270T
0
195.0
0
0
0
0
15-0
0
0
5.Q
5.0
10ซ 0
0
"0
15.0
0
0
.0
20ซ0
14.0
1.4
715.Q
35ป0
20ซ4
.0
.0
0
10ซ0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
ซ0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
10'0
l5tQ
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
ซ0
0
tO
0
0
0
0
.0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
.0
.0
0
.0
10.0
14.0
.7
?5ซ0
35.0
.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
u
0
u
0
u
u
0
ซu
u
0
0
0
0
u
0
u
0
"U
0
"0
ซu
u
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
14ซ0
"0
u
35ซ 0
0
-------
TABLE 6-1
LttCปTI8N - BE
TtST
TtST
LATE
bEHVlCE
DISPOSABLE-
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
U1SPOSABLF
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP-FABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
KEUSAbLE
KEUSAbLE.
KEUSARLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAbLE
HEUSAbLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSAfcLE
KEUSA6LE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
KEUStfLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
ซEUSซBLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSA8LE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAbLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
NEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KtUSABLE
KEUSABLE
619', | N8KTHEAST
C.JTY! SYKACUSf
SITE- 6
TYPES FAMILY STYLE
;G8ซY! C~UPS s PLATE**
ITE*
CSLD CUe
CMLD CUP
COLO CUP
CPLD CUP
C3LD CUP
CWLO CUP
CSLD CUP
HUT CUP PLAS LAM
HBT CUP PLAS UAM
H3T CUP PLAS LAM
HIT CUP PLAS LAM
HBT CUP RLAS LAM
HST CUP PLAS LAM
HซT CUP PLAS LAM
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD S BTR PLT
BปEปD 5 BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
B"ฃAD S BTR PLT
BREAD f. QTR PLT
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
DIME* PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINMEK PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DIN' EH PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINN.EK PLATt
BB*L
tiB*L
8HK.L
Bปป-L
BBhL
BBWL
B8WL
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
'CUP
BREAD s BTR PLT
BREAD i BTR PLT
BREAD s BTR PLT
BREAD 4 BTR PLT
BREAD 5 BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
DISPBSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPBSABLE
SANITARY SUMMARY; PB9R. KJTCHฃN WALLS*
CEILJNQ, EQUIPMENT BLO, GREASE CBAHD.
FL88RS VERY WBRN, DIRTY. FLBflRS IN COUNTER*
OJNINQ AREAS CBVERfD WITH OIปT. DtBHIS.
SEK US
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
29
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
SUM
NUMBEK
AVEKA9E
TPC
"0
P
0
0
0
0
0
5.0
5.0
10"0
5.0
0
0
5.0
15-0
0
0
0
0
0
5.0
95ซ0
315.0
135oซ0
180-0
155.0
*10ซ0
610ซ0
20-0
15.0
0
1400ซ0
.0
15.0
225.0
70ซ 0
0
5.0
60ซ0
545ซ0
50-0
250ซ0
350ซ0
55.0
160.0
125.Q
looo.o
660ซ0
100.0
215.Q
5.0
10ซ0
205" 0
1055.0
25.Q
10ซ0
50-0
21ซ0
2.4 .
STAPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
f)
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
1070"0
0
0
"*0ซ0
10ซ0
0
0
85. 0
30ซ0
5ซ0
0
lO'O
15ป0
10" 0
15ซC
215.Q
12oซ0
.0
*5ซ 0
5-0
5.0
15. o
330'0
0
0
5.0
21.Q
2
STREP
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
0
.0
.0
0
ซu
.0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
0
0
.0
.0
0
5.0
.0
5.0
15.0
15.0
.0
.0
0
5.0
.0
.0
0
5.0
.0
0
lo-o
5ซ0
0
?5.0
.0
"0
0
0
245.0
30*0
.0
60ซ0
0
ซ0
"0
0
0
0
.0
21-0
0
E-CBLi
0
"0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
u
ซu
0
0
0
0
0
-0
ซo
u
u
0
ซ0
u
210*0
.0
0
ซ0
0
0
u
0
0
0
21-0
-0
REUSABLE SUM
REUSABLE
REUSABLE AVEKAQE
284
>Q 1965.o 4?5ป0 210*0
0 35.0 35"0 35"0
,1 56.1 12ซ1 6ซ0
-------
LซCซTie'' -
TABLE 7-
[fal1"': ' 8"TMEAST
CITY: yv
SITE:
: CUPS & PLATES
ITE"
SAMITAHY SUMHARYI PBBR. DISHWASHING IN
CONVERTED STORAGE AREA, CEMENT FLOORS, WALLSป
CEILINGS IM PBBR REPAIR. FOOD
SEซVINCJ AREAS NEED CLEANING.
TPC STAPH STREP E-CBLI
DISPOSABLE
UISP?SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE:
DISP09ABLF
DISPosAHLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
D I Spos ABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
KEUSAbLE
KEDSAKLE
KEUSAKLE
KEUSAtiLE
KtUSAFLE
K[_gSAt
-------
TABLE H-l
LOCATION R(
TtST
TEST
GISN; N8KTHEAST
CITY! SYRACUSE
SITE! ?
TYPEI FAMILY STYLE
LATEG8RY! CUPS 5 PLATES
DISPOSABLF
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPHSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPHSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP8SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DIbpSSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSARLE
KLUSABLE
KtuSABLE
KEUSABLE
KtUSABLE
REUSABLE
KtUSABLE
KEUSAbLE
KEUSA8LE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
KtUSAeLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
HEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
i ' t
ALL PLASTIC cup
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
BREAD 4 BTR PLT
BREAD S BTR PUT
8READ 5 BTR PUT
BREAD & BTR PUT
BREAD 5 BTR PUT
BRฃ*D & BTR PUT
BREAD 5 BTR PLT
CHLP CUP
CPLD CUP
C'tLU CUP
CซLC> CUP
CBLC CUP
CBLO CU=
CttLD CUP
DINNER PLATE
OJNNtK PLATE
DINNEK PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DJNNfK PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
GLASS
GLASS
, GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
3LASS ,
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINN'EK PLATt
DINNER PLATE
DINNฃK PLATt
JUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
BREAD 5 BTR PUT
BREAD & BTR PUT
BRE*D & BTR PUT
BREAD S BTR PUT
BREAD 5 BTR PUT
SANITARY SUMMARY) AVE&AOE- W9RK1N9 DIRT
"N FLB8RS, EQUIPMENT, RECENTLY
NE>* WAULS, CEILJNQS, EQUIPMENT.
*Y HAND. FILM BN
SER
TPC STAPH STREP E.COLI
667
668
669
671
673
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
68Q
681
683
683
684
6-85
686
687
688
689
69Q
691
693
691
694
69Q
591
992
593
594
595
S96
997
598
S99*
600
601
602
603
604
6Q5
606
607
6Q8
609
610
611
613
614
615
616
634
635
636
637
638
DISPOSABLE SUM
DISPOSABLE NUMBER
DISPOSABLE AVEKAUE
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
"0
0
0
5.0
20ซ0
0
"0
0
.0
0
0
180ซ0
55.Q
5-0
"0
0
0
0
ป0ซ0
188.Q
0
5.0
5.Q
20*0
0
300ซ0
1450ซ0
450ซ0
15550*0
lOlOO'O
5.0
"0
5.0
ซ0
15.0
tP'O
20.0
35.0
25.0
5.0
65.0
20ซ0
15.0
ซ0
10*0
5.0
0
65ซ Q
20ซ0
865.0
28.0
9.5
REUSABLE SUM 33385*0
REUSABLE NUMBE.R 33.0
REUSABLE AVERAGE 1009.9
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
ซ0
0
0
15*0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
38. o
0
.0
0
0
u
0
10ซ0
85ซQ
"0
0
15"0
60'0
65.0
0
ซ0
0
0
ซ0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
ซ0
0
0
0
0
Bซ0
15.Q
28.o
5
215.o
33.0
6ซ5
0
.0
0
ซ0
0
"0
.0
.0
0
0
"0
"0
0
.0
0
.0
ซ0
0
0
.0
0
0
ซ0
.0
0
.0
0
0
"0
0
.0
.0
0
0
.0
0
l5ซ0
.0
0
"0
45.0
15.0
.0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
ป0
.0
0
ป0
0
.0
75.0
33.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
ซ0
0
0
ป0
0
ซ0
0
"0
0
.0
0
"0
"0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
"0
y
0
"0
"0
ซ0
y
"0
15ซ0
0
0
"0
5*0
0
ซ0
0
ซ0
ซ0
0
0
0
0
ป0
u
"0
ซ0
ซ0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28ซo
0
H0*0
33ซ0
6
-------
TABLE
CITY; SYRACUSE
TEST SITE: 9
TtST TYปE! FAST PB9D
CUHS & PLATES
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPUSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISH'icABLE
DISFSSABLE
UISP"SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
?<"EAO 5
PREAO &
3READ &
BปEAD 4
Bซt.'D l
BREAD S
BฐtAD J,
BREAD fc
BREAD 5
CMLD CUP
CILD UUP
C-JLD LUP
C'5LD CUP
C*L:> CUP
CULT CUP
CBLU CUP
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
6TR PLT
81*1.
CLEAN. FI."ปPHS CUE** EXCEPT JN HAKO IB
AREAS. F8KD PREPARATION AซEA, EOUlPnฃNT
VERY CLEAN.
STREP E.CSLI
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLAFTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUp
ALL PLASTIC CUP
DISPOSABLE SUM
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE AVERAGE
REUSABLE SUM
REUSABLE
N6
696
697
69B
699
700
701
708
703
70*
705
7Q6
7Q7
708
709
710
711
712
713
71*
715
716
717
718
719
73t
735
736
737
738
739
7ป0
K
BE
H
OE
TPC
. *
0
0
0
0
n
55.0
0
ซn
0
5ซ0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
fiซ0
0
25.0
5.0
5.0
100ซซ
3lซ0
, 3.2
0
.0
.0
STAPH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5ซ0
0
, 'c
5.0
31. 0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
ซ0
u
u
ซ0
0
0
0
0
ซ0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
ซ0
0
ซo
D
0
0
1^0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
"J
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
ซo
0
0
u
0
u
u
0
0
0
0
0
3lซu
0
0
0
0
-------
LBCป-j [f .
CITY- bV!-A'-U;;E
"LD WALLS, CEILINGS IN NEED
TEST SITE: l PA;NT
TEST T
YHf : > AbT t-tป80
BF CLtA*
'ING. FL88RS DI^TY WITW B"8KtN
EM reeo
PREPARATION,
SERVICE A*
LATEซP*Y: fu^s & =>LATES UENERALLY CLEAN.
bE^V I Cf
U 1 SP*i? A8LP
DlbPuSABLF.
UISP^tABLfc
U I SPMS A&LE
DI SP^?,ABLF
U I SP^aABLE
UJSP"CABLP
01 bP^c ABLF
UISP'iSABLF
UIbP''f ABLE
UISP"SABLE
Dlbpi'VAbLE
D I SP^S APLF
U I SP^ABuE
DISP-'SAHLF
DISPOSABLE
KEUSS=LE
HEUSAnLE
HEUSปซLE
HEUSA^LE
KEUSA^LE
KEUSA^LE
KEuSซH_E
KEUSU.LE
KfcUSAfLE
NEUStoLE
HEUSABtE
REUSABLE
KEUSAHLE
REUSABLE -
Hi '
C'-il. .' 1 UP
Cllf CUP
C1 LT C'j
C"',-"' C'.JO
CnLii LUn
CuL1.1 CUD
ctnr cu*3
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
ALL PLASTIC CUp
ALL PL/>ST;C L'UF
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASv ir cur
tLL PLASTIC TUF
ALL PLASTIC (.up
ALL CLASTIC CUP
DIN'-EH PLA/E
'JK.fE^ C'.*1E
DIN\EX PLATE
D1NNฃH PLATE
DIKNฃK PLATE
0!NN(_N PLATE
QiNFiE^ PL*TE
awEAD i BTR PLT
aฐEAO i BTR PL!
SPLAD i BTR PLT
B^EAD S BTR PLT
BHtAD 4 BTR PLT
6WฃAD 5 BTR PIT
B4LAD S BT'-i PLT
DISPOSABLE
DISPBSA8LE
DISPOSABLE
ซEUS'-8LE
HEUSABL"
SEUSABLE
SfR !\S
77,-
777
778
7?y
7งQ
'"?!
''J2
7J3
aป
785
736
7&V
70 ซ
78S
739
"00
'yi
>'j2
103
HO1*
ป05
762
763
76t
76S
766
767
768
759
77o
771
773
773
77ป
/75
SUM
MUHBf"
AVEKAHE
SUM
NUMBED
AVEWAaE
Ti-"C STAPH STREP
SO"
0
ซ>"?
loo
5.0
"5ซ0
0
5.0
lO'O
0
S.O
ป5.Q
0
0
35-.-0
2Cซ0
35. 0
150ซC
5.0
50-0
*0ซ0
0
30ซ0
185.0
'0
HO'O
gg.O
25.Q
?0ซQ
85. o
ซ0
5.Q
"0
0
0
ป*o.o
?1 ป0
Zl.O
336. c
1*ซ0
?3.9
. n
0
-
ซ0
C
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
. ^
"0
"0
10"J 5
5-0
lO'O
0
JO'O
'0
0
0
0
"0
20'0
5-0
1^ซ0
0 15
0
0
0
"0
0
*s
35.0 5
21. 0 ?1
1.7
*0'0 15
1*ซ0 1*
2.9 1
0
u
1
.0
0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
"0
0
0
0
0
ซ0
0
ซ0
0
ซ0
0
0
0
u
0
.0
1)
0
0
0
0
"0
0
ซ0
ซ0
0
.2
o
ซ0
1
E-CBLl
0
U
0
0
"0
ซ0
0
0
ซ0
0
"0
0
"0
u
0
o
0
0
0
ซ0
"0
ซ0
"0
0
0
ซu
0
"0
0
u
0
0
"0
"U
0
0
21 ซ0
0
ซo
14. 0
0
-------
SERVICE
11-1
"BKTHEAST
CITY; SYWACUSE
TEST SITE'- 11
TEST TYPE! >-AST fปSO
CATEGORY: CUPS s PLATES
1TE"
SANITARY SUMMA^YI AVERAGE-
AREA. EQUIPMENT KEPT CLEAN. FLBBNS IN EATINU
A"EA NEEDED SWEEPING. BACK.
HAD 8LD CฃMfNT FLOORSj CEll-INfiS, "ALLS
NEED BF PAINTING.
TPC STAPH STREP
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP"SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
UISF iSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISFo?ป6LE
UISP 'SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
UISPHStBLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP-SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP'^ABLE
DISpoKABtE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPiEAbLE
DISFHRABLE
DISP"SABLE
Bซt*D S BTR PLT
BREAD & BTH PLT
BปEAD 5 BTR PUT
b^EAD S BTR PLT
BBt'AU S BTR PLT
BWfcAD i BTR PLT
bปtAD S BTR PLT
DINNEK PLATE
DIN\.EH ปLATt
D^^E" PLATE
ฃ>IN\ฃK PLATE
DINf'EH PLATE
DINNEW PLATE
DII^E" PLATE
CซLD (.UP
CHLU CUP
cซL': cup
C-ซLO CUP
CHL" CUP
CHUC CUP
CHLD CUP
BปfcAC & BTR PLT
BRt'D S BTR PLT
B^EAO S BT" PLT
BHEAD 5 BTR PLT
BREAD s BTR PLT
BHtAD & BTR PLT
BปEAD s BTR PLT
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUp
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
DISPOSABLE
D1SPBSAHLE
DISPOSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
ซ27
K88
889
830
*31
ป32
ซ33
83ป
835
836
837
H38
>539
8*0
8ป1
8*2
8*3
8**
**5
8*6
8*7
8*8
8*9
850
851
863
853
85*
ป55
856
857
858
859
860
H61
SUM
NUMBER
AVERAGE
SUM
NUMBE*
AVERAUE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.0
0
c
0
0
0
5.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
35.Q
0
0
eoซo
5ซo
55.0
, -o
125*0
35.0
3.6
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
**ฐ
*a
0
0
0
0
35.0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
ซ0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
ป0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
"0
"0
ซ0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ซ0
35,0
.0
c
0
.0
0
0
"0
u
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
ป0
u
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
u
0
0
u
0
0
0
35.0
0
ซ0
0
.0
-------
si.
its?
LA|'
CtFANซ > t)BD
CtEA^l.
Tf-c
STAPH
STPEP
JJa '"SjA'iLf
ui jp''ฃ-AL'ti
JIV"?AI!ปt-'"bป3uF
L/IbM<"".A.--L..
J[bu' b* -iLT
! J ! 'j I-"-' S ป J u E
U i b'~M1c, i,'UE
J j t f3 -* L; A *u L
Jib JHC_ ABLE
L';SPT.A3LE
Ui jf'nc ABLE
J!bP'.'SA JtE
JJSp^SAHtt
(J I Lj p H 5 A ซ L f
UISPH'-A ,tr
UISP^I-A'itf
ur.iiJ'i<;Acf -*3 o BlR r".T >.! >
''- i: ' t'1 11 ptT U7> '
. . ซ BTV PtT " -?
i !i -L , u TR PLT ':j'9
.!<. c , '< 1 1 Ptr ") j
ll": ' 0 i '* (R Pt '' ** i .
-".' . ', i TR rlt f ^ J2
-! i. "J '3'i
C )..! 1 v< H'il )
r 'L' njp . >
r ) L ' r i -> . ; j
"- ^t '*;
A,.'. PLA ;nc CUP * :
A', I- u/.FTIC CUP *> , i
At - HtAc.TK CUP ' ;
t1- "'LAST 1C CUP ."i
Af- JL'-ปi.TlC C >f ' ปi;
r, i J.MI -' PLATE '' '
01'*^ * PtATE '<-
D ;..'<*.:!ซ PLATE f 1
L'! >. ;w ntATt i )
D. !':.'< PLATE
J JN\f H Pt , , E ' .-
LMN'-E1'' PLATE "J ,
PI.AT; > LI
Pt* i " ')<-'
I-'L1'''T, 63
ii. T;. yti'ป
i L. "c Vo5
i i re *&&
'-L >Tt ซ.i6;
31 *s:. M.,,6
.ASS >-ia;
rM.V.-S K',4
C: L A b b ^' s, fj
GL^fe'i "1 '0
jLASj h7i
lit^Bf -i^B
&RCA'; f. PTR PtT i'94
I'.SF.'V i 81 H PtT ซ9S
1 "?EปC & BTR PtT >'96
UHE*u & STR PtT ซ9->
C-KEAU i BTR PtT 138
L1 '-.ซ.r' & 8TS PtT ซP9
F.s'tAl. i V(R PtT "00
I iM-.ilK Pf'TE ^Oi
J-K^,,H PLATE . VOC
0]f.M;K ci_ATfc ' "03
n !<.'(.ซ PLATt 'i'Q'1
U1NปEN PLATE ''05
D!V'ฃR PLATt '.'06
QIN^F.K PtATE 'J'07
CUP VQE
CUP yos
CUF 4lo
CUP vi i
CUP S12
CUP Si'i
CUP 'Jlป
PLATE ซป15
PLATE y\t
PLATE si?
PLATE ซis
PtATf yig
PLATE >
'0
. ^
^
s _1
1 :
.0
0
0
0
0
0
f)
0
0
0
0
"0
1 1
J
o
"0
0
0
.:"
J.')
u
"0
ซ,.!
It "".
r
a A
>v
tfu
ซ ')
I1
}
'0
'0
3H-0
100O
> 0
** 0
0
"C
>0
0
J
0
0
c -^
0
ซ[)
"L'
'0
ปฃ
t .T
0
c
"j
G
"0
c
0
.'0
0
0
c
0
c
35 -n
0
I35ซo
3Sซo
3ซ9
Q
.'.)
0
0
0
G
"0
0
.0
.0
0
'0
0
ซ0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
ซ0
0
"0
"0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
.0
0
ซn
0
ซ0
"0
ซ0
0
0
0
ซ0
0
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
0
.0
0
ซ0
ซp
.0
0
u
0
0
ซ0
0
0
0
.0
0
"0
.0
0
35ซ0
ซ0
9
35.0
0
0
0
u
0
0
u
0
0
ซu
"U
u
o
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
J
u
0
0
0
u
ซ0
0
0
"0
"0
0
u
0
"0
u
0
0
u
0
u
ซ(!
0
J
u
0
0
ซ0
0
0
0
ซu
0
>!
ป0
u
ปu
y
u
u
0
y
"0
0
"0
eo
0
111
' *J
ซu
0
35*0
0
0
35ซ0
0
-------
TABuE U-l
CITY- SYRACUSE
TtST SI
TtST TV
TE; n
pฃ ; H0yp j TAL
CEILINQS A^D EQUIPMENT VER*
SERVICE, DINING
AREAS
VERY
LnQPSj MALLS/
CLEAN, BOD
CLEAN
LATEQeRy: CUPS & PLATES
SE^V ICE
DISP"SAbLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DIbPซSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP'!?ABLE
DI=P"EABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISF-SABLE
DISP1SA8LE
DISP"SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
Rt'JSApLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSAPLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
JTE"
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
CHLD CUP
C'tLn CUP
C"LD CUP
COLD CUP
COLO LUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC cup
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC cup
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
GLASS
C3LASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
3LASS
GLASS
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC cup
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
OISPBSABUE
DISP8SABUE
OISPBSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
SEW NB
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
100*
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
lolo
loll
1012
1013
lol*
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
103*
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
10*0
10*1
10*2
10*3
10**
10*5
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
1051
1052
1053
105*
1055
'1056
1057
1058
U'59
1060
J061
1062
1063
106*
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
SUM
NUMBER
AVERAGE
SUM
NUMBER
AVERAGE
TPC STAPH
*oซc
10ซ0
ซe
0
10ซ0
0
*0ซ0
2*5oซ9
0
ซ0
0
0
0
"0
160ซ 0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
ซ0
0
0
.0
.0
20ซ0
10*0
*oปb
0
0
20ซ0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
ซ0
.0
0
0
5ซ0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
2780ซ0
33.Q
8*. 2
55.0
28. 0
2.0
0
5.0
0
0
ซ0
. Q
10-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0
0
.0
0
ซp
0
0
0
0
ซ0
"0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5ป0
;5.o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ซ0
0
0
0
ซ0
.0
ซ0
0
0
0
"0
0
"0
ซ0
"0
0
0
0
18.0
33.0
5
20ซ0
28.0
.7
STREP
ซo
n
0
"0
0
0
0
0
>0
ซ0
0
"0
0
0
0
"0
.0
.0
0
"0
0
.0
.0
0
0
0
.0
0
.0
.0
"0
0
0
"0
0
.0
0
0
"0
"0
.0
.0
0
"0
.0
.0
0
.0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
.0
0
.0
.0
0
"0
0
.0
0
33.0
"0
* 0
28ซ0
.0
E.C9LI
0
ซ0
u
0
ซ0
"0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
"0
ซ0
0
0
ซ0
0
0
"0
0
u
o
0
u
ซ0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ซu
u
0
.0
0
ซ0
ซu
0
0
0
0
.0
"0
"0
0
.0
0
.0
0
"0
0
u
u
c>
0
33ซ0
0
0
28ซ0
0
- or
-------
LIฐLซTI^ - i-t
T (- b T
Tt SI
CATI
bEHV [C<-
UISF"iSABLr
UlbfiSABLE
UISPPSA3L1-.
UIbrซ-;A3LE
UlbP'^Ad^E
UUPH"A3LE
Ulbpi-^AaLE
U J b r"i q A d i. C
UlbP-'-ASLt
U I b~ P H S A '3 L E
UISP^JABLF
U 1 b0^' ABLE
UJbP'JSASLE
U I bPf'S ABLE
U!bP')SA6LE
UIbP"SA3i_F
UIS'J"<-'ASLE
DISPOSABLE
1>1-PM<^A8LT
UIbPซSA3LE
UISPfป?n3LE
NEUSAfctE
KEUSAtiLE
KEUSAHLE
HEUSAcLt
KLUSA*i_t'
ซt USASfl
KEUSAt-LE
NEUSABLE
HtUSAbLE
^EUSiRLE
"ELiE-APLE
KLUS*eLE
REUSABLE
*tUSปbLe
HEUSAPLE
XEUSAPLE
WEUSABLE
xtUSAbuE
KEUSARLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLt
REUSABLE
KEUbAgLE
KEUSAOLE
KEUSAbLE
wtUbAbLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
tij-j i ' y-i Ht , 'jr
'"-IT ' . rt ,r , ;,,-
S : r ,
; ,' p , ; ^ >-i '5 n _
_nnK'. ' ri;-'3 ;, >-- ATt
IT i
Ht'.'-D S ^ '? . LT
B^E'-n e. "R pLT
'-''E -[ ; -. ', '-'Lf
S;i.r 4_- % 37,, pi_T
BUE-'i \ "" "LT
r'ปt -O s :J' ซ "t. r
a^-j 's r ; n. r
ri ,.:> LU"
r M >__-, f_ ,r
C1), :: LLJt-'
r "L.) Cl'-
CKL'^ CUc-'
Ctul.1 i J"
Cf'LO i." UP
JIN>fK f._A'ft
Dr^-'E-* ^Lf.Tt
DiNf'f"' 'L'-,11^
) ! N f H a L ซ f_
' ) '^ " i *V -^L 4 '
1 ' -.",r K ; ,- ,
', Ir'
M,'
'.<. K
. ;"
^ '
J
L1 '
t jM,f K !(_ซ rt
''IN' ฃH PLATE
0[^^^fK r>i_ATfc
QI^r^K o[ ATE
0 T (\ f\ ฃ W P 1 A f r
OIN,;C_H BL/'Tt
DINNEK PLA f
PLATE
PLATc
PLATE
PLATS.
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
3^t *U 6 BTR PLT
BREAD s Biซ PLT
tnpE'-D S BTR PLT
9WI.AU S BTR PLT
3KEAD f, 3TR PLT
S9EA& i 9TR PLT
b^tAL. S BTR BLT
UISPBSApUE
UIsPeSABLE
uisPasABUE
>A IITAปV
S'JI>
U:\IJNQ AKPA
- Q'JlPMtTNT
S
blrf M,-) yr
107--
',"''3
1 i,'*.
I:)-".
i0'5
Uv-
lo> h
;o7rJ
tU'H'J
1 1(11
'Jci/'
,00 i b
ioeซ s
l')85
lu^fi
'.Of
.0 58
VJBi
iO'-'Q
itiyi
' r)"2
. 1 1C ''
10
10'.1
i '[ (,
iin* p
0
^c
.C
t ~,
. o
E
STAPH
f;
o
ป0
B V
"0
'0
0
'0
1 ,
'6
'C
0
C f !
"0
0,
'0
"0
ซ '^
"-
'0
D -
ปi>
9
5'^
,,'
, , .
' 0
, ,
"0
' C
v -
?5"j
"0
* 0
ป0
0 tj
ปG
C
0
C
?. i ซ r
0
fluso, K[
EA'-i. CUP
KEPT VEK'Y
STREP
0
P
0
n
0
0
o
ป0
0
a
0
0
0
0
'(1
U
ft 0
0
ซ o
0
ซ0
U
5,0
,Q
;)
ซo
iO
t J
vj
0
t ,~
4 -
0
oO
ซ ^
* n
0
oO
ป C
0
0
ป0
0
.0
0
,
-------
TAHLt
CITY:
SITE: 1K
TYPE: bCHS^L
CATE'>9ay: CLHS & PLATES
SANITAปY SUMM^PY, Q880.
CEILINS AN? EQUIPMENT VERY CLEAN.
DIMNQ AR^AS vrRv
"ALLS,
1CT
OJbP 'SABLE
ujsr-?Abt
KffuS'-LE
Nf-Jb ~LE
'ป LE
K-LE
'Hi E
HEUbป, Lf
KE'Jb ,-LE
KLUS--LE
TPC STAPH STREP E-C9LI
C"L? CUP
CHLf> CUP
C^L'J CUP
C^L^ CUP
CซL? CUP
C?LCi CUP
C"L'J CUP
C^LO CUP
C''0
?0ซ0
20ปC
*95.o
150ซ0
8oซ0
60-0
30ซC
25oซ0
10.0
5.r
20ซC
65.0
330ซC
95.0
?5.Q
5.0
' ซ0
B.p
0
0
10.0
0
2ป50ซ0
28.0
87.?
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
. "ป
D
T
0
0
"0
0
5
0
5-0
"0
T
0
0
. Q
0
5.0
0
5ซ0
*0'0
.0
0
0
5*0
'0
0
C
0
0
0
0
c
10ซ 0
"0
6oซ0
2Sซ0
?ซ1
O
0
"0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
ซ0
0
"0
u
0
0
u
0
0
ซu
0
0
.0
0
0
0
5.0
.0
u
0
0
0
ป'J
u
0
0
0
0
.0
]0ซ0
.0
5.0
28.0
2
0
0
0
ป0
0
u
0
0
0
0
u
ปu
"0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
"0
0
ซ0
y
u
0
J
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
u
. r
0
U
10ซ0
0
0
28ซU
ซ0
-------
TABLE i&.i
V1KTMEAST MEANS AND DEVIATIONS
CITY: SYRACUSE
C.ATEG5KY: CUH'S 6 PuATES
TOTAL NUMbE* AVERAQe STO.DEV. MIN. MAX.
. O 337.oo 17.57 138.*4 ,00
REUSABLE lcyS<(5.0U 400*00 27*.86 1454-74 ซ00
10 337.OU *47 3-16 -00 SO'OO
."J 4Q2-00 13-33 72.45 .QO 10^0*00
bTKE" DISP6SABI.E SO'OO 337.00 *24 2-66 -00 45ซ00
REUSABL^ 42ft0.00 402*00 10*6o 119-35 -00 22ป0*00
DIbPSSAbLF .00 337.00 .00 .00 .(JO *00
KEUSAHLE 3P5.QO 402*00 .81 11.?5 -00 210*00
-------
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The mean bacterial counts shown in Table 17-1 are based on the total
surface area of each item tested.
Table 17-1
Comparison of Average Bacterial Counts
of Disposable and Reusable Food Service Items
Items . Mean Bacterial Counts
Dishes
Disposable
Reusable
Total Plate3
Count
17.57
274.86
Staphylococcus3
47
13.33
Streptococcus
.24
10.60
Coliformb
0.00
.81
Significant at 1% level
Significant at 5% level
It is shown in Table 17-1 that not only were total plate counts sub-
stantially higher in reusable items, but also the numbers of Staphylococcus,
Streptococcus and coliform organisms were also higher on reusable items.
Each establishment was evaluated according to handling practices and
environmental conditions which might affect the sanitary quality of the
food service items tested. Capsule comments on each establishment are
given in Section IV and detailed evaluation information given in Appendix A.
The fifteen food service establishments were rated as poor, average
or good as these terms applied to the general sanitary conditions of the
establishment. The total number of items tested has been broken down in
-------
18-1 according to the number of items having a total bacterial count
equal to or greater than 100, less than 100 but greater than zero, and zero.
The standard of less than 100 microorganisms per utensil surface is r.ikcn
from "Minimum Requirements for Effective Machine Dishwashing," developed
and published by the Committee on Sanitary Engineering & Environment,
Division of Medical Sciences, National Research Council (Journal Amen >,,
Dietitian Association, 1950) as reported in Hospitals, 24_:92, January, LJ'
/Of -
-------
Table 18-1
Data Breakdown According to
Sanitary Quality of the Establishment
Disposables
Reusables
No. of items having No. of items having
Est.
No.
1
3
6
7
4
8
10
11
2
5
9
12
13
14
15
Rating1
P
P
P
P
% Total
A
A
A
A
% Total
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
% Total
bacterial counts of
>100 <100 0
1
2
0
1
4.8
1
1
1
0
3.1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
2.4
4
5
7
4
24.1
7
4
10
6
28.1
7
9
6
7
7
5
0
24.7
16
13
14
6
71.1
6
23
6
31
68.8
11
5
25
7
24
19
10
72.9
bacterial counts of
>100 <100 0
10
8
19
9
36.8
5
7
1
-
14.8
7
10
-
3
0
1
6
14.6
12
13
12
19 _
44.8
20
19
7
-
52.3
18
14
-
9
6
11
18
41.1
6
7
3
7
18.
17
6
6
-
22.
7
11
-
23
22
16
3
44.
4
9
3
P - Poor, A - Average, G - Good.
All establishments were surveyed by SRC on the test date in order to
determine their general sanitary condition. Based upon the survey
results, establishments were rated poor, average, or good, with
respect to their general cleanliness.
s/O -J
-------
The percentages developed in Table 18-1 can be examined for trends as
is done in Table 19-1. Table 19-1 shows that in a comparison of good to
poor rated restaurants, disposable items had an increase of 2.4% in items
having over 100 bacteria, wl ile reusable items showed a 22.2% increase.
Table 19-1
Comparison of General Sanitary Conditions
with Levels of Bacterial Counts
General Sanitary Conditions:
Poor
Average
Good
% Greater than 100 counts
Disposabli'- Reusable s
4.8
3.1
2.4
36.8
14.8
14.6
Observations
The higher counts on reusable items probably result from the fact tliat
they are handled much more than disposable items and are affected by dish-
washing practices.
The potential for bacterial contamination at the point of use i . oise,
of course, for both reusable and single service 1 teir.j, ^.'>u abies -Y~<.-. :'si\,
to contamination resulting from excessive handling and improper washing.
Single service items are packed and stored in protective wrappers and
generally handled directly only at the point of use.
What is perhaps most important is that single service items arc i_set
once and discarded. In SRC's opinion, the chance for contamination r.: ! it?
food serving establishment is less than that presented by reusables.
-------
APPENDIX A
Sanitary Surveys
//*. -CT
-------
LOCAT I ON . NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: //I (Cafeteria)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 5/26/76
r OCR - old, dirty
WA __ S ~ paint chipping
FILINGS ~ soiled
EQUIPMENT -grease coated
WINDOW (SCREENS) - no windows
LIGHTING - adequate in kitchen, inadequate in dining & serving area
HANDWASHING FACILITIES Rest room dirty
$1 REST ROOM - handwashing sink in kitchen coated with grease and dirt
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - street clothes, no hair restraints, hippie type
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP ~ wet rag, "cleaned" tables were sticky
WASTE DISPOSAL ~ lined, uncovered trash can
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE - stored in boxes on floor & racks in a small room. Room
dry, clean, but not immaculate.
REUSABLE ~ exposed behind service counter
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE
PRE-WASH PREP.- dishes sprayed
WASH SOLN, - Score
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - 60 sec. 140ฐF
RINSE TIME (TEMP.) - 10 sec. 1800F
DRY TIME (TEMP.) - air dry
COND. OF EQU ~. - old
MANUAL
WATER TEMP.
WASH -
RINSE -
SOAK TIME -
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
Kitchen area in need of painting.
No table cloths or place mats.
Generally in need of a good cleaning.
Overall appearance was dingy, and dirty.
Many coffee cups were heavily stained with residue which rubbed off.
Indicates inadequate dishwashing.
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE1. #2 (Family Style)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: s/is/76
fiEMERAL:
FLOOR ~ dirty in corners
WALLS - clean
CEILINGS - clean
EQUIDMENT ~ dean except for grease and meat particles around broiler
WINDOW (SCREENS) - ves
LIGHTING - good
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
S REST ROOM - clean
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - good
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - wet cloth
WASTE DISPOSAL ~ open, lined trash containers
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE - stored in basement on racks off floor. An opened poly bag
of dinner plates was stored next to the broiler.
REUSABLE ~ exposed on shelves
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE
PRE-WASH PREP.~ plates pre-washed by hand
WASH SOLN. - Impact
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - 195ฐF
RINSE TIME (TEMP.) - 150ฐF
DRY TIME (TEMP.) ~ air, silver dried by hand
COND. OF EQUIP. - good (new)
MANUAL
WATER TEMP.
WASH -
RINSE -
SOAK TIME -
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
Restaurant was recently remodeled. Most 'equipment was new stainless steel.
Generally clean and well kept.
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #3 (Family Style)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 6/8/76
GJEJiEBAL:
FLOOR - dirty
WALLS - dirty
CEILINGS - high drop ceilings, well lighted
EQUIPMENT -grease & old food buildup on kitchen equipment
WINDOW (SCREENS) - no screen on opened kitchen door, no screen on fan window
LIGHTING - good
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM - good
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - 8ฐฐd
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - wet rag
WASTE DISPOSAL ฐPen trash can, uhlined
STORAGE & HANDLING.
DISPOSABLE " stored in sleeves under counter
REUSABLE ~ on wire racks in kitchen
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE
PRE-WASH PREP,- sprayed
WASH SOLN, " Impact
WASH TIME (TEMP,) -3min., 180ฐF
RINSE TIME (TEMP.) - 2min., 22oฐF
DRY TIME (TEMP,) - air, silver hand dried
COND. OF EQUIp - stainless, clean
MANUAL
WATER TEMP.
WASH -
RINSE -
SOAK TIME -
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDU-F -
GENERAL COMMENTS
Kitchen area generally dirty with greasy dust and food particles.
Dishwashing and dish storage are generally clean.
- T~
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #4 (Family Style)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 6/16/76
GENERAL:
FLOOR - clean (tile)
WALLS - formica, clean
CEILINGS ~ clean
EQUIPMENT - stainless, clean
WINDOW (SCREENS) - no windows
LIGHTING ~ no light over sink, good in other areas
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM - good
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - very 8ฐod
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - wet rag
WASTE DISPOSAL - plastic lined garbage pails, uncovered
STORAGE& HANDLING
DISPOSABLE - in wrappers on shelves in kitchen
REUSABLE ~ on shelves in kitchen
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE
DRฃ-WASH PREP!- scrape and pre-rinse
WASH SOLN, - Val-Chem
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - Smin., 150ฐF
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) -Imln., 180-195'F
DRY TIME (TEMP,) - air
COND, OF EQUIP, - good
MANUAL
WATER TEMP.
WASH -
RINSE -
SOAK TIME -
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
Strong foul odor coming from dishwasher drain.
Generally clean and neat.
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #5 (Family Style)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 6/1/76
GENERAL:
FLOOR - clean
WALLS - clean
CEILINGS -clean
EQUIPMENT - clean
WINDOW (SCREENS)- windows did not open
LIGHTING - nฐ light over sink, good in other areas
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM - good
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - good
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - wet rag stored under tray stand
WASTE DISPOSAL ~ lined, opened trash container
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE - stored in boxes and sleeves on shelves in separate room
off kitchen
REUSABLE ~ dishes stored on shelves around steam table. Glasses, cups
and silver stored in dining area,
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE
PRE-WASH PREP,- scraped & sprayed
WASH SOLN, - Score
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - 160ฐF
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) - 1SOฐF
DRY TIME (TEMP,) - air
COND. OF EQUIP. - good
MANUAL
WATER TEMP,
WASH -
RINSE -
SOAK TIME -
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
Restaurant - good overall cleanliness
- -J"
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #6 (Family Style)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: e/is/76
SEVERAL:
FLOOR ~ kitchen - dirt, grease and food particles in corners
eating area - napkins, papers, dirt & cigarette butts on floor
WALLS ~ painted block, dirty, greasy in need of washing
CEILINGS " drop ceiling, grease & dirt coated
EQUIPMENT ~ kitchen stove thick with grease, grill, grease buildup
WINDOW (SCREENS)" back door in kitchen open with a fan pulling in outside
LIGHTING -good air. Small screened window open.
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM ~ dirty
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS ~ waitresses-good, dishwasher unkempt street clothes
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - paper towels
WASTE DISPOSAL ~ covered, lined container
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE ~ stacked uncovered behind serving counter
REUSABLE ~ stacked on top of or under counter on shelves
ULSHWASHING:
MACHINE
PRE-WASH PREP,- wash/rinse
WASH SOLN, ~ Klean-All DeLux dishwashing compound
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - "10-12 min."
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) - 3 min
-------
LOCATI UN .' NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #7 (Cafeteria)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 6/28/76
GENERAL;
FLOOR ~ old broken-surfaced concrete - filthy
WALLS ~ painted raasonite - old, dirty, pealing paint
CEILINGS - old and dirty
EQUIPMENT -old and dirty
WINDOW (SCREENS)- no opening windows
LIGHTING - very dim
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM - generally dirty
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - good
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - wet cloth
WASTE DISPOSAL - lined trash containers, uncovered
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE ~ stored in boxes in separate cover on floor. In use
items stored in sleeves under service counter.
REUSABLE ~ stored on counters in service area.
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE
PRE-WASH PREP,- spray
WASH SOLN, - Impact, Lime-a-way rinse
R?NSETT?ME (TEMP,)"-)UnknOWn by emPloyees< No gau8es or controls.
DRY TIME (TEMP,)'- air
COND, OF EQUIP, - very old
MANUAL
WATER TEMP,
WASH -
RINSE -
SOAK TIME '
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
Kitchen area similar to cellar, Unsealed cement floors, badly broken up.
Serving area dirty. Eating area fairly clean.
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #8 (Family Style)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: >nm
GENERAL:
FLOOR ~ tile (in need of washing)
WALLS - metal sheets in dishwashing room
CEILINGS ~ drop ceilings (clean)
EQUIPMENT ~ old, greasy gas range and grill
WINDOW (SCREENS) - no opening windows
LIGHTING - good
HANDWASHING FACILITIES - two handwashing sinks in working area - clean
& REST ROOM - clean
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - good
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - wet cloth
WASTE DISPOSAL - plastic lined covered can
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE ~ stored in boxes and sleeves on metal rack in kitchen area
REUSABLE ~ stored exposed on counter top
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE - No
PRE-WASH PREP,-
WASH SOLN, -
WASH TIME (TEMP,) -
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) -
DRY TIME (TEMP,) -
COND, OF EQUIP. -
MANUAL
WATER TEMP , ~ not available - 150ฐF approximately
WASH ' 1 wash
RINSE ~ 1 rinse and 1 sanitize rinse (1 tsp. Clorox to 1 gal. water)
SOAK TIME - No, only if there is time - no set time limit
SOAP - Amway Dish Drops
DRYING PROCEDURE - Air
GENERAL COMMENTS
Very small, very few dishes, working dirt present in kitchen area.
Floors dirty, but no excessive dirt.
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TE5 . SITE: #9 (Fast Food)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: e/io/76
GENERAL:
FLOOR ~ in need of cleaning, some dirt & dust buildup in corners & along
the bottom of appliances
WALLS - clean but paint chipping in store room
CEILINGS ~ drop ceilings, stained
EQUIPMENT ~ stainless steel, all well cleaned
WINDOW (SCREENS) - no opening windows
LIGHTING - Pฐor in washing area
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM ~ stainless steel double sink in kitchen
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - gฐod
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - wet cloths (left to soak overnight in greasy water)
WASTE DISPOSAL ~ plastic wastecan, no liner
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE - stored in boxes in back room, clean & dry
REUSABLE - none
DISHWASHING!
MACHINE NO
PRE-WASH PREP.-
WASH SOLN, -
WASH TIME (TEMP,) -
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) -
DRY TIME (TEMP,) -
COND, OF EQUIP, -
MANUAL
WATER TEMP.
WASH - utensils, pots and pans in Tide, washed off and rinsed
RINSE -
SOAK TIME -
SOAP - Tide
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
The eating area and work area of this establishment were kept very clean -
floors, walls, countertops & equipment. The backroom storage area was in
need of cleaning.
/*/ -
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #10 (Family Style)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: V9/76
GENERAL:
FLOOR ~ kitchen floor old cracked tile
WALLS ~ old, not well cleaned
CEILINGS ~ painted, clean
EQUIPMENT - stainless steel kept clean, wood surfaces & cast iron areas
in need of cleaning.
WINDOW (SCREENS)- nฐ opening windows, screened front door
LIGHTING ~ poor in kitchen,good in eating/serving area and around counter
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM - good
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - t, 'ฐd
RODENTS AND INSECTS - ป'- evidence
AREA CLEANUP - sponge am' wet rag
WASTE DISPOSAL - covered, lined trash can
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE - stored in basement on shelves and under counter in sleeves.
plastic knives, forks & spoons reused
REUSABLE ~ stored under counter, stacked
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE
PRE-WASH PREP.- no pre-wash prep.
WASH SOLN. - Impact
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - 3 min
-------
LOCA'lION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #11 (Fast Food)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: e/is/76
FLOOR - dirty
WALLS - dirty
CEILINGS - dirty
EQUIPMENT ~ ovens clean, work area clean
WINDOW (SCREENS) ~ no opening windows, front door open, no screen
LIGHTING - Poor
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM - dirty floors
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - aprons of cooks dirty
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - damp cloth
WASTE DISPOSAL - covered, lined containers
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE ~ stored in cases in back room on floor and on shelves, some
items removed from cases and stored exposed on shelves &
REUSABLE ~ None counter tops
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE - No
PRE-WASH PREP,-
WASH SOLN, -
WASH TIME (TEMP,) -
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) -
DRY TIME (TEMP,) -
COND, OF EQUIP, -
MANUAL - No
WATER TEMP,
WASH -
RINSE -
SOAK TIME -
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
Two floor fans were in operation in the eating area. The kitchen
working area was kept well cleaned.
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #13 (Hospital)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 6/21/76
GENERAL:
FLOOR - clean
WALLS - clean
CEILINGS - clean
EQUIPMENT - stainless steel, clean
WINDOW (SCREENS) - no windows
LIGHTING - good
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM ~ clean & readily available
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - good
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - wet rag
WASTE DISPOSAL ~ covered, lined containers
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE ~ stored in boxes and sleeves off the floor, in special room
off kitchen
REUSABLE ~ no storage - used immediately after washing
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE
PRE-WASH PREP,- scraped
WASH SOLN, - Soil-A-Way
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - 5 min. 160ฐF
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) - 180ฐF
DRY TIME (TEMP.) - air
COND. OF EQUIP, - very good
MANUAL
WATER TEMP.
WASH -
RINSE -
SOAK TIME -
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
Flatware was washed twice. Both the hospital kitchen and
cafeteria were very clean.
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #u (school)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 6/11/76
GENERAL:
FLOOR - Painted and clean
WALLS ~ Painted and clean
CEILINGS - Painted and clean
EQUIPMENT - Stainless steel - very clean
WINDOW (SCREENS) - in place
LIGHTING ~ good
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM ~ clean, neat, well stocked
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - excellent
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - wet cloth (tables)
WASTE DISPOSAL ~ covered lined cans
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE ~ Not used often except for non-student functions. A few left-
overs were in a kitchen drawer and storage closet.
REUSABLE ~ Plastic utensils were reused. Other reusables stored under
service counter or on a cart covered with a cloth.
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE
PRE-WASH PREPi- pre-rinsed and scraped
WASH SOLN, - "Salute"
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - 170ฐ?
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) - 180ฐF
DRY TIME (TEMP,) - air
COND. OF EQUIP, - very clean
MANUAL
WATER TEMP.
WASH -
RINSE -
SOAK TIME -
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
The kitchen area and cafeteria were kept exceptionally clean
although the lunch tables had not been cleaned from a social
function the night before.
-------
LOCAiiON: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #15 (School)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 6/14/76
GENERAL:
FLOOR - clean
WALLS - clean
CEILINGS - clean
EQUIPMENT ~ stainless, clean
. WINDOW (SCREENS) - no windows
LIGHTING - good
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM - clean
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - very 8ood
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - wet cloth, very thorough
WASTE DISPOSAL - lined, covered containers
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE - not used except for emergency. A few sleeves of cups
for juice were stored under the counter.
REUSABLE ~ stored in portable stainless steel cabinet
D-iaHWASHING:
MACHINE
PRE~WASH PREP.- presoak and double rinse
WASH SOLN, - "Salute"
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - i6oฐF
RINSE TIME (TEMP.) - 170ฐF (susally 180ฐ but not working properly)
DRY TIME (TEMP.) - air
COND. OF EQUIP. - very good
MANUAL
WATER TEMP.
WASH -
RINSE -
SOAK TIME -
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
No glasses used, milk from cartons with straws. Overall - very clean.
-------
APPENDIX K
The Society of the
Plastics Industry, Inc.
sFi
355 Lexington Avenue
New York'New York 10017
(212)5739400
June 27, 1977
Mr. Charles Peterson, Project Officer
Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste Management Projects
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Subject: Draft Report, Contracts No. AW-463,
Midwest Research Institute Project 4010-D,
Study of Environmental Impact of Disposables
versus Reusables
Referring to your interest in receiving comments on the subject Draft Report, we wish
to submit comments on behalf of the SPI's Foam Cup and Container Division, representing
essentially all of U.S. producers of one of the products evaluated in your Report, as
well as the suppliers of the resin material used to manufacture foam cups.
We have thoroughly reviewed the draft report and find that there are a number of areas
where the lack of appropriate research data, or the use of inconsistent or illogical
approaches to evaluating the data, have led to misleading or inaccurate conclusions
that could do unnecessary damage to the public's true perception of the benefits of foam
cups and other disposable products.
We are aware of the comments of the Single Service Institute to you on the subject Draft
Report, and have reviewed the analysis and suggestions prepared for SSI by Arthur D.
Little, Inc., and the SSI Public Health Advisory Council. We find that we agree fully
with the determinations of SSI as to the contents of the Draft Report, and with their
suggestions on necessary changes in order to obtain a complete and factual document.
We also urge that the suggested additional work and modifications be completed, rather
than release, publish or file the report in its present form. We feel this may lead to
public knowledge of Draft Report material that is an inaccurate portrayal of the com-
parative benefits of foam cups and other disposable products.
We appreciate your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Ralpfi L. Harding, Jr. ' ;
President
RLH:alc
U01642
SW-152c
-------