STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF SELECTED DISPOSABLE VERSUS REUSABLE PRODUCTS
WITH HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS
This report (SW~lS2c) describes work performed
for the Federal sol-id waste program
under contract no. 4010-D
and is reproduced as received in draft form
from the contractor along with comments
received from the reviewers
Copies will be available from the
National Technical Information Service
- U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22161
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
This report has not been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for technical accuracy. However, a-review
by industry and other experts resulted in divergent views
on the technical accuracy of the report. Therefore, the report
should be viewed as technically incomplete and inappropriate
for the development of policy.
The mention of commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-152c) in the
solid waste management series.
-------
Foreword
Section 205(2) of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970
charged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with the
responsibility to study "changes in current product
characteristics and production ... which would reduce the
amount of solid waste." This Act was amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, which
continues the Agency's responsiblity in the area of resource
conservation.
This study on disposable versus reusable products is
one of a series of studies that were undertaken as a result
of the directive given the Environmental Protection Agency
by the Resource Recovery Act. The other studies in the
series examined beverage containers and milk containers.
This study was an attempt to compare the resource and
environmental impacts of reusable products with their
disposable counterparts.
The resource and environmental impacts analyzed in
this study are: raw material use, energy use, water use,
industrial solid waste, post-consumer solid waste, air
pollution emissions, and water effluents. These impacts
are assessed at each step in the life cycle of a product.
The cycle begins with raw materials extraction and continues
through disposal.
A draft of the report was carefully reviewed by
industrial and technical experts. These experts provided
divergent views as to the accuracy of the report. In an
attempt to provide as complete and descriptive a study as
possible, the comments of these experts have been footnoted
in the appropriate places in the study.
The study is being printed as received from the
contractor, rather than attempt to rewrite the entire study.
Therefore, you should refer to the footnotes when reading
this study.
The primary cause of the divergent opinions of the
experts lies in the assumptions upon which the resource
and environmental, impact data is developed. For example,
a question was raised concerning the average number of
pounds of laundry in a washing machine. This is a
significant factor for the cloth products. It is in the
cleaning step that the largest percentage of impacts occur.
Therefore, a higher or lower average wash load will have a
definite affect on how the cloth products compare vis-a-vis
the disposable1 products.
111
-------
In conclusion, those reading this study should pay
particular attention to the comments made by the experts.
Furthermore, the data presented in the study should be
examined in light of conflicting evidence and viewpoints.
Therefore, it would be inappropriate for an organization
to develop a policy position on this subject based on this
study.
W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste (WH-562)
IV
-------
PREFACE
The objective of this research study is to describe the resource
and environmental, health, and economic aspects for selected disposable
and reusable products in the following product categories: (1) Towels; (2)
Napkins; (3) Diapers; (4) Bedding; (5) Containers (cups and tumblers); and
(6) Plates. Volume I contains the resource and environmental impact report,
while Volume II describes selected health and economic considerations.
The research effort was conducted for the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency (Resource Recovery Division - Office of Solid
Waste Management). The study was conducted under the general direction of
Mr. Robert Levesque, Manager of Techn©economics Programs at Midwest Research
Institute. The project leader for the study and a principal investigator
for the resource and environmental aspects was Mr. Richard 0. Welch, Senior
Industrial Research Analyst. The principal researcher for the health aspects
was Mr. Ron Fellman, aided by Ms. Mary Simister. Mr. Chuck Romine was the
principal investigator for the economic analysis. Mr. Dan Keyes assisted
in the preparation of the resource and environmental report.
The co-principal investigator responsible for the paper products
considered in the study was Mr. Robert G. Hunt, Franklin Associates, Ltd.,
a subcontractor to MRI. Mr. William E. Franklin provided managerial review
functions for the subcontractor.
The research team is greatly indebted to many companies and organi-
zations for the active support they provided for the study. Contributors
to the study are identified in the Bibliography section.
This document is a draft report being circulated for comment on
technical accuracy and policy implications. The findings and conclusions
are tentative and subject to change in the final report.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
Page
Chapter 1 - Introduction 1
Chapter 2 - Summary of Study Results - Resource and Environmental
Profile Analysis (REPA) 5
A. Resource and Environmental Data Summaries 5
1. Towels 5
2. Napkins « 7
a. Home Use 7
b. Commercial Use. . . . . . 9
3. Diapers 9
4. Bedding 12
5. Containers 14
a. Cold Drink (9 Fluid Ounce) 14
b. Hot Drink (7 Fluid Ounce) 14
Chapter 3 - Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis 19
A. Description of REPA Technique. ....... 19
1. Basic Approach 20
2. Organic Raw MaterialsUnique Considerations .... 23
3. Methodology. 24
4. Assumptions and Limitations. 26
Chapter 4 - Analysis of the Resource and Environmental Summary Data . . 28
A. Analysis of Resource Inputs .......... 28
1* Raw Materials 23
2. Wastewater Volume 30
3. Energy Breakdown Analysis. 30
a. Energy Type and Source. ....... 30
b. Energy as a Function of Use Factors and Usage
Patterns* 41
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 4 - Concluded
B. Analysis of Environmental Outputs 43
1. Atmospheric Emissions ..... 43
2. Waterborne Waste 52
3. Industrial Solid Waste 52
4. Post Consumer Solid Waste 74
Chapter 5 - REPA Profile Analysis for Each Product Category 77
A. Interpretation of REPA Computer Tables 77
Appendix AA- Introduction A-l
Appendix BF- Basic Fuel Factors. ....... ... B-l
I. Mobile and Stationary Sources £-1
II. Electric Energy .............. B-6
III. Transportation. B-6
Appendix CC- Disposables ..... . C-l
I. Paper Towels. C-l
II. Paper Napkins C-20
III. Diapers C-24
IV. Non-woven Bedding C-57
V. Containers. C-57
VI. Plates C-73
Appendix DD- Reusables D-l
I. Towels D-l
II. Napkins D-15
III. Diaper D-15
IV. Bedding D-17
V. Containers. ...... D-17
VI. Plates D-42
Appendix EE- Dishwashing and Cloth Laundering Processes E-l
Appendix FF- Detailed Computer Tables for Process and Product
Systems ..... ...... F-l
References R-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS
Page
I. Introduction and Methodology. ..... S-l
II. General Sanitation Concerns Related to Cloth Products S-2
A. Contamination of Cloth by Microorganisms S>-2
B. Sanitation Mechanisms in the Laundering Process ..... S-8
C. Effectiveness of Commercial Laundering. .. S-16
D. Effectiveness of Home Laundering. S-20
III. Towels and Napkins S-34
IV. Diapers S-38
V. Sheets S-59
VI. Disposable and Reusable Foodservice Ware S-67
A. Introduction S-67
B. Standards ' S-69
C. Compliance of Reusable Foodservice Ware (Permanent Ware). S-75
D. Compliance of Disposable Foodservice Ware (Single
Service) 3-95
Appendix A - Additional Testing Data S-l08
Appendix B - Bibliography and Contact List S-117
REVIEW COMMENTS
C:
Review Comments
Final Comments - Midwest Research Institute T-t
American Paper Institute - Bleached Paperboar.d Division .... i-A
American Paper Institute - Tissue Division i-B
American Restaurant China Council i-C
Diaper Service Accreditation Council i-D
Environmental Action Foundation i-E
Ethyl Corporation i-F
International Nonwoven Disposables Association i-G
National Wildlife Federation i-H
Permanent Ware Institute i-I
Single Service Institute i-J
Society of the Plastics Industry i-K
-------
INTRODUCTION
This research study concerning six disposable and reusable product
categories is divided into three phases: Resource and Environmental Profile
Analysis, Health Aspects, and Economic Aspects (which was not completed
due to lack of data)
1,2,3
1. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis; The purpose of
this phase is to provide a comparison of the resource inputs (raw materials,
energy, and water) and environmental outputs (air emission, waterbome
wastes, process solid wastes, and postconsumer solid wastes) associated
with the products within each product category. The analysis includes the
impacts from raw material extraction through product disposal, including
the steps of materials processing, product manufacture and use*
3,4,5,6
2. Health Aspects; This phase reports on the health concerns which
have been identified concerning the use and disposal of the disposable and
reusable products. The research involved literature searches and documenta-
tion of public health and sanitation laws, ordinances, etc; interviews with
companies, organizations, public officials, and knowledgable professionals;
and site visits to laundries, hospitals, etc. The comments presented by
the Single Service Institute, February 1975, and the Tissue Division of
the American Paper Institute, March 1975, to the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency were reviewed during this task.
Summary - Public Health and Sanitation Concerns; The products
included in this studytowels, napkins, sheets, diapers and foodservice
ware--are vital components In the American way of life. The average individ-
ual 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 selected state and local sanitation ordinances. A total of 85 ref-
erences were reviewed for this task. Additionally, MRI contacted 32 public
health associations and industrial associations, &0 product manufacturers,
national and regional FDA officials, and 5 state health agencies. The re-
search effort resulted in the following general conclusions:
I/ See comment No. 1 Appendix B, page 3.
2/ See comment Appendix E, pages 1-2.
3/ See comments Appendix J.
4/ See comments Appendix B, pages 11-16.
5/ See comments Appendix C, pages 1-2.
6/ See comments Appendix D.
-------
Sanitation concerns related to the cloth products studied involve
a wide range of variables, and no definitive conclusions can be reached re-
garding 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);
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 can-
not be definitively determined, since variables such as degree of contamina-
tion and susceptibility of the exposed populace significantly affect the.re-
lationship between contaminated fabrics and the development of disease.
Additionally, no definitive conclusions could be drawn relative
to the comparable disposable products studied (paper towels and napkins,
disposable diapers and sheets); however, issues such as the effect of land-
fill disposal of contaminated diapers are addressed in the body of the re-
port .
Regarding the use of foodservice ware in commercial and institu-
tional settings, it is extremely difficult to make direct comparisons be-
tween reusables and disposables. 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 In-
stitute, "the only precise way to assess the health values of disposables
versus reusables would be to survey the bacteriological quality of one ver-
sus the other by testing the utensils in food-serving establishments just
prior to their use." 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 transmission.
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: "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."
-------
1,2,3,4.
3. Economic Aspects; The objective of the economic analysis was
to describe markets served, annual quantities shipped, fixed capital assets,
annual capital investment rates; and employment rates for the industries
which manufacture the disposable and reusable products included in the study.
This was to be used to permit assessment of the impacts which would occur
in the national economy should any of the products be replaced or deleted
from the market place.
However, the research team was unable to complete the objectives
of the economics analysis due to lack of detailed information available
from the industries representing the products. Several organizations did
submit summary data for the study, but the overall response was not ade-
quate to permit a fair comparison of the economic parameters. Therefore,
an economic analysis will not be a part of this report.
Should policymakers want to pass legislation which could result
in deletions and additions of products in the market place, a research study
which is sufficiently funded to evaluate the affects on the following should
be considered: employment, raw materials availability and demand shifts, new
capital investments required, cost to redirect existing capital equipment,
labor productivity, the gross national product, regional economic and social
effects, cost to the consumer, losses and gains in federal revenue, etc.
4. General Comments; The six products studied along with a brief
description of their physical characteristics are presented in Table 1.
One or two disposable and reusable products were selected'for each category,
making a total of 23 products researched. The towel category includes cloth
and paper towels and'also sponges. Sponges were included in the towel cate-
gory due to similarity in use basis.
The descriptions and weights of the products were chosen to repre-
sent the most prevalent sizes in the market place. The disposable paper and
plastic products were recommended by the American Paper Institute and the
Single Service Institute. The china products were selected by the American
Restaurant China Council. The remaining products were selected by MRI, with
assistance from EPA.
The results of the study are presented in three separate volumes.
Volume I-A contains the results of the REPA study. Volume I-B contains the
appendix material for the information presented in Volume I-A. Volume II
is concerned with selected health considerations.
Most of the detail data leading to the information presented in
Volume I-A is contained in Volume I-B. Also many scenarios of use factors
(times used before discarding) are presented through Volume I-A. The sce-
narios are used so that information will be available for a range of use
factors, since the factors can change from year to year.6
I/ See comments Appendix B, pages 18-19.
2/ See comments Appendix C, page 5.
3/ See comments Appendix H.
4/ See comments Appendix J, cover letter.
_5/ See comments Appendix J, pages 2 and 12-13.
6/ See comments Appendix E, pages 2-3.
-------
TABLE 1
DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS
"N v-
Product Weight
Category
1. Towels
Classification
R
D
R
Product
Cloth
Paper
Sponge
Product Description
16 x 27 inches, 100% cotton
11 x 11 Inches, two-ply
6-3/16 x 3-11/16 x 1-1/8 inches,
Grams
60.0
3.4
26.8
Pounds
0.132
0.0075
0.059
Comparison Basis
1,000 Spills
2. Napkins
Cloth-Home
Paper-Home
Cloth-Commercial
Paper-Commercial
Cloth
Disposable
Cloth
Disposable
Paper Cup
Plastic Cup
Glass Tumbler
Plastic Tumbler
Paper Cup
Plastic Cup
China
Melamlne Cup
Paper
Plastic
China
Melamine
R = Reusable, D = Disposable.
I/ See comments Appendix J, pages 3, 19 and 21.
3.
4.
5.
Diapers
Bedding
Containers
(cups and
D
R
D
R
D
R
D
D
tumblers)
(cold drink, 9 fl
6.
oz)
(hot drink
7 fl oz)
Plates
(9 inch)
D
R
R
1
D
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
cellulose
17 x 17 Inches, SOX rayon, 50%
polyester
12-1/2 x 13 Inches, one-ply
18 x 18 Inches, 100% cotton
16 x 16 Inches, two-ply
21 x 40 inches, 100% cotton
Industry composite paper/plastic
66 x 108 inches, 50% cotton,
50% polyester
60 x 96 paper/plastic
Wax coated
Thermo formed polystyrene
Glass
Polypropylene
Low density polystyrene lined
Foam polystyrene
China
Melamine plastic
White, uncoated, pressed
Foam polystyrene
China
Melamlne plastic
44.2 0.097
1,000 Meals
2.4
45.4
9.5
62.0
47.6
510.0
108.0
6.62
6.33
132.0
40.0
6.64
2.00
290.3
120.5
10.60
11.84.
684.9
205.5
0.0053
0.100
0.021
0.137
0.105
1.124
0.238
0.01460
0.01396
0.291
0.088
0.01465
0.00440
0.64
0.266
0.02336
0.02610
1.51
0.453
100 Changes
1,000 Changes
1 Million
Servings
1 Million
Servings
-------
CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY OF STUDY RESULTS - RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROFILE ANALYSIS (REPA)
This chapter contains a summary of comparative REPA analyses for
the disposable and reusable products within the six product categories iden-
tified and described in Chapter 1. The summary data for each product repre-
sents the resource inputs and environmental outputs for the entire system
profile. Each system profile is composed of all the processes involved from
raw materials extraction to disposal of the final product. The summary data
for the profile consists of impacts for the seven resource and environmental
impact categories (raw materials, energy, water, process solid wastes, atmos-
pheric emissions, waterborne wastes, and postconsumer solid wastes).
A. Resource and Environmental Data Summaries1>2>3
This section will present the summary tables which compare the
values of the seven impact categories for each disposable and reusable pro-
duct comparison. The values will be discussed to assist the reader in achiev-
ing an understanding of the analysis technique. The summary will begin with
the towel category and proceed through the other five product categories.
The summary tables should be used with tables 39 through 62 when studying
the impact data.
1. Towels'; The comparison of the resource and environmental sum-
maries for products in the towel category is presented in Table 2. The
data represent the impacts associated with using each product to clean up
1,000 spills in the home kitchen area.
Table 2 contains data for eight product scenarios; five for the
cloth towel, two for the sponge and one for the paper towel. In the sce-
narios, the cloth towel data are presented for a useful life (number of uses
before discarding the product to the postconsumer solid waste stream) of
32 (U32) and 100 (UlOO) uses. These use values are MRI estimates based on
industry averages for commercial kitchen towels. The information is also
divided into data for one laundering after each use (LI) and one laundering
after the towel has been used to clean up five spills (L5). Therefore, the
column identified by cloth towel, U32, LI refers to a towel used 32 times
before discarding and the towel is laundered after each spill cleanup. Data
for the cellulose sponge are presented in the same manner. With respect to
paper towels, each towel is used one time and discarded. Data submitted
by the American Paper Institute state that on the average, 1.83 paper towels
are used for cleaning up one spill.
I/ See comment No. 1 Appendix B, page 3.
2/ See comments Appendix J, pages 1-2 and 11-12.
V See comments Appendix B, pages 20-21.
4/ See comment No. 2 Appendix B, page 3.
5/ See comments Appendix B, page 17.
6/ See comments Appendix B, page 21.
-------
Impact Category
Baw Materials
Energy
Water
Industrial Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Waterborne Waste
Postconsumer Solid Waste
TABLE 2
SUMMARY IMPACT DATA FDR 1.000 USES OF EACH TOWEL CATEGORY PRODUCT ^' 2'-*
Towel Category Systems
"nits
Ib
106 Btu
103 Cal .
cu ft
Ib
Ib
cu f e
Cloth
Towel
1132 LI
10.31
1.19
0.64
0.21
4.89
1.30
0.08
Cloth
Towel
1132 1.5
7.69
0.44
0.20
0.10
2.00
0.62
0.08
Cloth
Towel
111 00 LI
5.53
1.02
0.58
0.16
4.03
1.00
0.03
Cloth
Towel
U100 1.5
2.91
0.27
0.14
0.05
1.13
0.31
0.03
Cloth Towel
Cold Wash
II 100 I.I
5.53
0.54
0.57
0.13
2.47
0.89
0.03
Cellulose
Sponge
111 00 LI
2.48
0.48
0.33
0.07
1.96
0.48
0.01
Cellulose
Sponge
U100 1.1
1.31
0.14
0.13
0.02
0.66
0.17
0.01
Paper Towel
Two-Ply
1,830 Towels
14.22
o.soi'
0.28
0.05
1.79
0.48
0.27
Sources Midwest Research Institute.
Hotel Refer to Volume IB, pages E-16 and E-17, for suumary impacts based on 8 and 12
pound home laundry loads.
a_l Includes energy derived from wood wastes. Total without including wood wastes energy
la 0.37 million Dtu.
I/ See comments No. 3-5 Appendix B, pages 5-6.
2/ See comments No. 8-14 Appendix B, pages 7-9.
3/ See comment No. 1 Appendix B, pages 9-10.
-------
The impact data in Table 2 show, with the exception of raw mate-
rials and postconsumer solid waste, that the reusable cloth towel product
has higher impacts than the disposable paper towel unless the cloth towel
is used four to five times before laundering. The laundry impacts (included
in the cloth towel profile) are representative of home laundries and assume
12 pounds of laundry per load. The use of a cold water wash in the U100,
LI towel scenario reduces the energy value from 1.02 to 0.54 million Btu
(47 percent), which compares closely with the energy for the paper towel.
The data for the cellulose sponge product shows that the UlOO,
Ll scenario has impacts very similar in magnitude to the paper towel, with
the exception of the raw material and PCSW values. The UlOO Ll sponge has
smaller impact values than shown by the UlOO Ll cloth towel. The UlOO L5
sponge scenario shows the most favorable REPA profile of the products de-
scribed in Table 2.
The information in Table 2 shows that the resource and environ-
mental impacts for the reusable products aie heavily dependent upon the
number of times a product is used before it is laundered. The research team
was unable to locate open literature information identifying typical use
and laundering practices for cloth towels and sponge products used in the
home. Information from the Linen Supply Association of America shows that
in 1972, the typical kitchen towel in commercial use is used 16.3 times
before replacement is necessary. This value includes towels lost from their
intended service due to robbery and change in service application. The ex-
pected life of a kitchen towel used in the home is assumed to be greater
than 32. MRI assumption of home use factor based on commercial use of 16.3.
After' approximately 100 uses, the reduction in profile impact values becomes
very small. Again, the most important criteria affecting the REPA data is
the number o.f towel uses before laundering. With a life of 32 uses before
discard, the cloth towel energy category becomes equal to the energy for
the disposable paper towel when the cloth towel is used three to four times
before washing. At a useful life of 100, the cloth towel and paper energy
values become equal when the towel is used two to three times before laun-
dering (Figure 3, page 41 r. The extremely light reusable towels would approach
the energy level of the paper with one to two uses before laundering. In
some households, the reusable kitchen towel is used several times per day
for 2 or 3 days before laundering* At 15 uses before laundering the energy
value would approach 0.06 million Btu per spill cleanup, compared with
0.5 million Btu for the paper towel at 1.86 towels per spill, or 0.27 mil-
lion Btu at one towel used per spill.
2. Napkins2'3'4
a. Home Use (50 percent rayon, 50 percent polyester): The
impact data for the napkin product category (Table 3) are based on the pro-
duct profiles associated with 1,000 uses (or use at 1,000 meals). The re-
usable napkins are assumed to be used for one meal and then laundered. It
was assumed that one paper napkin (one ply) is used for each meal.
I/ Page 41 should be page 42.
2/ See comment No. 2 Appendix B, page 3.
_3/ See somments Appendix B, page 17.
4/ See comments Appendix B, page 22.
-------
TABLE 3
00
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Energy
Water
Industrial Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Water borne Waste
Postconsuraer Solid Waste
SUMMARY IMPACT DATA FOR 1.000 USES OF EACH HOME HAI'KTNO PRODUCT
Home Napkin Systems
Units
Ib
106 Btu
103 Gal.
cu ft
Ib
Ib
cu f t
Cloth
Napkin
in
164.32
12. 4U
4.32
2.21
57.00
15.86
1.91
Cloth
Napkin
IJ27
8.36
1.13
0.55
0.18
4.67
1.20
0.07
Cloth
Napkin
US4.
5.39
0.91
0.48
0.14
3.67
0.92
0.04
Cloth
Napkin
tllOO
4.04
o.ai
0.45
0.12
3.22
0.79
0.02
Cloth Napkin
Cold Wash
U54
5.39
0.56
0.47
0.12
2.52
0.83
0.04
Cloth Napkin
Cold Wash
uioo
4.04
0.46
0.44
0.10
2.06
0.70
0.02
Paper Napkins
One-Ply
1,000 Napkins
4.66
0.17.2/
0.10
0.02
0.65
0.18
0.09
Source! Midwest Research Institute.
Note: Refer to Volume If, pages E-16 and E-17, for sumaary impacts based on 8 and 12
pound home launcry loads.
£/ Includes energy derived from wood wastes. Total without including wood wastes energy
is 0.12 million Btu.
_!/ See comments No. 3-7 Appendix B, pages 5-6.
2/ See comments No. 8-13 Appendix B, pages 7-9.
3/ See comment No. 1 Appendix B, pages 9-10.
-------
Scenarios for the cloth napkin show the impacts for 1, 27,
54, and 100 uses before discarding. Profile impacts using a cold wash are
presented for the 54 and 100 use napkin. The expected life of the home nap-
kin is estimated to be greater than 54 uses before discarding. For the one
use napkin the energy used in laundering represents 5.6 percent of the total
system energy. With a life of 100 uses, the energy for laundering represent
93 percent of the total profile energy. Therefore only small impact reduc-
tions are realized after 100 uses. For the hot wash system, the cloth napkin
system value would approach 0.7 million Btu as the minimum energy, regardless
of the expected life of the napkin. The cold wash system would approach a
limiting value of 0.35 million Btu.
The one-ply paper napkin system shows lower impact values
in five of the seven impact categories when compared with the most favor-
able cloth system. The reusable systems have lower impacts only in the post-
consumer solid waste category. The energy requirements of the paper system
are only 21 percent of the 100 use, hot wash napkin, and 37 percent of the
100 use cold wash napkin system. The water volume, industrial solid waste,
atmospheric emission and waterborne waste values for the paper system are
significantly lower than the reusable napkin systems.
b. Commercial Use (100 percent cotton); In commercial use,
the cloth napkin is expected to achieve 27.1 uses (1972 average from Linen
Supply Association of America). The impact data in Table 4 show the profile
values for an expected life of 1, 27, and 54 uses. The cloth napkins are
assumed to be used for one meal and then laundered. One two-ply paper napkin
is assumed to be used per meal.
The data in Table 4 shows the disposable paper napkin to have
lower values in five of the seven impact categories when compared with the
27 use cloth napkin (the industry use figure has varied from 40 to 27 from
1968 to 1972). The paper napkin has higher values in raw materials and post-
consumer solid waste. During meals where two paper napkins are used, the
impacts for the disposable and reusable products would be very similar except
for raw materials and postconsumer solid wastes. A commercial cold wash sys-
tem would be very competitive with the disposable product. However, commer-
cial laundries using cold water washes were not encountered during the research
work, and the data for cold wash is thus presented as a hypothetical situation
only.
1/2,3
3. Diapers; The comparisons for the diaper products are based
on the impacts associated with 100 changes. One diapering change requires
1.47 cloth diapers and 1.03 disposable on the average. The cloth values
are based, on 37 percent double and 5 percent three or more diapers per
change, while 3 percent of the disposable diaper changes use two diapers.
The summary impact data in Table 5 show scenarios for the cloth
system, home laundry, with a useful life of 25, 50, and 100 uses before
discarding. Cloth diapers are reported to last for over 100 uses with home
I/ See comment No. 2 Appendix B, page 3.
2/ See comments Appendix B, pages 18-19.
3/ See comments Appendix B, pages 22-23.
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY IMPACT DATA FOR 1.000 USES OF EACH COMMERCIAL NAPKIN PRODUCT1'2'3'4
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Energy
Water
Industrial Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Waterborne Waste
Commercial Napkin Systems
»r^ Units
Ib
106 Btu
103 gal.
Waste cu ft
jions Ib
Ib
d Waste cu ft
Cloth
Napkin
Ul
172.28
6.65
2.58
1.80
33.20
11.24
1.96
Cloth
Napkin
U27
8.27
0.75
0.46
0.14
2.21
0.83
0.07
Cloth
Napkin
U54
5.12
0.64
0.42
0.11
1.61
0.63
0.04
Cloth Napkin
Cold Wash
U27
8.27
0.42
0.46
0.14
1.66
0.77
0.07
Paper Napkin
Two-Ply
1,000 Napkins
11.07
0.37-'
0.25
0.04
1.27
0.40
0.22
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
a/ Includes energy derived from wood wastes.
energy is 0.27 million Btu.
Total without including wood wastes
I/ See comments No. 3-5 Appendix B, pages 5-6.
2/ See comments No. 10-13 Appendix B, pages 8-9.
3/ See comment No. 15 Appendix B, page 9.
4/ See comments No. 1-2 Appendix B, page 9-10.
-------
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Energy
Water
Industrial Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Water borne Wastes
Postconsumer Solid Waste
TABLE 5
SUMMARY IMPACT DATA FOR 100 CHANCES EACH DIAPER PRODUCT 1*2,3,4
Units
Ib
106 Btu
103 gal.
cu ft
Ib
Ib
cu ft
Cloth Diaper
Home
Laundered
U25
2.483
0.450
0.523
0.074
1.789
0.666
0.016
Cloth Diaper
Home
Laundered
U50
1.792
0.426
0.514
0.067
1.664
0.623
0.008
Cloth Diaper
Home
Laundered
U100
1.44S
0.413
0.510
0.064
1.602
0.601
0.004
Diaper Systems
Cloth Diaper
Connercial
Laundered
(11
35.932
1.350
0.562
0.371
6.543
2.331
0.338
Cloth Diaper
Commercial
Laundered
U50
1.124
0.164
0.129
0.031
0.388
0.177
0.008
Cloth Diaper
Commercial
Laundered
HI 00
0.773
0.152
0.125
0.027
0.326
0.155
0.004
Disposable
Diaper
103 Diapers
12.889
0.371
0.166
1.196
0.356
0.190
Source! Midwest Research Institute.
a/ Includes energy derived from wood wastes.
energy is 0.271 million Dtu.
Total without Including wood wastes
I/ See comments No. 3-5 Appendix B, pages 5-6.
2/ See comments No. 8-13 Appendix B, pages 7-9.
3_/ See comment No. 15 Appendix B, page 9.
4/ See comments No. 1-2 Appendix B, page 9-10.
-------
laundry. The other use systems are presented to show the effect of change
in useful life. The expected life of a diaper in the comraerical wash systems
is reported to be around 75 uses. Some commercial laundries reported that
on occation the expected life of the diaper is below five uses, due to theft
and change in service application.
The comparisons of the most typical situation would include the
100-use home laundered diaper, the 50-use commercial laundered diaper and
the disposable diaper system. The commercial laundry diaper system shows
the lowest impacts in each of the seven impact categories. With the excep-
tion of raw materials and postconsumer solid waste, the disposable diaper
shows impact levels lower than the home diaper system. However, all of the
disposable diaper system impacts are.higher than the 50-use commercial
diaper system.
As the number of uses before discard increases, the impacts for
the cloth systems approach the impacts represented by the laundering proces-
ses of each cloth system. The home laundry diaper system will approach 0.4
million' Btu as its minimum energy value. After 25 uses the decrease in sys-
tem energy becomes minimal. Therefore, when using a hot water wash, the home
diaper system .energy requirements will only approach the disposable system
energy requirements. The commercial cloth system will approach a minimum
energy value of 0.14 million Btu. The energy requirements of the commercial
and disposable systems are about the same for four to five uses before dis-
card for the cloth diaper. Energy savings in the commercial system become
minimal after 15 to 20 uses.
4. Bedding: The sheet systems were compared on the basis of 1,000
changes, one sheet per change. Normal life for the cloth sheet (50 percent
polyester and 50 percent cotton) is 300 uses before discard. The cloth sheets
were assumed to be laundered after each use. Impacts for the disposable
sheet are based on a nonwoven paper fiber sheet backed by a polyethylene
film. The product manufacturing process impacts of the disposable system
profile are assumed to be similar to the disposable diaper converting im-
pacts. For this study, only commercial laundering for the cloth sheet is
considered.
Table 6 contains the resource and environmental profile summaries.
In the raw materials and energy categories, the cloth sheet shows the smallest
impacts. The disposable sheet system has the lowest wastewater volume and the
least amount of waterborne wastes and industrial solid wastes. Atmospheric
emissions and postconsumer solid waste values favor the cloth system.
The energy requirements for the reusable and disposable system
become equal at around 20 uses of the cloth sheet. Energy savings become
minimal after 100 uses.
12
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY IMPACT DATA FOR 1.000 CHANGES EACH SHEET PRODUCT
Sheet Systems
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Energy
Water
Industrial Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Waterborne Wastes
Postconsumer Solid Waste
Units
Ib
106 Btu
103 gal.
cu ft
Ib
Ib
cu ft
Cotton
Sheets
Ul LI
1,166.48
98.03
29.33
18.34
455.61
114.21
21.99
Cotton
Sheets
U50 LI
36.91
7.10
4.19
1.18
18.99
6.45
0.44
Cotton
Sheets
U100 LI
25.39
6.17
3.93
1.00
14.53
5.35
0.22
Cotton
Sheets
U300 LI
17.71
5.56
3.76
0.88
11.56
4.61
0.07
Disposable
Sheets
1,000 Sheets
106.68
10.06-i/
2.32
0.61
28.64
4.35
3.74
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
£/ Includes energy derived from wood wastes.
energy is 9.27 million Btu.
Total without including wood wastes
-------
5. Containers (cups and tumblers)t The container product category
is divided into cold drink and hot drink containers.
a. Cold Drink Containers (9 fluid ounce)t The container sys-
tems were compared on the basis of 1 million servings in a commercial estab-
lishment. The reusable containers are assumed to be washed after each use
by a commercial dishwashing machine. The useful life of the reusable con-
tainers is expected to be around 1,000 uses based on information submitted
by the American Restaurant China Council.1 The data in Table 7 show impacts
for 100 and 1,000 uses to show the relation of useful life to impact sum-
maries.2
The reusable containers show lower impact values for the
raw materials, energy, industrial solid waste, atmospheric emission and
postconsumer solid waste categories, when compared to the paper and plastic
disposable products. The disposable plastic cup has the smallest quantity
of wastewater volume. Both of the disposable products show less waterborne
wastes than the reusable products. After 100 uses, more than 97 percent
of the waterborne wastes from the reusable containers is due to the dish-
washing process. After 1,000 uses, more than 90 percent of the total impacts
are due to the washing process. The energy requirement for both reusable
container profiles become less than the energy for the disposable systems
between 10 and 20 uses before discard.3
i 4
b. Hot Drink Containers (7 fluid ounce*? Table 8 presents
the impact summaries for the hot drink cups. Data submitted by the American
Restaurant China Council show the expected life for the china cup to be
1,360 uses before loss or discard. The scenarios presented for the reusable
cups include a use life of 100 and 1,000, for commercial use.2
The comparison of the reusable systems (1,000 uses) with
the paper cup system, shows that the reusables have less impacts in the
raw materials, energy, industrial solid waste, atmospheric emissions, and
postconsumer solid waste categories. The paper system shows less wastewater
volume and waterborne wastes.
The comparison of the reusable systems (1,000 uses) with the
plastic foam cup reveals the disposable product to have less raw materials,
wastewater volume, and waterborne waste, and less industrial solid waste.
The resource and environmental benefits from reusing the
china and melamine products level out after 300 uses so that only minimal
advantages are gained with additional uses. At 100 uses the washing impacts
represent approximately 50 percent of the total, while at 1,000 uses most
of the impact categories show that greater than 90 percent of the impacts
are due to washing the cups.
I/ See comment No. 1 Appendix C, page 1.
2/ See comments Appendix J, pages 32 and 34.
V See comments No. 3 Appendix J, page 39.
4_/ See comments Appendix J, pages 3, 19 and 21.
14
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY IMPACT DATA FOR 1 MILLION SERVINGSEACH 9 FLUID OUNCE COLD DRINK PRODUCT1'2'3
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Energy
Water
Industrial Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Waterborne Wastes
Postconsuraer Solid Waste
Units
Ib
106 Btu
103 gal.
cu ft
Ib
Ib
cu ft
Glass
Tumbler
U100
2,949.3
223.9
90.4
23.8
779.4
439.0
18.3
Glass
Tumbler
UljOOO
1,673.2
184.2
86.5
13.7
564.4
394. Q
1.8
Cold
Polypropylene
Tumbler
UlOO
1,636.6
270.7
93.9
14.1
1,159.5
427.7
14.1
Drink Systems
Polypropylene
Tumbler
Ul.OOO
1,541.9
188.9
86.9
12.8
602.4
392.8
1.4
Paper Cup
Wax Coat
(Million)
13,229.9
563.91'
145.5
55.2
1,614.4
266.7
241.4
Thermoformed
Polystyrene Cup
(Million)
1,484.2
696.8
50.9
30.5
1,963.4
266.0
186.8
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
Note: Refer to page 16 of this Volume, and page E-2 of Volume IB, for a discussion on energy
reduction possible with chemical sanitization during dishwashing.
a/ Includes energy derived from wood wastes. Total without including wood wastes energy is
444 million Btu.
I/ See comments Appendix J, pages 3 and 17-18.
2/ See comments Appendix J, pages 3 and 18-20.
3/ See comments Appendix J, pages 4, 22-31 and 33-34.
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY IMPACT DATA FOR 1 MILLION SERVINGSEACH 7 FLUID OUNCE HOT DRINK PRODUCT1'2'3'4
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Energy
Water
Industrial So
Atmospheric Emissions
Waterborne Waste
>ry Units
Ib
106 Btu
H>3 gal.
Waste cu ft
3 ions Ib
Ib
Id Waste cu ft
China
Cup
U100
15,233.8
680.5
249.3
160.4
3,080.4
1,567.0
32.6
China
Cup
Ul.OOO
4,777.7
434.1
200.0
41.8
1,408.0
1,142.0
3.3
Hot
Melamine
Cup
U100
4,632.6
550.8
256.1
34.6
1,719.4
1,147.0
35.2
Drink Systems
Melamine
Cup
Ul.OOO
3,717.5
421.1
200.6
29.3
1,272.0
1,100.0
3.5
Paper Cup
LDPE Lined
(Million)
19,057.1
568. 5i/
191.7
75.0
1,619.1
301.1
236.9
Foam Cup
Polystyrene
(Million)
1,655.0
571.0
29.6
16.2
1,853.7
253.1
761.2
&l Includes energy derived from wood -wastes.
energy is 395 million Btu.
Total without including wood wastes
I/ See comments Appendix J, pages 3 and 17-18.
2/ See comments Appendix J, pages 3 and 18-20.
3_/ See comments Appendix J, pages 3, 19 and 21.
4/ See comments Appendix J, pages 4, 22-31 and 33-34.
-------
6. Plates; The impact summaries for the plate category represent
the values for 1 million uses (meals) for each plate. The expected life
if the china plate is 6,900 uses based on commercial replacement data. Sce-
narios are shown for 100, 1,000, and 6,900 uses for the china plate and
100 and 1,000 uses for the melamine plate Hindus try data were not submitted
regarding the useful life of the melamine product; however, the plate is
probably capable of withstanding well over 1,000 uses. The impact values
become fairly constant at the 1,000 use level, therefore a higher use rate
would have little effect on the comparisons*
With reference to Table 9, the disposable paper plate compares
quite favorably with the china plate at the 100 use level, except for one
impact categorypostconsumer solid waste. However, with the 1,000 and 6,900
use china plate, the paper system has smaller impacts only in the waterborne
waste category. In comparison with the paper plate, both melamine systems
(100 and 1,000 use) show lower impacts in all categories except waterborne
wastes.
The disposable polystyrene foam plate requires higher energy levels
than the other plate systems. Also the atmospheric emissions for the foam
plate are relatively high due to the loss of hydrocarbon blowing agent. The
waterborne waste category shows less impacts for the foam plate than for
the reusable systems.
The energy requirements for the reusable product systems (Table 9)
are based on an electrically heated hot water approach to sanitizing dishes.
An alternate method for sanitizing dishes would be to use a chemical sanitiz-
ing agent with 140 F water for the rinse water, rather than to heat the rinse
water from 140°F to 180°F with electric booster heaters. For 1 hour of dish-
washer operation, this would reduce the natural gas requirement by 66.3
cubic feet and the electrical requirement by 27.1 kilowatt-hours, for a
total savings of around 362,500 Btu per hour, or 134 million Btu per million
plates. This would reduce the total dishwashing energy by 42 percent. Refer
to Volume I-B, pages E-2, E-3, and E-4 for a more complete discussion of the
energy requirements of commercial dishwashing.
I/ See comments Appendix J, page 32 and 34.
17
-------
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Energy
Water
Industrial Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Waterborne Wastes
Postconsumer Solid Waste
TABLE 9
SUMMARY IMPACT DATA FOR 1 MILLION SERVINGSEACH 9-INCH PLATE PRODUCT1«2f3
Plate Systems
Units
Ib
106 Btu
103 gal.
cu ft
Ib
Ib
cu ft
China
Plates
U100
29,295
968
300
329
5,226
1,839
77
China
Plates
Ul.OOO
5,820
422
185
56
1,500
915
8
China
Plates
U6.900
3,590
370
174
29
1,146
827
I
Melamlne
Plates
UlOO
4,805
599
277
36
1,876
891
60
Melamlne
Plates
Ul.OOO
3,371
385
183
26
1,165
820
6
Paper Plate
White Press
(Million)
27,346
748^'
289
98
2,031
364
368
Foam Plate
Polystyrene
(Million)
4,087
1,479
102
70
4,924
609
4,582
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
jj/ Includes energy derived from wood wastes.
million Btu.
I/ See comments Appendix J, page 3 and 17-18.
2_/ See comments Appendix J, pages 5 and 18-20.
3/ See comments Appendix J, pages 4, 22-31 and 33-34.
Total without including wood wastes energy is 497
-------
CHAPTER 3
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
A. Description of REPA Technique '
In the past, most environmental analyses have focused on a
single pollution category such as the air pollution caused by industry
A or the water pollution and solid wastes associated with industry B.
The pollution reported for these industries usually refers to one manu-
facturing step, at a single geographical location. This type of approach
will generally account for less than 25 percent of the total impacts
associated with a product. Accounting for a product's total environmental
impact requires a systems approach, beginning at the point of raw mate-
rial extraction and ending with the final disposal of the product. The
systems approach includes the use of natural resources and the environ-
mental pollution resulting from disposal.
The purpose of a total resource and environmental profile analy-
sis (REPA) is- to measure the resource and environmental impacts at each
stage of a product's life, and then condense the data into several basic
impact categories which can be used to determine a product's overall im-
pact relative to other products. The REPA (along with other analysis tools)
can be used to encourage the use of consumer products which cause minimum
resource and environmental impacts. The results of a REPA analysis must
be used with the understanding that the product may have much smaller im-
pacts than its competitor, and still be a resource or environmental villain.
To ascertain a product's absolute impact status would require a rigorous
treatment of impact data, environmental desires or regulation, and the
social values affected. However, after the impact data have been condensed
into the seven impact categories, each category can be examined to see if
abnormally high values exist. Comparisons of total impact values from simi-
lar products, or substitute products made from other materials, should
establish a reasonable level of confidence for estimating the relative de-
sirability of a product from a resource and environmental impact viewpoint.
Two broad classes of environmental impacts can be discerned:
(1) quantifiable impacts; and (2) those of a more subjective, qualita-
tive nature? The former category includes impacts which can be measured,
such as kilowatt-hours of energy and pounds of air pollutants, for vari-
ous manufacturing processes. The latter category includes impacts for
which hard data do not exist. For example, it is impossible to assign
precise numerical measures of aesthetic blight caused by mining activi-
ties. Another impact of the latter type is that for which some data exist,
I/ See comments Appendix E, page 1-2.
|2/ See comments Appendix J, pages 8-9.
3/ See comments Appendix E, page 3.
19
-------
but which are of very poor quality. Examples of this are relative environ-
mental damage resulting from solid waste disposal of various products, or
the relative environmental damage caused by various air or water pollutants.
This study is confined to the determination of the quantitative impacts
only. Qualitative aspects, although referred to from time to time in this
study, are not part of this analysis.
1. Basic approach! Much of the effort expended in this study
went into determining the quantifiable impacts of manufacture. The term
"manufacture" is used throughout this report in a general sense--it in-
cludes those activities associated with materials from the time they
are extracted from the earth as raw materials to the point where they
are returned to the earth as wastes, including all transportation links
in the processing sequence. A summary of the impacts documented is shown
in Figure la.
For each process and subprocess, a set of seven basic impact
categories was established. These are described below:
Raw materials; The quantity and type of virgin raw materials
input to each operation were calculated in terms of a given product out-
put. Materials not intended to become part of the finished product, such
as cooling water and fuels, were excluded from raw materials. Other raw
materials, such as additives, which aggregate to less than 5 percent
of the total weight of the finished container were included in this cate-
gory by reporting their finished product weight. Each raw material was
counted only one timewhen it became a part of the product or entered
the process as a solvent, catalyst, etc.
No attempt was made to define a relative weighting of the various
virgin materials based on availability or scarcity. The possibility exists
for developing such a scheme based on the projected reserves or scarcity
of recoverable raw materials still in the earth. However, examination
of the many raw materials consumed by these product systems shows that
none of these materials are in short supply. The materials included are!
limestone, salt, sand, soda ash, feldspar, and wood fiber. Crude oil
and natural gas are in relatively short supply, but they have been clas-
sified as energy resources, not as material resources. Wood fiber is
consumed, but timber growth exceeds the timber cut annually at present
in this country. Thus it is not a "short" material.
Energy! The energy used by each operation, including trans-
portation, for a given product output was reported. Process energy used
by the actual manufacturing operations was employed. That used for space
heating of buildings and other miscellaneous categories was excluded
wherever possible. Energy content of organic 'raw materials was also in-
cluded in energy summations. The second-order energy necessary to extract,
20
-------
E W Tt
E M W Tr E M W Tr
LJ_i M_LLJ_UJ
t Ir
LJL
Row Materials
Mining/
Extraction
Materials
Processing
t
1
1
1
Recycled
Materials
Processing
-
Container
Fabrication
->~
__
- v A ' ' r X
* v *.')*.* * ,* f
« V V . y "y / *
'. Use/
Discard
r '
. .'. 1. ','.'.
| '
. . -.'.| . --
..'.'.' ,r .', \ '
,. ' . '..';-'>{' ' \':/
.- . v'.^VVv
L A. A. A, JL.k, ^ V v
V^" "*
i\j
^
X
«
X
\ .-
:-^:0:;;X-:\ '
, / ^^ .>
v""
^ Final
Disposal
i
1
ITTTTITTTni
AE TrE SW WW AE TrE SW WW AE TrE SW WW
AE TrE SW
SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT CATEGORIES
INPUT
E = Energy (in all forms)
OUTPUT
AE = Atmospheric Emissions
M -Virgin Materials (consumed and unconsumed) TrE = Transportation Effluents (for each fuel type)
W = Water
Tr = Transportation to Next Operation
(including all modes, all fuels in each mode)
SW=Solid Wastes
WW = Woterborne Wastes
Figure la - Summary of environmental impacts are shown for container manufacture.
-------
process and transport fuels was included, as well as the heating value
of the specific fuels used in a system. In this report, the Btu equiva-
lents used for a unit of the following types of energy are; kilowatt-hour
- 10,720 Btu, standard cubic foot natural gas - 1,030 Btu, 1 pound of
steam - 1,400 Btu, coal - 13,300 Btu per pound.
Water volume; The volume of wastewater per unit of product
output from each operation was reported.
Industrial solid wastes: The volume of solid waste per unit
of product output which must be landfilled or disposed of in some other
way was determined. Three categories were measured: process losses,
fuel combustion residues (ashes) and mining wastes. The first category--
process discards--includes solids resulting from air pollution control
and waste materials from manufacturing operations. Fuel combustion resi-
dues are ash generated by coal combustion. Mining wastes are primarily
materials discarded due to raw ore processing and do not include over-
burden.
Atmospheric emissions; This category includes only those emis-
sions generally considered to be pollutants, expressed in pounds per
unit of product .output. Thirteen identifiable pollutants were considered
for each operation--particulates, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, sulfur
oxides, carbon monoxide, aldehydes, other organics, chlorine, odorous
sulfur compounds, ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, lead and mercury. The
amounts reported represent actual discharges into the atmosphere after
existing emission controls have been applied. All such atmospheric emis-
sions were treated as being of equal weight, and no attempt was made to
determine the relative environmental damage caused by each of these pol-
lutants. However, we do recognize that there are differences in the rela-
tive harm caused by air pollutants.
Waterborne wastes; This category includes the water pollu-
tants from each operation expressed in pounds per unit product output.
These are effluents after wastewater treatment has been applied and rep-
resent discharges into receiving waters. Twenty-three specific pollutants
are includedBOD, COD, suspended solids, dissolved solids (oil field
brine), oil, fluorides, phenol, sulfides, acid, alkalinity, metal ions,
ammonia, cyanide, and others. Some factors such as turbidity and heat
were not included because there was no acceptable way to quantify their
impacts.
Postconsumer solid wastes: The volume of solid wastes gen-
erated by disposing of the product was determined. This is the solid
waste which most likely would be discarded into municipal solid waste
streams. It was assumed that 9 percent would be incinerated and 91 per-
cent would be landfilled.
22
-------
The first step in the REPA analysis is to determine the raw
|/alues for each of the above seven categories attributed to the produc-
tion of some unit quantity of a product. The data in these categories
are used to determine a product's resource and environmental impact rela-
tive to another product.
2. Organic raw materials--unique considerations: A unique
situation exists for products utilizing organic raw materials such as
wood, crude oil and natural gas. These materials have alternative uses
as feedstocks for material goods such as paper or plastic products, or
as fuels for energy. In assessing resource depletion, then, use of or-
ganic materials can be considered as depleting either material resources
or energy resources.
In the first option, the organic materials intended to become
part of a finished product are simply measured in pounds and treated
as any mineral resource. In the second option, the energy equivalent
of the pounds of organics used is added to the energy required to process
the materials. The pounds of organics used is not added to the raw mate-
rials category.
Another consideration regarding the fuel value of synthetic
materials is that finished plastic and paper containers are a potential
fuel even after they have been used and discarded. Thus, if the solid
fcxraste stream is incinerated and energy recovered, part of the original
fuel value of the natural gas and wood fiber is reclaimed.
Because of the importance of energy considerations, a strong
case can be made for the second option, which counts organic materials
as an energy resource rather than as a material resource. This treatment
reflects more accurately the primary environmental concern of the plas-
tics industry, which is the consumption of energy reserves in the form
of natural gas and petroleum. These fuels at present, and in the near
future, are in short supply to a greater extent than any other major
natural resource. As mentioned earlier, the material resources considered
in this study such as limestone and sand are much more abundant than
natural gas and petroleum. Counting petroleum and natural gas use as
equivalent on a pound-for-pound basis with limestone would not give as
true an environmental picture as counting the energy value of these ma-
terials. Because essentially no recovery of the intrinsic fuel value of
finished plastic products is practiced at present, the impact on the
nation's energy reserves due to plastics manufacture is the sum of the
process energy required for plastics manufacture, and the inherent fuel
value of the organic materials consumed. Thus, treating an organic mate-
rial as an energy input, rather than as a physical quantity of material,
23
-------
places the comparison of competitive product systems on a more logical
basis.*
3. Methodology; The general approach used to carry out the
calculations for the quantitative comparison follows a system approach.
All processes and subprocesses were first considered to be separate
and independent. For each process, a standard unit such as 1,000 pounds
of output was used as a basis for calculations. A complete materials
balance was first determined. If marketable coproducts or by-products
were produced, the material inputs were adjusted to reflect only the
input attributable to the output product of interest.
To illustrate this point, consider a hypothetical manufacturing
process that produces 1,000 pounds of product A in which we are interested.
At the same time, it produces 500 pounds of coproduct B and 100 pounds
of waste in the form of air emissions, water pollution, and solid waste.
The total input of raw materials is 1,600 pounds as shown in Figure lb.
An energy input of 3 x 10^ Btu is assumed for this example. The output
is 1,000 pounds of product A and 500 pounds of product B.
A 500-pound credit has been applied to the input materials
because we are not interested in product B. This reduces the input from
1,600 pounds to 1,100 pounds. In addition, because product B is one-third
of the product output of the process by weight, one-third of the wastes,
or 33 pounds, is attributed to product B; a new waste figure of 67 pounds
(100 pounds - 33 pounds = 67 pounds) results. Thus, the raw material
input value for product A is 1,067 pounds (1,100 pounds - 33 pounds =
1,067 pounds).
Once the raw impacts for the production of 1,000 pounds of
each process have been determined, a master flow chart can be established.
This chart will show the pounds of each process necessary to produce
1,000 pounds of the container systems being studied. At this point, the
raw data for a product system can be processed by the computer and com-
bined with transportation, postconsumer solid waste, and secondary impacts
to provide calculations showing the resource environmental profile for
the system. The calculated impact data can be used alone to demonstrate
the quantities of each impact category. Summary tables showing the total
impacts for the processes and systems are provided and appear in the Ap-
pendix.
The same logic applies to wood fiber, even though cellulosic materials
are not now a viable (fuel) energy source in the same way that plas-
tics feedstocks are. Thus, wood fiber was counted as a raw material
rather than its energy equivalent when it becomes part of the product.
Wood materials or wastes burned were counted as their energy equi-
valent.
24
-------
g
Energy 3 x 10 Btu
1,600 Ib raw materials- >
Manufacturing Plant
> 1,000 Ib product A
-> 500 Ib product B
100 Ib wastes
For analysis purposes, a new flow diagram would be established
as shown below.
Energy 2 x 10 Btu
1,067 Ib raw materials' >
Manufacturing Plant
-> 1,000 Ib product A
67 Ib wastes
Figure Ib - Diagram illustrates coproduct credits.
25
-------
4. Assumptions and limitations; Some assumptions are always
necessary to 'limit a study to a reasonable scope. It is important for
the reader to be aware of these limitations in order for him to under-
stand fully the scope and applicability of the study.
In the course of this research, the following assumptions were
made:
Data sources: An attempt was made in every case to obtain
data which were "typical" and which could be verified in the open litera-
ture. Extensive use was made of government agencies and publications,
technical associations and open literature sources. National average
data were used where possible. Certain sets of data involved proprietary
processes so that information was submitted to us on a confidential basis.
However, data in the public domain were used whenever possible.
Geographic scope; The "environment" was defined as the environ-
ment of the world. However, impacts occurring outside this country are
not well documented, so U.S. data were used to estimate foreign impacts.
Secondary impacts; Impacts resulting from extraction, proces-
sing and transporting fuels are secondary impacts and were considered
as well as the primary impacts of the fuel combustion. However, secondary
impacts resulting from such processes as manufacturing the capital are
ment used in container manufacture are small per unit output and can
be excluded without significant error.
Small quantities of materials: The impacts associated with
materials which aggregate to less than 5 percent by weight of the con-
tainer were not included. The materials are simply counted as pounds
of raw materials. However, the list of materials which comprise the "less
than 5 percent" category was examined to insure that no known "high en-
vironmental impact" materials were excluded from the analysis.
Electricity; Electrical energy is considered from the point
of view of its impact on the total energy resources of the nation. A
national average energy expenditure of 10,720 Btu is required for each
kilowatt-hour of electricity made available to the public. Hence, this
conversion factor is used rather than the direct use conversion factor
of 3,413 Btu per kilowatt-hour. The impacts from mining or extraction
of these fuels were included in the analysis.
Usage of scrap materials; Environmental impacts of scrap are
considered to be only those impacts incurred after the scrap is discarded
from the manufacturing site. Usually this includes only transportation
and scrap processing steps. The environmental impact of manufacture of
26
-------
the material which subsequently becomes scrap is allocated to the prime
product.
Point sources of pollution; The burden on specific ecosystems
was not considered, i.e., at specific point sources or geographic loca-
tions. It was assumed the operations impacted the total environment every-
where, not just where specific manufacturing operations are presently
located.
Availability of data; Some industrial plants do not keep records
in sufficient detail to determine the data in the desired form for a
REPA study. For instance, if pollutant emission data are needed for a
specific subprocess in a plant, that information may not be available.
The plant may have data only for several combined processes or the entire
plant. In this event, allocation must be used for data on the particular
processes of interest. As the concept of resource and environmental pro-
file studies gains acceptance, it is likely that more industries will
make an effort to collect these types of data from their own operations
and on a unit process basis. Engineering calculations of materials balances
for subprocesses were used in some instances where actual operating data
were not available.
Effluent data; EPA 1977 guidelines were used where possible
for air, water and solid waste discharges to the environment. If actual
discharges are less than the guidelines, then the smaller values are used.
For example some of the processes in the paperboard profile show impacts
smaller than the 1977 guidelines. The application of future standards
has the effect of shifting effluents from one category into others. It
does not usually add or subtract from total amounts of effluents. For ex-
ample, air pollution control usually removes air pollutants from air which
are then discharged to water bodies or,the solid waste stream. Thus, re-
ducing air pollution from a plant will .usually increase the water pollut-
ant and/or solid waste discharge.
Consumer impacts; Impacts related to consumer activities such
as transporting the milk home from the retail store were not included.
We have assumed that trips to retail stores are necessary for other rea-
sons and should not be attributed only to the product systems. 1
I/ See comments No. 4 Appendix J, page 39.
27.
-------
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY DATA
A. Analysis of Resource Inputs
1,2,3,4
I. Raw Materials; The quantity of raw materials required for
each product is presented in the summary tables* Petroleum and natural
gas inputs which become part of the products are counted as their energy
equivalents rather than as pounds of raw materials. The raw materials
which are present in the plastic systems represent process additives and
packaging contributions. Wood fiber which becomes part of a product is
counted as pounds of raw material. As are cotton fiber and inorganic raw
materials. The quantities of raw materials for the reusable products are
generally less than the comparable disposable product .due to their multiuse
factor.
Figure Ic demonstrates the raw material requirements for selected
reusable product systems as a function of the number of expected uses
the products will experience before discard. The raw materials for the
cloth towel system decrease sharply until the 10 use point. Thereafter,
the decrease is minimal with increase in expected life. The use points
for the other products where the decrease in raw materials becomes minimal
are: home napkins, 5 to 10 uses; cloth diapers, 5 to 10 uses; cloth sheets,
25 uses; china cups, 200 to 400 uses; and china plates, 500 to 1,000 uses.
Table 10 compares the expected life of the products represented
in Figure Ic with the use factor at the breaking point of raw material
decrease vs. useful life.
TABLE 10
EXPECTED LIFE VS. USE FACTOR AT RAW MATERIAL BREAK POINT
Expected Life , Raw Material
Product (Uses) Breaking Point (Uses)
.Cloth Towel Greater Than 32 10
Home Napkin Greater Than 54 10
Cloth Diaper, Home 50-100 10
Cloth Sheet 100-300 25
China Cup 1,360 100-200
China Plate 6,900 500-1,000
Source: MRI.
I/ See comment No. 5 Appendix B, page 6.
2/ See comments No. 8-9 Appendix B, pages 7-8.
V See comment No. 2 Appendix B, page 23.
£/ See comments Appendix J, pages 2 and 11-12.
28
-------
20 40 60 80 100
1000 Towel-Uses
20 40 60 80 100
1000 Home Napkin- Uses
0 20 40 60 80 100
100 Changes Cloth Diapers-Uses
1000
o
° 800
1/1
15
| 600
J 400
3
200
0
0 100 200
1000 Cloth Sheets-Uses
18
o
'£ 10
300 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Million China Cups- Uses
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Million China Plates-Uses
Figure Ic - Raw Material Requirements as a Function of Expected Uses
-------
Based on Che relationships of useful life and raw materials
needed, the resource and environmental impact comparisons can be made
without knowing the exact outer limit of the use factors since the break
point of material increases occurs for below the expected life.
1,2
2. Wastewater volume: The water volume reported in this study
represents water discharged from the various processes as wastewater Figure
2 shows the comparison of water use for reusable .and disposable products
in each product category. In the towel category, the disposable paper
product shows less wastewater than the cloth towel except when the towel
is used five times before laundering. For the commercial napkin category,
the disposable paper napkin has the least water volume. In the diaper
comparisons, the disposable diaper shows less water use than the home
laundry system but slightly more than the commercial laundry system. The
disposable sheet system has lower wastewater volume than the reusable
cloth sheet. In the cold drink container comparison, the paper cup uses'
more water and the plastic cup less water than the reusable systems. The
plate comparisons also show wastewater volume for the paper system higher
than the reusables and water volume for the plastic system lower than
the reusables.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
3. Energy Breakdown Analysis; This section will describe the
energy requirements of the product systems from the viewpoints of energy
type (process, transportation, material resource), energy source (petroleum,
natural gas, coal, wood fiber, etc.), and product usage patterns. Usage pat-
terns refer to the times a product is used before discarded, coupled with
the number of times used before washing.
a. Energy Tvpe and Source; Tables 11 through 18 present the
energy breakdown information for the six product categories, using the same
scenarios presented in the summary impact tables (Tables 2 through 9). The
individual energy values may not add exactly to the "total" values due to
computer rounding. Each table contains a percentage breakdown for fossil
fuel (petroleum, natural gas, and coal), and wood fiber (energy derived
from burning wood residues).
(1) Table 11 - Towel Products; Process energy accounts
for over 90 percent of the total energy for each product. The material re-
source energy is low since none of the products are manufactured from hydro-
carbon raw materials. The energy source information shows that fossil fuel
accounts for more than 90 percent of the energy for the reusable systems.
The paper towel system derives 24.6 percent of its energy from burning wood
residues.
(2) Tables 12 and 13 - Napkin Products; For both dis-
posable and reusable systems, process energy represents over 90 percent of
the total with transportation accounting for around 2 percent and material
I/ See comments No. 8-9 Appendix B, pages 7-8.
2/ See comments Appendix J, pages 4 and 22-31.
V See comments Appendix B, page 9.
4/ See comments No. 1-2 Appendix B, pages 9-10.
5/ See comments Appendix C, pages 4-5.
6/ See comments Appendix J, pages 2 and 11-12.
7/ See comments Appendix J, pages 2 and 14.
8/ See comments Appendix J, pages 3 and 17-18.
30
-------
w 600
01
1
£ 400
*
j! OAA
O
~0
0 0
-
Cloth
U32L1
Cloth
U32L5
Sponge
U100L1
Sponge
U100L5
Paper
£ °00
"o
£ 400
i
§9(VI
0
0 0
-
Cloth
U27
Paper
Towel Category
Commercial Napkin Category!
_ 600
a
3
I 400
200
Cloth Cloth Disposable
Home Comm.
U50 U50
Diaper Category *
Gallons Wastewarer
N) *. 0.
o o o
0880
-
Cloth Cloth Disposob
U100 U300
Bedding Category
S 300
1 TOO
S°
-' Q
O
- o
_
.
Glass, Pop
Polyprop. Co|
Tomb. Wa
9fl.oz. 9fl
er T Form
Polysty
K C Cop
. oz. 9 fl. oz
C
f
C
Ihina,
delam.
-UP
fl. oz
P
C
L
. 7
aper
op
DPE
fl. oz
5 300
5 200
~i 100
O
I 1 "^ o
Foam
Polysty.
Cop
. 7fl. oz.
China,
Me lam
Plates
Paper
Foam
Polysty.
Container Category
Plate Category
Figure 2 - Wastewacer Volume for Representative Produces in Each Category
I/ See comment No. 4 Appendix B, pages 5-6.
31
-------
OJ
fvJ
TABLE 11
ENERGY ANALYSIS - TOWEL CATEGORY PRODUCTS - 1,000 USES
Energy Type 10 Btu
Process
Transportation
Material Resource
Total
Energy Source 10 Btu
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclypwr
Wood Fiber
Fossil Fuel (7.)
Wood Fiber (%)
Cloth
Towel
U32 LI
1.169
0.007
0.01 1
1.188
0.258
0.457
0.389
0.083
0.001
92.9
0.1
Cloth
Towel
U32 L5
0.421
0.007
0.006
0.435
0.107
0.147
0.151
0.029
0.001
93.1
0.2
Cloth
Toue 1
II 100 M
1.010
0.00')
0.008
1.020
0.21 1
0.410
0.327
0.072
0.000
92.9
0.0
Cloth
Towc 1
Ul 00 L5
0.262
0.002
0.003
0.267
0.060
0.100
0.089
0.018
0.000
93.2
0.0
Cloth Towel
Cold Wash
11 100 LI
0.527
0.003
0.008
0.538
0.110
0.157
0.272
0.048
0.000
90.9
0.0
Cel lulose
Sponge
U100 LI
0.477
0.001
0.004
0.482
0.095
0.204
0.146
0.033
0.005
92.3
1.0
Cel lulose
Sponge
0100 L5
0.142 "
0.001
0.002
0.1 44
0.027
0.065
0.039
0.009
0.005
91.0
3.5
Paper Towe 1
Two-Pi v
1,330 Towels
0.450
0.032
0.014
0.496
0.157
0.137
0.067
0.014
0.122
72. fl
24.6
Source: MRI.
-------
TABLE 12
ENERGY ANALYSIS - HOME NAPKIN PRODUCTS - 1,000 USES
g
Energy Type 10 Btu
Process
Tr an spor ta ti on
Material Resource
Total
Energy Source 10 Btu
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclhypwr
Wood Fiber
Fossil Fuel CO
Wood Fiber CO
Cloth
Napkin
Ul
11.366
0.299
0.816
12.480
3.568
3.383
4.503
0.521
0.505
91.8
4.0
Cloth
Napkin
U27
1.082
0.011
0.034
1.128
0.265
0.400
0.377
0.067
0.019
92.4
1.7
Cloth
Napkin
U54
0.886
0.006
0.019
0.911
0.202
0.343
0.298
0.058
0.009
92.5
1.0
Cloth
Napkin
U100
0.797
0.003
0.013
0.812
0.173
0.317
0.262
0.054
0.005
92.6
0.6
Cloth Napkin
Cold Wash
U54
0.530
0.006
0.019
0.555
0.128
0.156
0.221
0.041
0.009
91.0
1.6
Cloth Napkin
Cold Wash
U100
0.439
0.003
0.013
0.455
0.098
0.130
0.185
0.037
0.005
90.8
1.0
Paper Napkin
One-Ply
1,000
0.149
0.013
0.007
0.168
0.055
0.045
0.022
0.004
0.042
72.6
25.0
Source: MRI.
-------
TABLE 13
ENERGY ANALYSIS - COMMERCIAL NAPKINS - 1,000 USES
Energy Tvpe 10 Btu
Process
Transportation
Material Resource
Total
Energy Source 10 Btu
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclhypwr
Wood Fiber
Fossil Fuel (%)
Wood Fiber (7.)
Cloth
Napkin
Ul
6.219
0.288
0.144
6.652
1.821
' 2.194
2.241
0.384
0.012
94.0
0.2
Cloth
Napkin
N27
0.732
0.013
0.007
0.752
0.080
0.553
0.100
0.018
. 0.000
7.5
0.0
Cloth
Napkin
U54
0.627
0.007
0.005
0.638
0.047
0.521
0.059
0.011
0.000
98.3
0.0
Cloth
Napkin
U27
0.398
0.013
0.007
0.417
0.080
0.218
0.100
0.018
0.000
95.4
0.0
Paper Napkin
Two-Ply
1,000 Napkins
0.359
0.013
0.002.
0.374
0.114
0.098" .
0.051
0.010
0.101
70.5
27.0
Source: MRI.
34
-------
TABLE 14
ENERGY ANALYSIS - DIAPER PRODUCTS - 100 CHANGES
Energy Type 10 Btu
Process
Transportation
Material Resource
Total
Energy Source 10 Btu
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclhypwr
Wood Fiber
Fossil Fuel CO
Wood Fiber (%)
Cloth
Home
Laundered
U25
0.445
0.002
0.004
0.450
0.095
0.179
0.144
0.032
0.000
92.9
0.0
. Cloth
Home
Laundered
U50
0.422
0.001
0.003
0.426
0.088
0.172
0.135
0.030
0.000
92.7
0.0
Cloth
Home
Laundered
U100
0.410
0.001
0.003
0.413
0.084
0.169
0.131
0.029
0.000
93.0
0.0
Cloth
Commercial
Laundered
Ul
1.291
0.034
0.024
1.350
0.347
0.471
0.450
0.077
0.005
93.9
0.0
Cloth
Commercial
Laundered
U50
0.162
0.001
0.001
0.164
0.010
0.139
0.013
0.002
0.000
98.8
0.0
Cloth
Commercial
Laundered
U100
0.150
0.001
0.001
0,152
0.007
0.136
0.008
0.001
0.000
99.3
0.4
Disposable
1 Diaper
103 Diapers
0.332
0.013
0.036
0.382
0.095
0.112
0.063
. 0.008
0.103
70.7
27.0
Sourcet MRI.
-------
TABLE 15
ENERGY ANALYSIS - SHEET PRODUCTS - 1,000 USES
Sheet Systems
Energy Type 10 Btu
Process
Transportation
Material Resource
Total
g
Enersv Source" 10 Btu
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclhypwr
Wood Fiber
Fossil Fuel (7.)
Wood Fiber (%)
Cloth
Sheet
Ul
80.638
3.575
13.822
98.034
34.634
32.343
26.338
4.582
0.138
95.2
0.1
Cloth
Sheet
U50
6.714
0.091
0.297
7.102
0.820
5.451
0.699
0.128
0.003
98.1
0.0
Cloth
Sheet
U100
5.960
0.055
0.059
6.174
0.475
5.177
0.438
0.083
0.002
98.6
0.0
Cloth
Sheet
U300
5.457
0.032
0.067
5.555
0.245
4.994
0.263
0.052
0.001
99.0
0.0
Disposable
Sheet
1,000 Sheets
5.907
0.492
3.659
10.059
2.025.
5.768
1.207
0.267
0.793
89.5
7.9 .
Source: MRI.
36
-------
TABLE 16
ENERGY ANALYSIS - NINE FLUID OUNCE COLD DRINK PRODUCTS - MILLION SERVINGS
Cold Drink Systems
Energy Type 10 Btu
Process
Tran spor ta ti on
Material Resource
Total
Energy Source 10 Btu
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclhypwr
Wood Fiber
Fossil Fuel (%)
Wood Fiber (%)
Glass
Tumbler
U100
217.8
1.8
4.3
223.9
29.7
138.1
40.8
8.3
7.0
93.1
4.0
Glass
Tumbler
Ul.QQO
179.4
0.5
4.3
184.2
21.0
118.6
35.8
7.9
0.8
95.2
0.6
Polypropylene
Tumbler
U100
193.0
50.8
26.9
270.7
70.6
153.1
38.0
8.4
0.6
96.7
0.3
Polypropylene
Tumbler
Ul.OOO
177.0
5.4
6.5
189.0
25.2
120.1
35.5
7.9
0.2
95.7
0.1
Paper Cup
Wax Coat
(million)
420.3
31.3
112.3
563.9
218.1
118.5
97.6
9.8
119.8
77.0
21.2
Thermoformed
Polystyrene Cup
(million)
309.5
43.4
343.9
696.8
375.8
243.1
59.2
12.7
6.0
97.3
0.9
Source: MRI.
-------
TABLE 17
ENERGY ANALYSIS - SEVEN FLUID OUNCE HOT DRINK PRODUCTS - MILLION SERVINGS
co
6
Energy^ Type 10 Btu
Process
Transportation
Material Resource
Total
6
Energy Source 10 Btu
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclhypwr
Wood Fiber
Fossil Fuel (%)
Wood Fiber (7.)
China
Cup
U100
554.7
115.7
10.1
680.5
180.7
372.5
99.6
21.1
6.6
95.9
1.2
China
Cup
Ul , 000
411.7
12.3
. 10.1
434.1
59.4
274.3
81.4
18.1
0.9
95.6
0.3
Hot
Mel ami ne
Cup
U100
475.8
10.4
64.5
550.8
71.8
356.9
93.4
20.7
7.9
94.8
1.8
Drink Systems
Mel ami ne
Cup
Ul.OOO
403.8
1.8
15.6
421.2
48.5
272.7
80.8
18.0
1.0
95.4
0.3
Paper Cup
LDPE Lined
(million)
526.1
18.8
23.6
568.5
94.0
172.4
119.3
9.1
173.7
67.8
30.6
Foam Cup
Polystyrene
(million)
405.4
42.3
123.3
571.0
297.7
225.7
30.9
5.8
10.8
97.1
1.9
Source: MRI.
-------
TABLE 18
ENERGY ANALYSIS - 9 INCH PLATE PRODUCT'S - MILLION SERVINGS
Energy Type 10 Btu
Process
to Transportation
0 Material Resource
Total
Energy Source 10 Btu
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclhypwr
Wood Fiber
Fossil Fuel (%)
Wood Fiber (%)
China
Plates
U100
688.1
271.5
9.0
968.6
349.7
478.6
112.1
23.6
4.6
97.1
0.5
China
Plates
Ul ,000
385.4
27.8
9.0
422.2
71.7
258.6
74.7
16.5
0.7
95.9
0.2
China
Plates
U6.900
356.7
4.6
9.0
370.3
45.3
237.6
71.2
15.9
0.3
95.6
0.1
Plate
Mel ami ne
Plates
U100
488.3
9.5
101.8
599.6
77.4
393.4
95.4
21.2
12.2
94.4
2.4
System
Mel ami ne
Plates
Ul.OOO
365.4
1.6
18.3
385.3
44.5
250.0
73.1
16.3
1.4
95.4
0.5
Paper Plate
White Press
(million)
706.7
38.3
3.1
748.1
131.0
193.6
161.4
10.6
251.5
65.0
33.6
Foam Plate
Polystyrene
(million)
660.4
412.9
675.9
1,479.2
785.8
502.9
140.1
29.4
21.1
96.6
1.4
Source: MRI.
-------
resource energy from 3 to 7 percent. The material resource energy is asso-
ciated with the polyester component of the cloth napkin and with any plastic
packaging. The reusable systems rely on fossil fuels for over 90 percent of
their system energy, while the paper napkin requires 72.6 percent fossil
fuel and 25 percent wood-derived energy.
(3) Table 14 - Diapers; Again, process energy is the
dominant type for the Diaper category. Transportation energy varies from
2 to 4 percent; for the reusable products, the variation is directly related
to the product use factor. The cloth systems dependance on fossil fuel is
greater than 90 percent. Commercial laundry systems use a higher percent-
age of fossil fuels for water heating than the home systems, which will
use more electricity and thereby a higher percentage of nuclear and hydro-
power. The disposable diaper system derives 27 percent of its energy from
wood residues.
(4) Table 15 - Sheets: The cloth sheet systems show
substantial amounts of materials resource energy (1 to 41 percent depending
on use factor) due to the polyester fiber comprising 50 percent of the sheet.
The disposable sheet has around 35 percent material resource energy contri-
buted by the polyethylene backing for the nonwoven fiber.' For the cloth
sheets the natural gas energy percentage varies from 33 percent for a low
use factor to around 90 percent for the 300-use sheets. Again, the natural
gas used to treat the wash water increases relative to electrical power
demand, as the use factor increases. The disposable sheet system derives
7.9 percent of its energy requirements from wood residues while the reusable
sheets depend almost entirely on fossil fuels.
(5) Tables 16 and 17 - Containers; The reusable products
are heavily dependent upon fossil fuels as their primary energy source.
The paper containers derive 20 to 30 percent of their energy requirements
from wood residues. The higher transportation energy for the china cup sys-
tems is primarily due to the energy used in transporting the postconsumer
waste to a landfill. The transportation energy varies from 20 percent of
the total at 100 uses of the china cup to 3 percent for 1,000 use of the
cup. Therefore, transportation of raw materials and postconsumer solid waste
become important considerations in the china systems. Both the glass and
china manufacturing steps use primarily natural gas as their energy source
thereby increasing the percentage of fossil fuels required for the system.
The thermoformed plastic cup system shows 49 percent and the foam cup 21
percent material resource energy.
(6) Table 18 - Plates; High transportation energy for
the china products is again due to the energy required to dispose of the
postconsumer solid waste, and to transport raw materials. This energy de-
creases to less than 2 percent for the expected life scenario of 6,900
uses for the china plate.
40
-------
The material resource energy for the plastic foam plate
represents 46 percent of the total system energy, while the paper system
shows only 0.4 percent of the total. The melamine plate system varies from
5 to 17 percent for material resource energy depending on the use factor.
The reusable systems depend on fossil fuels for over
95 percent of their energy, while the paper plate system derives 33.6 percent
of its energy from wood wastes.
b. Energy as a Function of Use Factors and Usage Patterns?
In this report, the use factor refers to the number of times the product
is used before discarding as solid waste. The usage pattern identifies the
number of times the product is used before it is washed. Only the towel
category has usage patterns greater than one throughout the report.
Figure 3 presents the relationship of cloth towel usage pat-
terns and total system energy. The energy values are plotted for 1, 2, 3,
4 and 5 uses before laundering for cloth towels having use factors of 32
and 100.' The figure shows the two-ply paper towel system to have a constant
total energy of 0.496 million Btu. Both the 32 and 100 use cloth towel sys-
tems have larger total energy values at the usage pattern of one use before
laundering. The 32 use cloth towel energy value becomes equal to the paper
towel energy value at around 3.5 uses before laundering. The 100 use cloth
towel energy reduces to the energy of the paper system at around 2.3 uses
before laundering. If only one paper towel is used per spill, the paper
system energy becomes 0.271 million Btu per 1,000 spills.
With a usage pattern of one, the paper towel has the most
favorable position with respect to energy use. As the usage pattern and/or
use factor for the cloth towel increases, the cloth towel energy position
becomes very competitive with the paper system. Taking into account the
varying use habits of households, there does not appear to be a disconcernible
difference in energy requirements between the reusable and disposable towel
products.
Figure 4 compares the energy of the cellulose sponge, at
various usage patterns, with the paper towel system. With multiple uses before
laundering, the sponge displays a favorable position with respect to total
energy use.
41
-------
Cloth Towel Use 32
Cloth Towel Use 100
Paper Towel (1830 Towels)
Paper Towel ( Less Wood
Wastes Energy )
234
Times Used Before Laundering (Reusables)
Figure 3 - Energy - Cloth Towel Usage Patterns Versus Paper Towel
(1,000 Spills)
o
0.5
0.4
0.3
. Sponge Use 100
_._ Paper Towel
____. Paper Towel ( Less Wood
Wastes Energy)
0.1
0
I
I
12345
Times Used Before Laundering (Reusables)
Figure 4 - Energy - Sponge Usage Patterns Versus Paper Towel
42
-------
The comparative energy analysis for the home and commercial
napkin systems is presented in Figure 5. The home napkin approaches a mini-
mum energy value of 0.695 million Btu. The 0.695 million Btu represents the
energy required to launder 1,000 napkins. As the use factor for the napkin
increases, the impacts for process other than laundering become very small.
The commercial cloth napkin system energy approaches 0.525 million Btu as
its minimum value. Therefore, both the one-ply and two-ply paper napkins
require the smaller amount of energy for 1,000 uses.
Figure 6 contains the energy analysis for the diaper systems.
The cloth system using home laundry approaches the energy of the disposable
diaper system. However, the cloth system using the commercial laundry re-
quires less energy than the disposable system after a use factor of around
five. The commercial system approaches a minimum energy of around 0.14 mil-
lion Btu per 100 changes.
Figure 7 shows the energy comparison of the cloth sheet and
nonwoven disposable sheet. Since energy estimates were made in the manu-
facturing step of the disposable sheet, the values in Figure 7 represent
our best estimate of the actual energy value. According to the data, the
reusable sheet requires less energy after around 20 uses. The estimate used
for the disposable sheet manufacturing step (0.157 million Btu per 1,000
sheets) represents 1.6 percent of the total disposable system. The estimate
used for the nonwoven fiber manufacture was 2.9 million Btu per 1,000 sheets
or 29 percent of the system total.
The energy comparisons of the cold and hot drink container
systems are presented in Figure 8. The reusable systems show less energy
than the disposable systems after a use factor of around 20, considering
commercial dishwashing only.
The energy analysis of the plate systems (Figure 9) .shows
that reusable systems use less energy after around 200 uses for the china
plate, and 50 uses for the melamine plate. The energy values represent re-
usable systems with commercial dishwashers.
B. Analysis of Environmental Outputs
1 2
1. Atmospheric Emissions:' Tables 19 through 24 contain tabulated
data for atmospheric emission summaries. The values have been grouped in
six categories: particles, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides,
carbon monoxide, and others. The first five pollutants generally account
for more than 95 percent of the total emissions. The "other" category in-
cludes all other pollutants.
I/ See comments No. 8-9 Appendix B, pages 7-8.
2/ See comments No. 12-13 Appendix B, page 8.
43
-------
l.Or
0.8
0.6
I 0.4
0.2
c
o
1-Ply Home Paper Napkin
Cloth - Home
~~~~~~ Cloth - Commercial
*~~* 2-Ply Comm. Paper Napkin
) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Times Used Before Discard (Reusable*)
Figure 5 - Energy - Cloth Napkins Versus Paper Napkins
100
D
CO
c
0
5
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
""" Cloth Comm. Laundry
Disposable Diaper
. Disposable Diaper
( Less Wood
^^^ Wastes Energy)
X
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Times Used Before Discard (Reusables)
Figure 6 - Energy - Cloth Diapers Versus Disposable Diapers
-------
c
o
12r
10
4
2
Cloth
Disposable
_.. Disposable ( Less Wood
Wastes Energy)
) 100 200 300
Times Used Before Discard (Reusables)
Figure 7 - Energy - Cloth Sheet Versus Disposable Sheet
45
-------
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
--Thermoformed Polystyrene Cup
Paper Wax Coated Cup
_l\ Paper Wax Coated Cup
(Less Wood Wastes Energy)
\
Polypropylene Tumbler
Glass Tumbler
I
200 400 600
Times Used Before Discard (Reusables)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0,
Figure 8 - Energy - Resuable Versus Disposable Containers (9 fl oz)
Polystyrene Foam Cup
Paper LDPE Lined Cup
China Cup
Melamine Cup
Paper LDPE Lined
(Without Wood
Waste Energy)
I
200 400 600
Times Used Before Discard (Reusables)
800
Figure 8a - Energy - Reusable Versus Disposable Containers (7 fl oz)
46
-------
1600r
1400-4
1200
1000
CO
o
China Plate
Melamine Plate
Plastic Foam
Paper
Paper ( Less
Wood Wastes
Energy)
200
1000
400 600 800
Times Used Before Discard (Reusables)
Figure 9 - Energy - Reusable Versus Disposable Plates
6000
47
-------
TABLE 19
ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS - TOWEL CATEGORY - 1,000 SPILLS
Pollutant
Particles
Nitrogen Oxides
Hydrocarbons
Sulfur Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Other
Total
Cloth
Towel
U100 LI
0.47
0.90
0.57
1.90
0.16
0.03
4.03
Cloth
Towel
U100 L5
0.16
0.25
0.15
0.50
0.06
0.01
1.13
Sponge
U100 LI
0.20.
0.41
0.27
0.86
0.07
0.15
1.96
Sponge
U100 L5
0.06
0.12
0.08
0.24
0.02
0.14
0.66
Paper
Towe 1
0.22
0.40
0.24
0.66
0.23
0.04
1.79
Source: MRI.
TABLE 20
ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS - NAPKIN CATEGORY - 1,000 MEALS
Pollutant
Particles
Nitroeen Oxides
Hydrocarbons
Sulfur Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Other
Total
Cloth
U54
Home
0.46
0.77
0.52
1.71
0.07
0.04
3.67
Cloth
U100
1 Home
0.38
0.70
0.46
1.52
0.13
0.01
3.22
Paper
One-Ply
Home
0.09
0.14
0.09
0.27
0.10
0.01
0.65
Cloth
U27
Commercial
0.25
0.53
0.61
0.55
0.21
0.06
2.21
Paper
Two-Ply
Commercial
0.17
0.30
0.16
0.49
0.12
0.03
1.27
Source: MRI.
48
-------
TABLE 21
ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
DIAPER CATEGORY - 100 CHANGES
Pollutant
Particles
Nitrogen Oxides
Hydrocarbons
Sulfur Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Other
Total
Cloth
U50
Commercial
0.03
0.10
0.14
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.39
Disposable
0.19
0.26
0.18
0.44
0.09
0.04
1.20
Source: MRI.
TABLE 22
ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
BEDDING CATEGORY - 1,000 CHANGES
Pollutant
Particles
Nitrogen Oxides
Hydrocarbons
Sulfur Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Other
Total
Cloth
Sheet
U100
1.00
3.71
5.65
2.61
1.29
0.27
14.53
Cloth
Sheet
U300
0.56
3.20
5.05
1.57
0.93
0.25
11.56
Disposable
Sheet
2.38
6.32
9.41
8.07
2.17
0.29
28.64
Source: MRI.
49
-------
o
TABLE 23
ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS - CONTAINER CATEGORY (MILLION SERVINGS)
Glass Polypropylene
Pollutant
Particles
Nitrogen Oxides
Hydrocarbons
Sulfur Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Other
Total
Tumbler
ui,ooo
9 Fl Oz
56
134
133
208
28
564
Tumbler
Ul.OOO
9 Fl. Oz
51
138
142
203
62
602
Paper
Wax
Cup
9 Fl Oz
191
293
260
568
262
40
1,614
Thermoformed
Polystyrene
Cup
9 Fl Oz
129
365
573
480
395
21
1,963
China
Cup
111,000
7 Fl Oz
145
320
318
471
140
1,407
Mel ami ne
Cup
Ul.OOO
7 Fl Oz
115
304
310
464
67
1,272
Paper
LDPE
Cup
7 Fl Oz
244
305
247
632
, 142
49
1,619
Foam
Polystyrene
Cup
7 Fl Oz
133
366
571
446
307
31
1,854
Source: MRI.
-------
TABLE 24
ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS - PLATE CATEGORY (MILLION SERVINGS)
Pollutant
Particles
Nitrogen Oxides
Hydrocarbons
Sulfur Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Other
Total
China
Ul.OOO
172
317
316
436
239
20
1,500
China
U6.900
110
270
269
407
81
9
1,146
Melamine
uioo
152
405
533
599
149
38
1,876
Melamine
Ul.OOO
105
277
288
422
64
9
1,165
Paper
272
391
274
782
253
59
2,031
Foam
Polystyrene
345
893
1,480
1,152
988
66
4,924
Source: MRI.
-------
Figures 10 through 15 present the atmospheric emissions data
graphically, for selected products in each product category. Figure 10
shows the primary pollutant for the towel category to be sulfur oxides.
For the cloth and sponge products, the sulfur oxides result from the burn-
ing of coal used to generate the electricity required in the manufacturing
steps. In the paper profile the sulfur oxides result from both power genera-
tion and papemaking process losses.
In Figure 11 the sulfur oxides emissions associated with the com-
mercial napkin are less than the home napkin due to the more common use of
natural gas rather than electricity to heat the laundry water.
Figures 12 and 13 show that the pollutant profiles for the cloth
products are similar, in relative proportions, to the cloth towels and nap-
kins. The disposable diaper profile is similar in makeup to the other paper
products. The disposable sheet shows higher hydrocarbon emissions than a
typical paper product, due to the emissions from the plastic film system.
Figures 14 and 15 show that the atmospheric emissions are fairly
evenly distributed between the five primary pollutants.
1,2,3
2. Waterborne Waste; The analyses of the waterborne waste impact
categories are presented in graphic form in Figures 16 through 21, and
numerically in Tables 25 through 30.
For all of the products, the primary impacts are dissolved solids,
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), suspended
solids, and dissolved solids. The pollutants reported in minor quantities
are listed in the "other" category.
The waterborne waste impacts are broken down in Figures 16 through
19 according to the primary impacts. The waterborne waste for the container
and plate category are divided into dissolved solids and other, since the
dissolved solids is so predominant in the dishwashing process.
1,4,5
3. Industrial Solid Waste; The industrial solid waste category
is divided into three sections: those impacts resulting from process, fuel
combustion, and mining/extraction operations. The results are presented
graphically in Figures 22 through 27, and numerically in Tables 31 through
36.
From Figure 22, the towel category products industrial solid waste
breakdown shows that process and mining wastes account for the largest pound-
age. The same is true for Figure 23, except the process solid wastes are
more predominant for the commercial cotton napkin and paper napkin. The
cotton napkin has more process wastes than the cotton-rayon" home napkin
due to the solids resulting from the cotton ginning process.
I/ See comments No. 8-9 Appendix B, pages 7-8.
2/ See comment No. 10 Appendix B, page 8.
3/ See comments Appendix J, pages 4, 22-31, and 33-34.
4/ See comment No. 11 Appendix B, page 8.
5/ See comments Appendix J, page 3 and 18-sO.
6/ Should be polyester-rayon.
52
-------
POUNDS ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
' S3 Co ^w tr
.
O O o O O C
4
C
u
.13
:::f±
loth
100L1
i
1.13
»*
Clc
i 10
1
I
5:4--
th
OL5
1.96
: ; *: :|j :
. .-.- . .
;i ?;;:;!
II
< II 1 1 1 i 1 ' I i
Sponge
u 100L
Carbon Monoxide
pWmd Sulfur Oxides
::::::::::::: Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
g::::: Particles
1.8
M ;....-..
"** '"'. '. ''. ''. '.' ' ''
\\ 0.66 1 jj || Si!
j| baiiiaajj | |llllllll llj
i Sponge Paper
1 u 100L5
Figure 10 - Atmospheric Emissions Towel Category - 1,000 Uses
53
-------
5.0
t/i
Z
o
1/1
t/i
u
oc
LU
X
Q.
(/I
O
1
VI
O
0.
4.0
2.0
1.0
3.7
3.0
3.2
0.65
Other
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
Particles
2.2
1.26
Cloth
u 54
Home
Cloth
u 100
Home
Paper
Home
Cloth
27
Comm
Paper
Comm
Figure 11 - Atmospheric Emissions Napkin Category
-------
INDS ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
o o K>
.
.N 00 KJ O O
2 o
i*
1
.6
::::::::::::
:::::::::-:::::::v':;:
s:::z"
>
»
!!"
Cloth
Home
u 100
: I
i*
0 39
i
1
i
2
:v:::::j:::|:|:x':::
II
1
m
:|:j
::;
Cloth Disposable
Comm
u 50
Figure 12 - Atmospheric Emissions Diaper Category
POUNDS ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
ro to ro
4x oo ro o- o 4x oo
.
oooooo oo
H| Other
Carbon Monoxide
Is! Sulfur Oxides
-
/o.o
*
liljjl Hydrocarbons
Ijll Nitrogen Oxides :
14.5
ixlvi-SSS-'iS:
!!'
>'
»»*'
!»'
fliiiif'ff'liifffffi
iiiiiiiiiiiiiniiii
Cloth
u 100
les
11.6
»**
>'
**<
!
>*»»*»*
rfrlfflfffftiffftli
Cloth
u300
'ivSijilx
*******'
*><
;X:-::
>**
'
>*»
!
Disposable
Figure 13 - Atmospheric Emissions Bedding Category
55
-------
2500
2000
Z
g
oo
oo
I
LU
u
Q£
UJ
X
Q.
00
o
Q
Z
D
O
Q.
1500
1000
564
500
Other
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Oxides
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
Particles
1614
1963
1853
1619
1408
1271
Glass Polypr Paper TF China Melam
u 1000 u 1000 Wax Polysty u 1000 u 1000
90Z 90Z 90Z 90Z 70Z 70Z
Paper Foam
LDPE Polysty
70Z 70Z
Figure li - Atmospheric Emissions Container Category
56
-------
POUNDS ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
5 b> w £ oi o>
§ 8 S 5 o o
2 Q o o o C
0 a o s o o
BH Other
Carbon Monoxide
::::::
'XX Sulfur Oxides
::::; Hy
Ni
drocarbons
hrogen Oxides
| ! 1 1 Ij !J| Particles
1
1500
ill
P
jiil
China
u 1000
1876
China Melomine
u 6900 u 100
^
165
:: ::
i iiil
tAelami
u 100C
;:: : !i
1
ie
)
2031
TMf
1
Pap
Hi!
er
1
»
:i
4923
MM
*****
III! : JHH
Foam
Polyst)
i*rtj
f
Figure 15 - Atmospheric Emissions Plate Category
57
-------
1.2
0.8
c
t»
o
« 0.6
o
3
e
0.4
0.2
1.0
0.475
Other
Suspended Solids
COD
BOD
Dissolved Solids
0.48
Cloth Cloth Sponge Sponge Paper
U100L1 U100L5 U100L1 U100L5
Figure 16 - Waterborne Wastes Towel Category (1,000 Spills)
Cloth
U100
Home
Cloth
U27
Comm
Other
Suspended Solids
COD
BOD
Dissolved Solids
Paper
Comm
Figure 17 - Waterborne Wastes Home and Commercial Napkin Category
(1,000 Meals)
58
-------
1.0
o
8 0.8
0)
I 0.6
£
I 0.4
I 0.2
0.36
Other
Suspended Solids
COD
BOD
Dissolved Solids
Cloth Cloth Disposoble
Home Comm
U100 U50
Figure 18 - Waterborne Wastes Diaper Category (100 Changes)
6.0
5.0
I 4.0
'
3.0
2.0
1.0
Cloth
U100
Cloth
U300
Disposable
Other
Suspended Solids
COD
BOD
Dissolved Solids
Figure 19 - Waterborne Wastes Bedding Category (1,000 Changes)
59
-------
1200
1000
800
o
E
1 600
I
o
o.
400
200
394
Ofher
Dissolved Solids
393
267
266
1142
1100
301
Glass Polypro. Paper TF China Melam.
U1000 U1000 Wax C Polysty. U1000 U1000
9oz. 9 oz. 9oz. 9oz. 7oz. 7oz.
253
Paper Foam
LDPE Polysty.
7oz. 7oz.
Figure 20 - Waterborne Wastes - Container Category (million servings)
60
-------
1200r-
1000
800
v
600
I
400
200
915
827
Other
Dissolved Solids
891
820
609
363
China
U1000
China
U6900
Melam.
U100
Melam.
U1000
Paper
Foam
Poly sty.
Figure 21 - Waterborne Wastes - Plate Category (million servings)
61
-------
TABLE 25
WATEKBORNE WASTES - TOWEL CATEGORY - 1,000 SPILLS
Pollutant
Dissolved Solids
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Alkalinity
Other
Total
Cloth
U100 LI
0.189
0.296
0.071
0.270
0.001
0.177
1.004
Cloth
U100 L5
. 0.046
4 0.064
0.063
0.096
0.000
0.314
Sponge
U100 LI
0.102
0,149
0.035
0.109
0.000
0.475
Sponge
U100 L5
0.039
0.045
0.032
0.031
0.000
0.167
Paper
Two-Plv
0.093
0.159
0.002
0.197
0.000
0.478
Source: MRI.
TABLE 26
WATERBORNE WASTES - NAPKIN CATEGORY - 1,000 MEALS
Pollutant
Dissolved Solids
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Alkalinity
Other
Total
Cloth
U54
Home
0.162-
0.235
0.163
0.200
0.000
0.156
0.916
Cloth
U100
Home
0.147
0.225
0.092
0.182
0.000
0.142
0.788
Paper
One-Ply
Home
0.034
0.064
0.001
0.071
0.000
0.009
0.179
Cloth
U27
Commercial
0.149
0.123
0.216
0.253
0.000
0.088
0.829
Paper
Two-Ply
Commercial
0.067
0.139
0.001
0.171
0.000
0.022
0.400
Source: MRI.
62
-------
TABLE 27
WATERBORNE WASTES - DIAPER CATEGORY - 100 CHANGES
Pollutant
Dissolved Solids
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Alkalinity
Other
Total
0.075
0.249
0.013
0.198
0.000
0.066
0.601
Cloth
U50
Commercial
0.035
0.038
0.033
0.051
0.000
0.020
0.177
Disposable
0.058
0.103
0.040
0.129
0.000
0.026
0.356
Source: MRI.
TABLE 28
WATERBORNE WASTES - BEDDING CATEGORY - 1,000 USES
Pollutant
Dissolved Solids
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Alkalinity
Other
Total
Cloth
U100
1.286
1.123
0.966
1.330
0.002
0.639
5.346
Cloth
U300
M.177
1.085
0.618
1.157
0.002
0.574
4.613
Disposable
1.467
0.923
0.291
1.224
0.000
0.449
4.354
Source: MRI*
63
-------
TABLE 29
:WATERBORNE WASTES - CONTAINER CATEGORY (MILLION SERVINGS)
Pollutant
Dissolved Solids
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Other
Total
Glass
Tumbler
111,000
9 Fl Oz
355
6
6
9
18
394
Polypropylene
Tumbler
1)1,000
9 Fl Oz
357
4
6
8
18
393
Paper
Wax
Cup
9 Fl Oz
104
70
2
69
22
267
Thermoformed
Pol ystyrene
Cup
9 Fl Oz
165
30
21
25
25
266
China
Cup
U 1,000
7 Fl Oz
1,022
13
19
41
47
1,142
Mel ami ne
Cup
Ul.OOO
7 Fl Oz
1,015
11
15
20
39
1,100
Paper
LDPE
Cup
7 Fl Oz
72
103
2
101
23
301
Foam
Polystyrene
Cup
7 Fl Oz
167
41
8
23
14
253
Source: MRI.
-------
TABLE 30
WATERBORNE WASTES - PLATE CATEGORY (MILLION SERVINGS)
China China Melamine Melamine
Pollutant Ul,000 116,900 UIOO Ul.OOP Paper Polystyrene
Dissolved Solids 760 743 774 743 92 356
BOD . 12 9 23 10 115 90
COD 21 15 14 13 1 41
Suspended Solids 67 24 32 18 130 63
Other " 55 36 49 36 22 59
Total 915 827 892 820 364 609
Source: MRI.
65
-------
12
10
6
c
I 4
12.14
Mining
Fuel Combustion
Process
Cloth
U100L1
Cloth
U100L5
Sponge
U100L1
Sponge
U100L5
Figure 22 - Industrial Solid Waste (Pounds) Towel Category (1,000 Spills)
10
8
1/1
. 6
I
VI
1 4
3
<£
2
0
10.61
10.68
Mining
FueJ Combustion
Process
Cloth
U54
Home
Paper
2-Ply
Comm.
Figure 23 - Industrial Solid Waste (Pounds) Napkin Category (1,000 Meals)
66
-------
"I 2
J
1
Cloth
Comm.
U50
Mining
Fuel Combustion
Process
Figure 24 - Industrial Solid Waste (Pounds) Diaper Categery UOO Changes)
Mining
Fuel Combustion
Process
Cloth
U100
Cloth Disposable
U300
Figure 25 - Industrial Solid Waste (Pounds) Bedding Category (1,000 Changes)
67
-------
6000 r-
5000
40001
-o
J
3000f-
20001
Mining
Fuel Combustion
Process
5558
10001
Glass Polypro. Paper TF China Melam. Paper Foam
U1000 U1000 Wax C Polysty. U1000 U1000 LDPE Pol/sty.
9oz. 9oz. 9oz. 9oz. 7 oz. 7 oz. 7 oz. 7oz.
Figure.26 - Industrial Solid Waste (Pounds) Container Category (Million Changes)
68
-------
7243
7000 r-
Mining
Fuel Combustion
Process
China
U1000
China
U6900
Melam.
U100
Melam. Paper Foam
U1000 Uncoared Polysty.
Figure 27 - Industrial Solid Waste (Pounds) Plate Category (Million Servings)
69
-------
TABLE 31
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE - TOWEL CATEGORY (1,000 SPILLS)
Solid Waste Type
Process (lb)
Fuel Combustion (lb)
Mining/Extraction (lb)
Total (lb)
Total (cu ft)
Cloth
U100 LI
4.92
1.91
5.31
12.14 '
0.16
Cloth
U100 L5
1.84
0.50
1.43
3.77
0.05
Sponge
U100 LI
1.94
0.86
2.39
5.19
0.07
Sponge
U100 L5
0.56
0.23
0.65
1.44
0.02
Source: MRI.
TABLE 32
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE - NAPKIN CATEGORY (1,000 MEALS)
Paper
Two-Ply
1.86
0.46
1.06
3.38
0.02
Solid Waste Type
Process (lb)
Fuel Combustion (lb)
Mining/Extraction (lb)
Total (lb)
Total (cu ft)
Cloth
U54
Home
IWl^HMMIH
4.20
1.63
4.78
10.61
0.14
Cloth
U100
Home
3.58
1.48
4.23
9.29
0.12
Paper
One-Ply
Home
0.78
0.16
0.34
1.28
0.02
Cloth
U27
Commercial
8.55
0.53
1.60
10.68
0.75
Cloth
Two-Ply
Commercial
1.92
0.35
0.79
3.06
0.37
Source: MRI.
70
-------
TABLE 33
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE - DIAPER CATEGORY (100 CHANGES)
Solid Waste
Type
Cloth
U100
Home
Cloth
U50
Commercial
Disposables
Processes (Ib)
Fuel Combustion (Ib)
Mining/Extraction (Ib)
Total (Ib)
Total (cu ft)
1.81
0.77
2.13
4.71
0.64
1.99
0.07
0.21
2.27
0.03
1.58
0.39
0.85
2.82
0.04
Source: MRI.
TABLE 34
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE - BEDDING CATEGORY (1,000 USES)
Solid Waste Cloth
Type U100
Process (Ib) 64.50
Fuel Combustion (Ib) 2.38
Mining/Extraction 7.21
Total (Ib) 74.09
Total (cu ft) 1.00
Cloth
U300
59.49
1.47
4.49
65.45
0.88
Disposable
18.80
7.34
19.28
35.42
0.61
Source: MRI.
71
-------
TABLE 35
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE - CONTAINER CATEGORY (MILLION SERVINGS)
Pollutant
Process (Ib)
Fuel Combustion (Ib)
Mining/Extraction (Ib)
Total (Ib)
Total (cu ft)
Glass
Tumbler
Ul.OOO
9 Fl Oz
113
213
690
1,016
13.7
Polypropylene
Tumbler
Ul.OOO
9 Fl Oz
102
210
632
944
12.8
Paper
Wax
Cup
9 Fl Oz
2,280
1,031
775
4,086
55.16
Thermoformed
Polystyrene
Cup
9 Fl Oz
920
396
942
2,258
30.50
China
Cup
Ul.OOO
7 Fl Oz
421
483
2,195
3,099
41.8
Melamine
Cup
Ul.OOO
7 Fl Oz
246
476
1,446
2,916
29.3
Paper
LDPE
Cup
7 Fl Oz
3,432
1,355
771
5,558
75.03
Foam
Polystyrene
Cup
7 Fl Oz
437
280
486
1,203
16.23
Source; MRI.
-------
UJ
TABLE 36
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE - PLATE CATEGORY (MILLION SERVINGS)
Solid Waste
Type
Process . (Ib)
Fuel Combustion (Ib)
Mining/Extraction (Ib)
Total (Ib)
Total (cu ft)
China
Ul.OOO
653
446
3,038
4,137
55.8
China
U6.900
272
419
1,522
2,213
29.9
Melamine
U100
404
573
1,662
2,639
35.6
Melamine
Ul.OOO
227
430
1,305
1,962
26.5
Paper
4,503
1,883
857
7,243
97.78
Foam
Polystyrene
1,952
978
2,226
5,156
69.60
Source: MRI.
-------
Figure 24 shows a different profile for the home and commercial
diaper systems, which is attributed to the larger quantity of detergents'
per pound of home laundry than for commercial laundry. In Figure 25, the
high ratio of process wastes for cloth bedding is attributed to the raw
materials required in the washing process. Figures 26 and 27 show a high
ratio of mining wastes for the glass and china products.
1,2,3,4,5,6
4. Postconsumer Solid Waste; Table 37 contains the postconsumer
solid waste data for each product. The first column shows the rounded values
for the weight of one product item, in pounds. The second column shows the
pounds of packaging material associated with one product item. Corrugated
materials were assumed to be recycled and therefore not considered to enter
the solid waste stream. In most instances, packaging represents plastic
wrapping film, with a small amount of paper wrapping and paper cartons. The
comparison basis describes the number of use situations selected to compare
the products; and the use factor shows the number of times the product is
used before entering the PCSW stream. The pounds of PCSW as product is ob-
tained by multiplying the weight per product item times the number of items
required in the comparison. The pounds of packaging entering the PCSW stream
is found by multiplying the items for comparison by the pounds of PCSW
packaging per .product item.
The total pounds column is the sum of the product and packaging
contribution to PCSW. The volume figures are taken from the computer
out, and represent the estimated landfill volume associated with each
duct, with the comparison basis and use factor values taken into considera-
tion. Since density values for the products vary from source to source,
and compaction values are only estimates, the PCSW volumes represent best
estimates as to the actual landfill volume experienced.
I/ See comments No. 8-9 Appendix B, pages 7-8.
2/ See comment No. 11 Appendix B, page 8.
3/ See comment No. 1 Appendix B, page 23.
4/ See comments Appendix C, pages 2-3.
5/ See comment No. 3 Appendix J, page 2.
6/ See comments Appendix J, pages 4 and 33.
74
-------
TABIB 37
SUMMARY OF POST CONSUMER SOI.lt> WASTE DATA
-J
Ui
Towels
Cloth
Sponge
Paper
Hepktng
II Cloth
II Cloth
II Paper
C Cloth
C Paper
Diapers
11 Cloth
C Cloth
Disposable
Bedding
Cloth
Cloth
Disposable
Containers
Cold
Class
Polypropylene
Papcr-Hai
Thermofotned Polystyrene
Hot
China
Hclamlne
Paper LDPK
Foam Polyatyrene
Plates
China
China
Me lamina
He lamlne
Paper
Foam Polyatyrene
Pounds
Per One
Product
0.132
0.059
0.010
0.097
0.097
0.0053
0.100
0.0137
0.137
0.137
0.105
1.124
1.124
0.238
0.291
0.088
0.0146
0.0140
0.64
0.266
0.01465
0.0044
1.51
1.51
0.453
0.453
0.0234
0.0261
Pounds
PCSU
Package Per Comparison
One Product Basis
1,000 Splits
0.002
0.0044
0.00015
1,000 Meals
0.002 <
0.002
0.00012
0.002
0.0002
100 Changes
0.0013
0.0013
0.028
1.000 Changes
0.0234
0.0234
-0-
Mllllun Servings
-0-
0.008
0.00016
0.00012
-0-
-0-
0.00039
0.00028
-0-
-O-
-0-
-0-
0.00010
0.00035
Use Factor
100
100
1
54
100
1
27
1
100
SO
1
too
300
1
1.000
1.000
1
1
1.000
1.000
1
1
1.000
6.900
too
1,000
I
1
Items
Per
Comparison
10
10
l.BoOi/
18.5
10
1,000
37.0
1.000
1.47H/
2.94
I03£/
10
3.3
1.000
1.000
1.000
Million
Million
1,000
1,000
Million
Million
1.000
145
10.000
1,000
Million
Million
Pounds
PCSH As
Product
1.32
0.59
18.60
1.79
0.97
5.30
3.7
13.7
0.20
0.40
10.82
11.24
3.75
238.0
291.0
88
14,600
14.000
640
266
14,650
4.400
1.510
219
4,530
453
23,400
26,100
Pounds
PCSH As
Package
0.02
0.04
0.28
0.04
0.02
0.12
0.07
0.20
0.00
0.00
2.88
0.23
0.08
-0-
-0-
8.0
160
120
-0-
-0-
390
280
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
100
350
Total
Pounds
PCSH
1.34
0.63
18.88
1.83
0.99
5.42
3.77
13.90
0.20
0.40
13.70
11.47
3.83
238.0
291
96
14,760
14,120
640
266
15,040
4.680
1,510
219
4.530
453
23,500
26.450
Volume
PCSU
Cu ft
0.026
0.009
0.266
0.035
0.019
0.089
0.073
0.221
0.004
0.008
0.190
0.220
0.073
3.737
1.833
1.413
241.4
186.8
3.26
3.52
236.9
761.2
7.70
1.12
60.0
6.0
367.7
4.582.5
£/ 1.86 paper towels are used per spill.
b/ 147 diapers are required for 100 changes due to double diapering, etc.
£/ 1.03 disposable diapers per change Is average practice.
-------
TABLE 38
VOLUME CALCULATIONS FOR POSTCONSUMER SOLID WASTE
Product/Material
Paper Cup
Cloth Products
Density
Pound Per
Cu Ft!/
58-72
45-52
Pounds To
Landfill Per
1,000 Ib PCSW^
910
910
Percent
Compaction
Assumed
100
100
Cubic
Feet in
Landfill
15.7
19.9
Thermoformed Polysty-
rene Cup
Foam Polystyrene Plate
Cup
Polypropylene Tumbler
Melamine, Plate, Cup
Sponge (Cellulose)
China Plate, Cup
Glass
Polyethylene
68.7
910
2.651
56.8
92.4
90.0
196.6
158.0
56.8
910
910
1,000
910
1,000
1,000
910
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
13.2
172.0
16.0
10.8
10.1
5.1
6.3
16.0
a/
£/
I/
Density values given in the open literature and those obtained from industry
sources show wide variations. Therefore, the landfill volume attributed
to the products as shown in this report, are only approximations to actual
landfill volume
Approximately 9 percent of the combustible products are incinerated.
Estimate only.
I/ See comment No. 8 Appendix J, page 39.
76
-------
CHAPTER 5
REPA PROFILE ANALYSIS FOR EACH PRODUCT CATEGORY
This chapter presents materials flow diagrams, detailed REPA
computer tables, and brief discussions of the product profiles. The fol-
lowing paragraph explains the data format in the computer tables*
A. Interpretation of REPA Computer Tables
The REPA profile tables present the inputs, outputs, summary
values, and environmental index'values for each product type. For example,
Table 39 represents REPA data for a cloth towel profile with a use factor
of 32 and laundry factor of 1. The input section shows the quantities of
raw materials, energy, and water required by the particular scenarios under
discussion. The output section identifies and quantifies the primary air,
water, and solid waste pollutants associated with the product profile.
In the summary section, the components of each impact category are combined
and expressed as the total quantity of a particular impact category. For
example, the sum of the 14 air emission pollutants is shown under air emis-
sion.
The index values represent the percent contribution a process
in the total profile has relative to the total value of a particular impact
category* For example, in Table 39 the total values for each product profile
are presented in the last column "Cotton Towel Sys, Tot, 32 Uses." The
total amount of raw materials is 10.310 pounds, the total energy is 1.188
million Btu, etc. The energy contribution for the towel wash process (5th
column) is 0.941 million Btu. Under the index section, the percent contri-
bution of the towel wash process (79.2) to the total cloth towel system
energy (1.188 million Btu) is calculated by dividing the wash process energy
by the system total energy and converting to percent (0.941 -r 1.188) x
100 = 79.2 percent. The index section is a valuable analysis aid, since
the reader can rapidly pick out the processes in the total profile which
contribute the highest or lowest percentages in each impact category.
The detailed analyses of the tables are left to the reader. This
study involves 23 separate products with numerous scenarios presented for
the reusable items. An in-depth analysis of each product or product scenario
is beyond the intended scope of the contract. The important aspects of the
study results are presented in the summary chapter (Chapter 2). The detailed
computer printouts are presented in Chapter 5 to enable the reader to obtain
the analysis detail desired. These data can be used with the very detailed
appendix data to study the total system profiles in-depth.
77
-------
In general, the washing or laundering impacts for the reusable
items account for the majority of the impacts in their REPA profiles* Re-
garding the disposable paper products, the pulp manufacturing and paper-
making steps generally account for around 75 percent of the impacts. The
transportation processes for the disposable products account for 2 to 6
percent of the total system energy, with 2 or 3 percent being the most
common* The profiles for the disposable plastic products show that the
resin systems account for the majority of the impacts. The manufacturing
energy becomes an important part of the profile of the foam plastic
products.
The material-flow diagrams and the REPA computer data for the
product profiles, are presented in Figures 28 through 50 and Tables 39
through 62.
78
-------
Fertilizer System
20.0
Cotton Growing,
Cultivating,
Harvesting
Cotton Spinning
& Weaving
134.6
Cotton Towel
Finishing
One Thousand
Cotton Towels
(132lb)
Figure 28 - Flow Diagram for Cotton Towel System (1,000 Towels)
(Pounds)
-------
Oo
O
Natural Gas
Production
Sodium Sulfate
Production
One Thousand
Cellulose Sponges
(59 Ib)
Figure 29 - Flow Diagram for Cellulose Sponge System (1,000 Sponges)
(Pounds)
-------
Paper 10.43
Core Stock 0.366 ib
Pol/Wrappers 0.179 Ib
Corrugated 0.984 Ib
Inks, Adhesive* 0.169 Ib
Manufacture of
1000 Sq Ft 2-Ply
Consumer Towels
Product 9.87 Ib
Packaging 1.16 Ib
i
Scrap (for reuse) 1.095 Ib
a/ Includes approximately 5 percent moisture.
Figure 30 - Materials Requirements for 1,000 Square Feet, Two-Ply Consumer Towels
81
-------
OO
N)
Naturol Gas 27.9
Production
i
Natural
oo a *- > i 1 i o o
Gas "-> _ Elhylene) IJ-V _
Processing """ Mfg 1 """ (
0.5
Cr
Pr
D-
H]
4.5
Sulfur 18.0 Corbon
Mining Bisulfide
19.4 "
8.2
Oxygen ''" Acelaldehyde
Mfg *" Mfg
12.6
Methano!
Mfg . 1 .
Tereplitnalate ^o.o
Acid Mrg *
20.3
ude Oil
aduction P-xylene
21.0 i.
20.5
sti Motion 20-8_1 . .
. . . H Reforming
^drolreal |
19.5
Mfg
Sulfuric 57.4
Elhylene 14-° Ethylene
Dxide Mfg ^ Glycol Mfg
.7 1
Dimethyl 55 g Polyetl
Mfg Resin ^
18.3] Melhanol |
». Polyf
Rayon 57-4 Rayo
Mfg Napl
Mfg
IB. 2
tylene
lhalate
%
;ster. One Thousand
n ^ Cloth Napkins
cin Home Use
(97.4lb)
* Acid Mfg "
Salt 29.3 Sodium
Mining "~ Hydroxide
IBJ.l
Wood Harvest 1 »
(
1.0
OH UCS
37.3
Mfg
pKf.?rf' 41.7
System
Figure 31 - flaw Diagram' for Polyescur-itayon Home Napkin System (1,000 Napkins)
(founds)
-------
Paper 5.59 IbS/
Cartons 0.0539 Ib
Poly Wrappers 0.154 Ib
Corrugated 0.975 Ib
Inks, Adhesives 0.099 Ib
Manufacture of
1000 Single-Ply
Consumer Napkins
Product 5.29 Ib
Packaging 1.18 Ib
Scrap (for reuse) 0.40 Ib
a/ Includes approximately 5 percent moisture.
Figure 32 - Materials Requirements for 1,000 Single-Ply Consumer Napkins
83
-------
Fertilizer System
15.2
oo
Cotton Growing,
Cultivating,
Harvesting
Cotton Spinning
& Weaving
102.0
Cotton Napkin
Finishing
One Thousand
Commercial
Cotton Napkins
(lOOIb)
Figure 33 - Flow Diagram for Commercial Cotton Napkin System (1,000 Napkins)
(Pounds)
-------
Paper 14.46 Ib2/
£ ,
Cartons 0.179 Ib
Poly Wrappers 0.0734 Ib
Paper Wrappers 0.0332 Ib
Corrugated 1.18 Ib
Manufacture of
1000 2-Ply
Industrial Napkins
Product 13.71 Ib
Packaging 1.47 Ib
Scrap (for reuse) 0.753 Ib
a/ Includes approximately 5 percent moisture
Figure 34 - Materials Requirements for 1,000 Two-Ply Industrial Napkins
85
-------
00
Cf-
Fertilizer System
0.2
Cotton Growing,
Cultivating,
Harvesting
16.0
Cotton
Ginning
15.2
Cotton Spinning
& Weaving
14.0
Cotton Diaper
Mfg
One Hundred
Cotton Diapers
(13.7lb)
Figure 35 - Flow Diagram for Cotton Cloth Diaper System (100 Diapers)
(Pounds)
-------
Tissue 1.50IB2/
PEFilm0.98lb
Rayon 0.46 Ib
Acrylic Resin 0.33 Ib
Polyester 0.018 Ib
Crepe Wadding 0.110 Ib5/
Fluffing Pulp 7.92 Ib2/
Other Materials 0.015 Ib
Corrugated 1.22 Ib
Cartons 1.57 Ib
Poly Wrappers 0.015 Ib
Other Non Woven 0.137
Manufacture of
100 Disposable
Diapers
Product 10.5 Ib
Packaging 2.81 Ib
Waste
0.02 Ib
Scrap (for reuse)
0.781 Ib
a/ Includes approximately 5 percent moisture.
b/ Includes sulfite fiber, cotton, and nylon thread.
Figure 36 - Materials Requirements for 100 Disposable Diapers
87
-------
00
CO
Terephthalic
Acid Mfg
Dimethyl
Terephthalate
Mfg
834
Polyethylene
Terephthalate
Resin Mfg
307
273
Methanol
P-xylene
Extraction
Cotton Spinning,
Weaving
440
One Thousand
Cloth Sheets
Figure 37 - Flow Diagram for Polyester-Cotton Sheet System (1,000 Sheets)
(Pounds)
-------
oo
Wood Harvest
Wood Residues
Natural Gas
Production
Crude Oil
Production
Pulp and
Paper System
131
Natural Gas
Processing
45
Distillation
129
Ethylene
Mfg
121
43
Ethylene
Mfg
40
107.4
Disposable
Sheet Mfg
143.2
Low Density
Polyethylene
Film Mfg
161
150.4
Low Density
Polyethylene
Resin Mfg
One Thousand
Disposable Sheets
Figure 38 - Flow Diagram for Disposable Sheet System (1,000 Sheets)
(Pounds)
-------
vO
o
Limestone
AAi ninn
Soda Ash
Mining
Glass Sand
Mining
C_ 1 J- _,
relaspar
OlUor
\jit\eT
26,772 ^
4O 7X1
4r, /o 1
62,856
193,806
21,825
2,910
Lime
Mfa
11 ODZ
IJ, OOO
1
Glass Tumbler
Manufacfure
One Million
Glass Tumblers
(291,000 Ib)
Figure 39 - Flow Diagram for 9 Fluid Ounce Glass Tumbler System (Million Tumblers)
(Pounds)
-------
Natural Gas
Production
76,032
Natural Gas
Processing
69,960
Crude Oil
Production
25,080
Distillation
Polypropylene
Resin Mfg
88,440
Polypropylene
Tumbler Mfg
(9floz)
T
One Million Polypropylene Tumblers
(88,000 Ibs)
Figure 40 - Flow Diagram for 9 Fluid Ounce Polypropylene Tumbler System (Million Tumblers)
(Founds)
-------
vO
ro
Natural Gas
Production
3,312
Natural Gas
Processing
3,050
Crude Oil
Production
13,494
Distillation
12,340
Reforming
Toluene
Dealkylation
Polystyrene
Cup Mfg
(9 fl oz
Thermoformed )
T
One Million
Polystyrene Cups
(13,960lb)
Figure 41 - Flow Diagram for 9 Fluid Ounce Thermoformed Polystyrene Cup System (Million Cups)
(Pounds)
-------
Bleached Fop.i/bi.ard 12,490
Wax f-..fating) 5,380 Ib
Poly Bogs 160 Ib
Cartons 350 Ib
Corrugated 1,270 Ib
Inserts and Protectors 100 Ib
Conversion of
One Million Cups
Cups 14,600lb
Packaging 1,880 Ib
Waste 170 Ib Scrap (for Reuse) 3,100 Ib
a/ Includes Approximately 6 Percent Moisture
Figure 42 - Materials Requirements for 9 Fluid Ounce Wax Coated Paper Cold
Drink Cups (Million Cups)
93
-------
Bauxite Mining
166,400
Clay Mining
Nepheline Syenite
Mining
Flint Mining
Feldspar Mining
Glaze System
Plaster System
Alumina Mfg
99,968
280,000
99,968
209,984
60,032
40,000
30,016
One Million
China Cups
(640,000 Ib)
Figure 43 - Flow Diagram for 7 Fluid Ounce China Cup System (Million Cups)1
(Pounds)
I/ See comments Appendix I, pages 3, 19 and 21.
-------
U)
Natural Gas
Production
238,070
Natural Gas
Processing
Tree Harvest
72,981
Wood Residue
45,898
75,012
Ammonia Mfg
235,942
99,484
Carbon Dioxide Mfg
60,116
Methanol
Mfg
72,618
Bleached
Market
Pulp Mfg
Formaldehyde
Mfg
62,244
72,884
410,172
Melamine
Resin Mfg
135,128
Melamine
Molding
Compound
Mfg
267,330
Melamine
Cup Mfg
One Million
1 Melamine Cups
(266,000 Ib)
Figure 44 - Flow Diagram for 7 Fluid Ounce Melamine Cup System (Million Cups)
(Pounds)
-------
Natural Gas
Production
1313
Natural Gas
Processing
1074
1004
vd
Crude Oil
Production
4444
Distillation
Hydrotreat
4064
Reforming
Toluene
Dealkylation
Polystyrene
Resin Mfg
Isopentane 220
4650
Polystyrene
Foam Sheet
and Cup Mfg
(7fl oz)
T
One Million
Polystyrene
Foam Cups
(4,400lb)
Figure 45 - Flow Diagram for 7 Fluid Ounce Foam Polystyrene Cup System (Million Cups)
(Pounds)
-------
vD
J
LDPE Coated Paperboard 19,280
Paper Bags 390 Ib
Cartons 150 Ib
Corrugated 1,550 Ib
Other 60 Ib
Conversion of One
Million Cups
Cups U,650lb
Packaging 1.990 Ib
Waste 380 Ib Scrap (for Reuse) 4.410 Ib
a/ Paperboard is Approximately 6 Percent Moisture
Figure 46 - Material Requirements for 7 Fluid Ounce LDPE Lined Paper
Hot Drink Cups (Million Cups)
-------
\0
Bauxite Mining
392,600,
Clay Mining
Nepheline Syenite
Mining
Flint Mining
Feldspar Mining
Glaze System
Plaster System
Alumina Mfg.
229,973
690.070
210,041
480,029
160,060
89,996
80,030
China
Plate
Mfg
One Million
China Plates
(1,510.000 Ib)
Figure 47 - Flow Diagram for China Plate System (Million Plates)
(Pounds)
-------
o
o
Natural Gas
Production
405,435
Tree Harvest.
326,160
Wood Residue
205,121
Natural Gas
Processing
127,746
Ammonia Mfg
401,811
169,422
Carbon Dioxide Mfg
102,378
Met ha no I
Mfg
123,669
Bleached
Market
Pulp Mfg
Formaldehyde
Mfg
106,002
124,122
698,526
Melamine
Resin Mfg
230,124
Melamine
Molding
Compound
Mfg
455,265
Melamine
Plate Mfg
One Million
Melamine Plates
(453,000 Ib)
Figure 48 - Flow Diagram for Melamine Plate System (Million Plates)
(Pounds)
-------
Natural Gas
Production
7,298
Natural Gas
Processing
7,664
Polystyrene
Resin Mfg
26,610
Isopentane 1,040
Polystyrene
Foam Plate
Mfg
One Million
Polystyrene
Foam Plates
(26,100lb)
Figure 49 - Flow Diagram for Polystyrene Foam Plate System (Million Plates)
-------
Paperboard 28, 165 Ib
S/
Poly Bags 120 ib
Corrugated 945 Ib
Conversion of One
Million Plates
Plates 23,360 Ib
Packaging 880 Ib
Waste 20 Ib Scrap (for Reuse) 4,970 Ib
a/ Includes Approximately 6 Percent Moisture
Figure 50 - Material Requirements for 9-Inch Round Clay Coated Pressed Paper
Plates (Million Plates)
102
-------
TABLE 39
tlOUHCC INO tNVltONMlNTJL PROflLi ANALYSIS
ONI TMOU CLOTH TOUILS UK It LI
INPUTS
SUPMAN
|NOl«
TO SYSTEMS
NAMC
NATCRUL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATt IH1NC
MATERIAL .oou FIBER
MATCRUL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IKON DDE
MATERIAL SALT
NATEMIAL uLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SUDA ASH
MATERIAL FtLOSPAN
ENtRGT SUUBCt PETMOLEUM
ENERGY SUU-Cf NAt in*
ENERGY SOOMCk COAL
ENERGY SOUMCE "ivt
ENERGY <0(t.CE .OOP FIRE'
ENERGY suuxct XYUHOBOHER
MATFR1AL POfASx
MATERIAL MxQSPxATE HOCK
MATERIAL CIA*
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL x'ucets AOD
ENtRGY PMbCtSS
ENERGY TPAKSPU*T
tNIBAv Of MA7t. PfbOURCt
ATFM VDLUMIl
>.AM(
SOLID »ASTtS Pt.OCf.SS
SOLID .ASUS fUEL CUMM
SOLID >AS7ES MINIMI-
SOt 10 »ASIl POST-CUMSUH
ATMOSPHERIC PtJTir.IOf
ATMOS PAMTICULATES
4TMOS NlTMOIiEN 0>IDES
ATxOS MYOMOCAR'iONS
tTMOS SUL'V- 0'IOIS
ATMOS CARHON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALUtxTOES
ATMO« OTxtw UP1AN1CS
ATMOS OuOxuuS SULfUH
ATMOS AMMONIA
A1HOS HTllMQl.fN FLODRInf
AT.OS LCAU
ATMIIS MfRCuMt
AT.OSPMrMK CxLOMlNc
ATF.MXUMNC UIS SULIUS
.ATfRDORNf FkUPM|nE%
ATF.RHOXNt DISS SOLID*
ATCBFiOBNE (tUD
*AT£R*OUNt MxENOL
ATEBHOMMt SULFIDES
>AT;RP.OMNt OIL
>4TE*KOPNE COD
MATERRORNt SUSP SUL1DS
ArERRuPNt ACID
ATFRDOMNC MCTAL ION
TfPQOBNt C-IE.MICAI.S
ATFMUOMNE IMON
AIEMHOMNt ALUMINUM
ATrHROfNL NICufL
MATEUp.OMNt MtMCUPY
.A7ERNOMNi LLAI,
ATFBMORNt PXOSPx'ATES
.trEPPOMNI IINC
.ATFRHUMNt AMMONIA
.ATERP.OPNE NITROGEN
ATFRflOMNE PISTIC10C
Y Of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT*
NAME
HA. MATERIALS
EMfPOY
.ATEO
INDUSTRIAL SOLID MASTfS
ATM EMM ISS IONS
BATCRIOPNC (ASTCS
POIT'CONSUPtv SOL MATERIALS
ENERGY
ATER
INOUSTKIAL SOLID »ASTES
ATM CNMISSIONS
ATtOBOPNt >ASTCS
POST-CONSUNCM SOL HASTE
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCC NAT GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
CMEBOY IOUSCE NUCL MTP>R
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD VASTC
UNITS
POUNU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
MILL RTU
MILL »TU
MILL R'u
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL "TU
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
"OUNO
POUNDS
MIL 8TU
MIL *Tu
MIL »TU
7MOU GAL
UNI7S
POUND
POUND
POUNO
CUBIC FT
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
Mf)IINO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL BTU
THOU «AL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
MIL ITU
NIL ITU
MIL ITU
MIL R.TU
Nil ITU
STANDARD
VALUES
10.110
1.168
.643
.tit
4.1*1
1.109
.011
.13*
.497
.11*
.011
.001
COTTON COTTON
TO»IL TOD
fllin IT MFJ
[L
If Ultl 11 UICI
.411
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
000
.000
.000
.02?
.DOT
.001
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.041
.0?'
.000
.00*
.005
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.711
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0.?
.010
.060
.090
.015
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.240
.295
>.ooo
1.000
.0*4
i.i» 2.16*
.010
.014
0.000
.011
.015
.055
.00
.01}
.033
.001
.001
0.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
.Oil
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.111
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooi
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.001
4.040
.010
.009
.016
.105
.11*
0.000
.Oil
.to?
.001
.000
1.000 .
»«.!
t.6
.»
7.4
4.2
10.5
0.0
I.T
1.5
.<
.1
I.I
.454
.404
0.000
0.000
.211
.ler
.0°]
.41,7
HI
.000
.001
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
.007
0.000
0.000
.01*
.OIT
.000
.000
.000
.1*1
.040
.0?*
.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.100
I. 001
.{OS
.0*4
.035
.**)6
.»»»
0.001
.01*
.OM
.0*0
.IIS
0.000
1».4
IT.!
11.0
13.
to.
».
0.
13.
11.
».
11.
0.
COTTON COTTON COTTON COTTON
TOUCl T0»(
ft TRAI
L TOrtl T0«
HASH PCI
[U
1
it uses it uits it uses it u*is
0.000
0.000
.063
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.001
.002
.001
.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.0011
.003
.000
.00?
.000
.000 0.000
.000 .400
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 1.141
.000 .3*4
.000 .341
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 .103
.006 .189
.000 .386
.000 .2*6
.000 .06T
.000 .000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 .3*3
.000 .*>4
.006 .000
.000 .006
.000 .559
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
1.000
.000
.DO* o.ooo 3.630 o.ooo
,00k
.001
0.000
0.000
.004
.003
.004
.OOT
.001
.000
.001
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.001
.00'
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
oiooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.OT|
.004
.000
.000
.01*
.004
1.001
.001
.oot
.001
.III
.001
.7
4
0
1
4
1
1 0
1
s
1
1
T6 1
.002 1.710
.000 4.135
B.OOO 0.000
1.000 0.000
.001 .3*0
.015 .620
.003 .526
.003 1.T42
.016 .123
.000 .002
.001 .003
0.000 .00?
.000 .001
9.000 0.000
.000 .000
D.OOO .000
I. 000 .010
9.000 .OOT
D.OOO 1.000
.003 .178
.000 .t«0
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .040
.000 .010
.000 .tin
.000 .04.1
.000 .03?
0.000 .000
0.000 0.000
0.000 .001
0.000 .000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 . .000
0.000 .000
0.000 .000
0.000 0.000
0.000 .000
0.000 .002
0.000 .000
0.000 1.1T*
.006 .»!
.000 .333
.000 .141
.040 1.61*
.001 .lot
0.000 1.001
.001 .16*
0.000 .1(1
0.1*1 .!««
0.000 .0*7
0.000 .110
0. 31. >
T«.t
16.0
66. T
T4.0
66.1
0. 0.0
t. Tl.O
0. 14.1
0. TO. 9
0. 11.1
0. tl.Z
.000
5.000
.061
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.mo
.000
.001
0.000
.000
0.010
.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.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
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.011
,000
.Oil
.0*0
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.100
0
110
0
0
1
0
COTTON
TO«IL
ITS TOT
it uses
4.»I3
.«00
.063
0.000
0.000
2.«S2
.3*4
.346
0.000
0.000
.143
.256
.49T
.36*
.061
.001
0.000
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.6*3
1.16*
.OOT
.011
.645
T.l»0
2.231
6.2K2
.0X1
.011
.631
1.0*0
.671
2.210
.234
.004
.OOM
.002
.002
.000
.000
.000
.01*
.00'
0.000
.»!«.
.30"
.000
.001
.940
.201
.110
.11*
.OIK
.000
0.000
.001*
.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.000
.00?
.00?
10.310
1.166
.643
.tit
4.6*1
1.103
.III
.136
.43T
.11*
.1*1
.Oil
100.
110.
100.
100.
106.
100.
111.
100.
111.
111.
loo.
lie.
103
-------
TABLE 40
eSOUDCt AND EN»1»OI1N(NTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
ONI TMOU ciLLULOJt JPONIII UUOLI
INPUTS
INOE«
TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATEUIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL «ooo FIBEU
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL ULASS SAND
MATERIAL SAT SOOA ASM
MATERIAL -i./.ITE ORE
ENERGY SOU"CF »ETMOLEuM
ENERGY SOUfCk NAT GAS
ENERGY 50U*Ct. COAL
ENERGY SOUMCE MI5C
ENERGY SUU"Ct wOOO FINER
ENERGY SOUKCI- -.YOROPOKEP
MATERIAL PWUCKSS *oo
EN£00» PH'JCESS
FNEPG* TRANSPORT
ATP-' VOLUM.
SOLID KASTIS MINIM.
S.JLIO MASTS "osT-coNsuN
ATNUS PAMTICULATE*
ATNOS NIT"Or,f. OIIii£9
AI«OS ALOl-'OES
ATMOS OuO-DUS SUL'-UW
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMI1S if A',
AT"OS MfwCUPY
ATEHNORNL .^1S S*M IbS
ATEPPOMNE COfJ
ATE'ROUNF ACID
ATEHP.ORN) IRON
ATERHORNf ALUMINUM
ATERHORNE MtHCUM*
.ATFR80BNE P-OSPMATES
.ATEPRORNt IINC
AT£BMOHN£ AMMONIA
.ATERPORNL NITROGEN
ATERHORNE PESTICIDE
NAM*
ENERGY
INOUS7UIAL SOLID lASTES
ATM F.MMISSIONS
ATEPftORNE IASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL IASTE
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY iOUfCE NAT OAS
ENERGY SOUKCE COAL
ENERGY SOUMCE NUCL HYP.R
ENCROY SOUMCE «000 IASTC
OF ENYlflONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
HAM MATERIALS
ENERGY
MATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID PASTES
ATM ENDISilONS
ATEP.90RNE MASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL MASTE
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT (.AS
ENERGY SOUMCE COIL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPMR
ENERGY SOUMCE MOOO MASTC
UNITS
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
MILL CTU
MILL 8TU
ILL 8TU
MILL »TU
MILL STU
MILL fTu
POUNH
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNDS
MIL RTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUNO
POUNO
PltlNn
CUDIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNU
POUND
POUNI,
POUNO
ROUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNU
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
UNIM
MIL RTU
THOU GAL
CU8IC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
MIL »TU
MIL 8TU
MIL BTU
MIL R'U
MIL 8TU
STANDARD
VALUES
2.A8S
.32
.07
1.99
.*7
.00
.099
.20*
.1*6
.033
.009
CF.UUU c
JPONOC i
RAM HAT N
100 UMJ 1
0.000
.2*6
.396
.039
0.000
.1*6
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.00!
.003
.006
.002
.000
.00*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.016
.000
0.000
.105
.013
.09!
.011
.007
.016
.00?
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.300
.017
.003
.000
.000
.000
.004
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.919
.016
.007
.002
.0*5
.026
0.000
.00]
.006
.002
.000
.00*
36.
3.
1,
3.
I.
5.
0.
1.3
2.8
1.9
1.1
91.]
CLLULO CELLULO CELIULO CELL
PON« SPONOE SP3N4E SPON
00 U5CS 100 USES 1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.006
.022
.010
.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.0*0
0.000
0.900
.103
.057
.199
.032
.026
.056
.001
.000
.000
.131
0.000
0.000
.004
.013
.000
.000
.031
.009
.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.0*0
.00*
.262
.09*
0.000
.006
.022
.010
.002
0.000
0.0
8.2
22.1
6.0
11.
12.1
0.0
6.0
10. 1
6.6
6.T
0.0
0.000
.389
v.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.001
.002
.001
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.900
.003
.000
.001
.010
.007
.009
.001
.00*
.004
.001
.000
.001
0.300
0.000
0.000
.001
.003
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.100
.00*
.000
.023
.009
0.000
.001
.002
.001
.000
.001
«.o
.9
.1
t*
1.2
1.1
0.0
1.0
1.0
. ft
.1
19.2
oo uses too
0.000 0
0.000
0.000 0
0.000 0
0.000 0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.001
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.000
.001
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.001
.001
.000
.001
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.001
.000
.00*
.000
0.000
.001
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0
.1
.0
.0
.2
.1
0.0
.7
.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
2
9
ULO Ctlt
at SPO
»CI
uses 100
.000
.03
.000
.000
.000
.911
.1S6
.000
.000
.0*6
.out
.17*
.133
.030
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.AIR
.000
.003
.786
.173
.000
.3*7
.239
.7*0
.099
.001
.001
.001
0.000
.076
.130
.000
.018
.00*
.097
.0*2
.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.000
.001
.000
l.*68
.*21
.0*1
1.620
.396
0.000
.on*
.ir»
.13)
.010
.000
99.1
8T.9
79.
90.
82.
81.
0.
88.
99.3
VI. «
1.6
I.I
UIO CCLLULO
isc SPON«E
«TJ T07
uses 100 usu
.000 0.000
.000 .6*9
.000 .*69
.000 .039
.000 0.000
.000 .697
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
9.000
.009
3.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
9.000
.000
9.000
0.000
.000
.000 .
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
.300
.000
.00?
.000
.00*
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0
.0
loo!
o!
0.
0.
0.
.196
0.000
0.000
.051
.095
.20*
.1*6
.033
.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.231
.77
.001
.00*
.329
.169
2.39?
.009
0.000
.200
.*!
.273
.61
.066
.001
.003
.132
.001
0.000
.000
0.000
.099
.!»»
.000
.000
.019
.039
.199
.0*6
.919
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.000
.001
.000
2.48S
.*62
.129
.070
1.996
.79
.009
.0*1
.20*
.1*6
.011
.009
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
too.
100.
100.
100.
100.
104
-------
TABIZ 41A
M*OU*CC >NO IN«IHONK|NT>L MOP! 1.1 «N»LTSI9
THOU 9.0 FT I PIT TO«»H PI OP I
iw'uts Til «rs'r-S
*»*Tfip|»L COTTON
fUTF»l*L LftSTONf
AlE&lAi IMUI, 0-Jt
MATFwiAl -*LT
**TF*1«L *I.««S S*Mfi
MATERIAL **T snn* iv
i*TF<>Ml H.L -^OAW
««T>>IAl »BU*|TE O»£
OU*''
0QUMP
*ILL «TU
ILL 8TU
*>1LL MU
MLI. -TU
(Nfcfpv O.MI.-C- OO[> rnf« Mm *Tu
t*fpflr "-ou-vt -»t>p-'vo«fB **ILL *«TU
tkl»CiT SUU«Cr MlT-OLfU-
FNfcM&v V'lU-Cf NAT (*$
tNFfpv ^yy-C!1 C0*l
<*AT*P|AL vw.r-ll* rOC-
ATtWIAt SUtC*
M*TF*' *L »*oi,t "*b *L>"
If ' VI U'*
U.IT UT< r-o-« VM- »
fOUNO
POIINO
00Msr>«
ML -TU
-U -TU
TtaHU T.Ai
^.t. t^ «4iTtf w-'i« rS< ^ftyf-n
"j-'LH1 o-tTt'S f\if\. r< pn^iNU
MIL I' »T* S **lNt'>- POlfSO
>»)Lin -iSTf iOST-r.UNS.i- CUhIC FT
TMO4 <>.-r ICuu-Tf -
iT-OS -Itn- it »«HO» t
»T«»OS «n ^tif .i« |, f.
AT»O^ c»"f* 'ONuM-'t-.
*T-0< *>. . { .
Ht **»tS'U
'«(: ^ULfl'l
V. UlL
4C.li-
w» Tit.
IF u^
.irt-^
« f f a m
POU'-'D
ooii*ir>
POu^ll
*">U*H)
POUND
"OUNU
Pflu*'U
INCP07
VATFM
INOII9TMI41 SOLID .>S7rt
»T« tN«r«bl01S
.«7C**ON»t «"S7r*
P097-CONSUOH tOL »9T(
IXtaOl 90U'C( fTaDLClM
(S(*9T «OU"C>' N>7 All
(NCPOT SOU-Ct COIl
iitr.ni 90u»ct NUCI NT***
(1t*OT MUKCC »ODD «««te
IkDtl Or tMH«ON«rNTil.
Pl> M1TFXULS
OOiJ-40
BOllNP
POUND
POUNl>
POUND
POUND
POUNH
POUND
POywi
POUND
H!L R7U
THOU ftAl
CUH1C '7
POUNDS
POUNDf
CUBIC 'T
"It «7U
MIL ITU
»IU STU
mi KTU
HtL KTU
!T»ND»D
vnuet
««TE»
INCIUSTRIil. SOLID 4STFS
»T» [""IS510HS
»»'fo»o»>«£ ««sirs
»OS7«CONSUKC« SOL OSTt
CNCP9T SOUHCt PfTROLEU*
INOO* SOU»CC NIT G»
»t«0» SOuoCt C01L
CNCROr JOUNCE NUCI X7POP
ChEB«T *DWCt "OOP »«5Tt
9.7»*9S
.122*«
.180*9
.02912
1.162'!
.3111?
.17122
.10117
.01*19
.0*392
.00112
.07*09
O»T PULP
1.16 L*
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.01*07
.001**
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.onooo
0.00000
0.00000
o.onooo
.oions
loooo*
!oo?'*
o.onooo
.01000
.001'*
0.00000
o.onooo
.01021
iooooo
.00000
.00001
.000*1
0.00000
o.onooo
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.onooo
0.00000
.00000
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.07107
.09161
.00771
.1*111
olooooo
.OM07
.01491
'.001**
.0110*
ll'.l
29.6
26.1
19.6
17.7
16.1
16.0
16.3
JLU9"
PULP
4.01 L>
0.00000
3.72316
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.0*016
.01*17
.01196
.00600
.00122
0.00000
0.00000
o.noooo
o.noooo
o.onooo
0.00000
0.00000
.02077
,ni779
.00(16
.0000*
.0007*
.002(6
0.00000
.00000
.001*1
0.00000
o.ooono
.00800
.00000
.00000
.00001
.000**
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.000*0
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.06661
.093*9
.0077*
.I619(
.0(006
1.00000
!ol!96
.00(00
.00112
.01191
44.2
20.7
26^1
11.9
26.0
14.1
11.0
11.*
11. (
42.4
HPf»-
M6KINA
10.41 L(
0.00000
0.00000
o.onooo
0.00000
o.onnoo
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.04160
o.onooo
o.onoon
o.ooono
o.onooo
0.00000
0.00000
o.onooo
.01716
'.?!'»(,
.011*9
.040*1
.0001'
0.00000
o.noooo
.onoon
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.07)62
.021)1
.00007
.00007
.0001*
.0071*
.00180
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
o.onooo
.1060*
.1213*
.06*21
.01077
.0(9*1
0.00000
.0*160
.04971
1(0927
.00741
1.1
3?!(
14.7
17.4
2T.6
40. (
M.I
01.6
**.(
9.4
CONVCPT
7KOU *9
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.001*0
.007*7
.00213
.000*3
0.00000
0.00000
o.onooo
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00311
."ll'»
.01376
.00137
.00001
.00001
0.00000
o.nnoon
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.ooono
.001*3
.0000*
.00000
.00000
.nool*
.00072
.00016
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.ooono
0.00000
o.onooo
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
o.noono
.00*40
.0123*
.000*2
.0007*
.0373*
.002*1
0.00000
.001*0
.007*7
.00231
.00091
0.00000
.0
!.(
.2
2.9
3.2
.*
1.9
(.9
9.4
6.0
0.0
PICTCLCO
p*p«0'
.ononi
.053-"
.06010
.1031*
.OOOM
.noon.
.onnn*
.OCln.
.17*1'-
,ni«i7
,00317
.0007*
o.ooonn
o.ooono
o.onono
n. ooooo
o.noooo
o.ooono
ooono
.ooooo
n. ooono
o.ooooo
o.oonno
o.ooono
o.ooono
9.1*99*
.372«
.U0*9
.0»9»2
1.1627*
.11097
.171J7
.101*7
.0(91*
-------
TABLE 41B
2 -M.Y T0"lll
SUMMA«T I
INOCI or
ATER AL ^iJLFaTf *MNf
"ATE* AL I-ON 0-JE
MATER Al FEL'->R*fc
ATER Al MJLFu*-
t'NERG Silu»Ct 1*ET-ULEUM
{NERO suu*c- »i«c
tNERG SOU-C-. .O'l^' Fl"fJ
CNERO "Utlxft -vnwnPOtER
"ATEH Al CL4V
"Att* Al MlIC*
ATf. V .uu
SULIO ..SltS P-orE'iS
$01 13 .ASItS -INtf,-.
f'OS RA.TICulATEv
'OS NIT-UI-IN OAluCS
A "OS SULtu- o«||.fs
A "OS C*t*«ON 'ONDAI.IE
A "OS AlUfc"*"^1-
"OS UI'U-'JU- SUlf'J-
»T"OS LEAu
ATMOSPMC'IC OlO»INE
ATEDHO'NC Mb SOLluS
"ATERP.Oi.Ni FCUORIOE-.
:!""£« J"?«ni
ATERRORNC OIL
.ATERHOMNk SUSP Sitlin<
ATFRROxNi >CID
«ATERRO»Nt METAL ION
ATERRORNfc C'ANIC*
MATERHOMNt C^-XIMIIII
«ATERR.ORNk IWJN
ATCRdOMNt ALUMINUM
ATERRDxxE L£AO
ATCRROPNE JtNC
ATERR.ORNE A-MONIA
ATfRRORNt NITMOOEN
ATERRORNE !>£^TICIbE
F ENVIRONMENTAL 1MRACTC
NAMF
tNCRGT
ATFR
INDUSTRIAL SOLID .ASTES
ATM EMM I SS IONS
ATfRgORNC RASTES
ROST-OH9UM(R SOI >ASTf
ENER4T SOURCE RCTROlIUO
CNfRIT SOURCE NAT IAS
INCDIT SOUMt COAL
ENCRtr SOUKCE «UCL HTR.R
EMM* SOURCE HOOD IASTE
ENVIRONMfMTAL IHRACTS
MAMC
RAM MATERIALS
INDUSTRIAL SOLID >ASTES
ATM EMMISSIONS
MATERbORNfc WASTES
ROST'COMSUMEH SOL RASTE
ENCROT SOURCE RETROLCUM
ENCRer SOu'CE NAT OAS
ENEROT SOURCE COAL
CNCROT JOURCC NUCL HTP«B
ENEROT SOUHCE HOOO »ASTE
POUNI'
ROIINH
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNU
POUNO
POUNC
"ILL «'U
"ILL «TU
»'LL »'u
"ILL »'U
"ILL "U
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNDS
f*ou ';AL
UN|t«
POUND
ROUND
ROUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUND
POUNO
POUNO
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNO
POUND
ROUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO *
ROUND
ROUND
ROUND
UNITS
ROUNDS
MIL RTU
TMOU OAL
CUBIC FT
ROUNDS
ROUNDS
CUBIC FT
MIL (ITU
MIL ITU
MIL ITU
MIL 8TU
fit. ITU
STANDARD
ALUES
!l224«
.02962
1.16275
.11092
.17122
.10187
!oOB»
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00.51
.002'?'
0.00000
.00576
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
3.00000
.,.,«
.03*89
0.00000
.01597
.05459
.0055]
.90001
.00060
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.02018
.00000
.00916
.00041
.00010
.00075
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.75471
.01985
.00011
.00202
.11219
.01621
0.00000
.00*91
.00299
.00272
0,00000
.00976
a. 2
4.9
.2
6.8
11.4
11.7
0.0
4.4
1.2
6.1
0.0
7.3
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
0.00000
.010.9
0.00300
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00110
.01120
.00273
.09616
.10003
.00022
0.90090
0.00000
9.00COO
0. 00000
.00001
.00001
.00004
.00001
.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.01049
OOOA5
.00004
.13046
.00974
.17122
.01049
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
0.04000
0.0
1.1
.4
.1
11.2
1.8
100.0
10.3
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.noooo
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0. 00000
0.00000
.00855
o.onooo
O.noooo
o.onooo
0.00000
o.noooo
o.onnoo
o.onooo
0.00000
o.onono
0.00000
.noi3«
.02020
.10412
.01454
.00002
.00002
0.30000
0.00000
o.onono
o.onooo
.00001
.00001
.00003
.onooi
.00000
0.00000
o.noooo
0.90000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0. 00000
0.00000
0.00000
.000*9
.00001
.00*11
0.00000
.00899
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
9.0
2.7
.1
,1
4.2
1.4
0.0
6.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00000
0.00000
6.*9"*'7
.62S52
0.00000
,'3'14
0.00000
o.ooono
o.ooooo
o.oonoo
.o'o->»
.11)19'
.0-919
.4.3V
,30««>
.07909
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.11292
.292'3
.0201?
.00194
.1«059
.29617
.64MO
.17322
0.00000
.14375
.257K5
.15597
.47818
.14444
.00193
.01598
.005*3
.00015
0.00000
.00027
.00001
.OO.VO
0.00000
0.00000
.06019
.10316
.00001
.00004
.00006
.30104
.12115
.0143?
.00317
.00075
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
9.2499P,
.1224)
.11059
.029*2
1.16275
.11091
.17322
.lour
.06919
.041S2
.00111
.0790*
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
106
-------
TABLE 42
otsnuitci AND nviHONMCNTtL noriuc ANALYSIS
M
MATFBIAL PHOSPHATE »OCT
ATEBI4L CLAY
HiTEBIAL ttYPMJM
M4TCBIAL SILICA
MAlCKIAt PHOCESS 400
E**tttGY "BUCESS
CNCDGY TUJNjPOBT
ATF4 v.'LUHf
NAHf
lOtll (ASUS PBOCESS
SOI ID lASTES FUEL CUNB
SOL in ASUS MINIM
SOLID ..ill -OST-COMSU"
ATMOSBHtMlC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PAtiTICULATES
4T«Ot MITHOUtM Ollnfl
4T»»OS MVtfMOCAMBOMS
ATMOS SULFUR OIIDIS
limn CAMON MONOIIM
TMOS AlOt-YUES
4TMOS OTHt« OkliAMCS
ATMOS OUO«(M» SULFU*
TMOS AMMO* 14
TMOS MtOMOGEN FLOUMIDE
ATMO< LEAN
ATwOS MEBCUMY
ATMOSPMEOIC 1*1 OB | hi
MATEBMOMNE OIS SOLlOS
4TEBHOMNE FLUUMIoei
»4TtB80BN( OISS SOLlOS
ATEMBOBtiE 000
ATEBMOBNIL PHENOL
4TE-MOMM OIL
4Tf*40BNt COD
*4TFBMO4tMe SUSP SOLIDS
4Tc>BOPNC ACin
ATtlDOBNE METAL ION
AlERROBhE CHEMICALS
AtEUKbBNt CTANItE
hATEBaORht ALKALINITY
ATEPdOBNE CMHOBIUM
AIFBBOBNl IMON
ATEBBOMNE 4LUMINUM
ATEBNOBNE NlCufL
ATEBBORNE MEBCUMY
ATIBftOBNE LtAU
MATFBHOiINt PiuSPMATCS
AtEHflOBNE ZINC
ATfBHOHNt AHMDNIA
ATtBIOBNl MITBOliEM
4ITEBHOBME PISTICIDE
Y .IF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
HAMt
BAB NATEBIll*
CNfMCT
B4TFB
INDUSTRIAL SOLID BASTIS
ITN CMUISIONS
ITERIOBNI PISTII
POIT-CONIUMEll SOL BASTI
EN(BIY SOUMCI PET-OLEUM
INKMT SOUMCi NAT 141
INJBIT SOUNCI COIL
INIIST SOUKC! NUCL HTPV*
tNtMT SOUKE 1000 MSTt
OF CNVItONNtNTAL IMACTI
NAME
»U MATES1ALS
EMtmt
1NOUSTBIU. SOLID HASTES
AT* EMMIStlONS
ATEBBOONt KASTES
POST-COMSUNEB SOL MSTC
ENCBIY SOUBCE PCTBOLEUH
ENEMCT SOUUCt NAT DAI
INCB8Y SOUBCE COIL
CMBIT SOUBCE NUCL MTP«B
ENEBJY SOURCE «ooo HASTE
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNU
POUND
POUND
ILL ITU
ILL BTU
ILL ITU
ILL «'u
ILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNU
POUNO
POUNDS
MIL IITU
NIL KTU
MIL 6TU
TMUU GAL
UNITS
POUNO
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
pouxn
POUMO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNM .
POUNO
POunn
pouwn
POUND
POUND
POUNI.
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
UNITS
POUNDS
NIL BTU
THOU ML,
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNOJ
CUIIC FT
NIL BTU
IL KTU
11 ITU
IL ITU
IL PTU
STANDABO
V4LM.S
?.)*!
.11
!|41
I.4TI
.*I4
.019
.tit
.Ml
.t»»
.091
.00*
ITN
-HOME
ON ST
uses
o.ooo
0.000
141
.IM
0.000
.11
0.000
o.ooo
O.OIO
0.000
.III
.01*
.010
.001
.00*
0.000
0.100
0.001
O.OIO
0.000
0.000
.m
.OM
.too
0.000
.011
lllT
t.tot
O.OIO
.OT*
.041
.010
.1*0
.019
.000
.000
.007
.000
0.000
.too
.000
.00)
0.000
0.001
.tit
.01)
.000
.001
.t
OTt
.OM
.114
t
o.ooo
0.000
o.ite
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.100
.too
.001
o.oto
.001
O.OIO
0.000
o.ooo
1.09*
.OM
.111
.114
.MS
.114
l.lll
.III
.11*
.IM
.III
.11*
M.
*.
1.
*.
II.
1*.
10.
s.
II.
t.
*l.
CLOTH
NIP-NOME
POLTE VT
S* USES
I.IIO
1.000
0.000
O.OIO
.Oil
0.000
O.IM
l.lll
I.IOI
0.000
O.IM
.01*
.III
.lit
.III
O.IM
0.000
1.000
O.OIO
O.OIO
0.000
0.000
.001
.017
.000
.014
.00?
.011
.011
0.000
0.000
.00.
.014
.040
.016
.011
.000
.000
0.0(0
.000
o.tto
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.00*
.001
.010
.001
.Oil
.III
.111
.III
.OM
o.ooo
1.000
0.000
.001
0.100
o.oto
0.001
0.400
I.OIt
O.OIO
I.MI
.Oil
O.OIO
0.000
.00*
.111
.lit
.III
.IIT
.III
l.lll
.11*
III
.IM
.III
l.lll
.1
1.4
4
9
1 S
1 1
1
1 0
9
1
1 1
CLOTH
MAP-HOME
M
94 USES
o.ooo
O.OIO
0.000
o.oto
0.000
.T4*
l.lll
O.ltl
o.ooo
0.0*0
.til
.IT
.016
.01*
.007
0.000
0.000
o.oto
O.OM
0.000
1.000
0.000
.101
.0*0
o.tot
t.ltt
.0)7
CLOTH CLOTH
NAP-HOMf N4P
PIO T4A
HONE
14
14 UUI 94 USES
0.000
t.ltt
.tI6
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.100
.III
.100
.000
.000
o.ott
0.040
l.ttt
t.too
0.000
0.000
.004
.001
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.too
.000
.00)
.100
.000
.too
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.tot
.tot
too
.00)
1.000
.000
.« .00) t.ttt
.1**
.14
t.ttt
0.000
.011
.tit
.041
.104
.111
.Oil
.
O.OM
.0(0
0.000
.Oil
.too
.004
0.000
0.000
.III
.IT
.III
.Oil
.III
.IM
.111
.III
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
O.IM
0.000
0.000
.000
.001
O.OIO
0.100
I.IOI
I.IIO
o.oio
.17!
.0*1
.0)7
.114
.411
.111
l.lll
.IIT
.Ol»
.11*
.IIT
l.lll
14. t
*.*
T.T
14.7
11.*
14.1
1.
T.
11.
11.
1.
.001
.0«4
o.ott
o.oto
.oot
.001
.oot
.00)
.000
.000
.too
o.oto
.000
t.ltt
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.001
.000
.001
.110
.000
.100
.000
.000
.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
t.too
t.too
0.000
0.001
t.too
o.ioo
0.001
I.IOI
0.000
0.101
.07*
.oot
.000
.010
.101
.III
l.lll
.III
III
.000
III
.III
1
.001
l.ttl
1.000
9.000
.110
.tot
.tot
.tot
.001
.000
.000
0.000
.000
o.oto
.000
0.000
o.ott
0.000
t.too
.001
.110
.000
.000
.III
.too
.000
.000
.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.oot
t.too
0.000
t.ttt
0.000
o.too
t.oto
0.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OM
l.lll
.11)
.III
.III
.01*
.III
I.OII
.III
.III
l.lll
I.IOt
I.OII
t
,
0
1
0
CLOTH CLOTH
NAP-HOMt NAP
ASH PCS
NOME
1
14 USES 94 USES
0.000
.665
0.000
o.too
0.000
I4t
.«»!
.I9T
o.oto
o.oto
.tut
.210
.044
.001
o.ttt
t.too
o.ttt
0.000
o.ott
t.tot
.1*0
.6*0
.000
.004 (
.410
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.tOO
.000
.000
.oot
.000
.too
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.too
.too
.000
.000
.tot
.00?
.tit
.000
1.649 t.tot
1 .t**
1.914
0.000
o.ttt
.101
.19
.111
l.ttft
.0*1
.tot
.tot
.001
.001
o.too
.000
.000
.00*
.009
0.000
.in
.114
.000
.000
.01*
.007
.161
.04*
.Ot4
.tot
0.000
.000
.000
o.tot
0.000
0.000
.100
.000
.000
0.000
.101
.111
.000
1.410
.4*9
.410
.114
I.4TI
.4)1
0.100
.11*
.III
.III
.14*
.III
44.*
Tt.l
19.1
Tt.
Tt.
t«.
1.
1).
T).
IS.
1.
.001
.000
.035
1.000
.000
.oot
.001
.001
.01*
.too
.001
1.000
.tot
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
o.oot
0.000
.011
.000
.oot
.100
'.000
.010
.000
.000
.too
0.000
t.Olt
I.Otl
i.tto
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
O.OIO
I.OII
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.III
.000
.101
.014
.III
.111
.III
l.lll
0.011
I.IOI
i.iei
0
111
t
0
0
0
0
CLOTH
MAP-HOMt
STS roT
94 USES
o.ott
.665
.tut
o.tot
I. tit
.Ml
o.tto
o.ott
.It!
!tv»
.0911
.009
t.ttt
t.too
o.tto
o.oto
0.000
0.000
.9)9
.M6
.006
.010
.HI
4.201
1.41*
4.7T6
.an
t.oto
.444
.TT4
.919
1.710
.164
.oot
.004
.001
.001
0.000
.too
.000
.019
.004
o.oot
.1ST
.1)9
.000
.000
.It*
Id)
.too
.0*4
0?1
.000
. 0.000
.001
.000
0.000
o.oto
O.OIO
.000
.000
.000
.III
.101
.001
III
9.1*1
.II
.4lt
.14)
1.4TI
*14
.019
.III
.141
.1*1
.III
.11*
101.
too.
too.
100.
100.
100.
100
III.
100.
III.
III.
101.
107
-------
TABIE 43A
PfUIMCt >W> fNVIHOMtCIITAL HoriLF ANALMU
THOU 1IKM.I PLT COM NAP P| OF I
"ATtPlAL COTTON
ATEPIAL .00" FIHfP
ATtulAL LINtSIONf.
ATEPIAL I"ON oat
ATEPIAL SALT
MATERIAL '-LASS SAN'I
HATfPIAL NAT bODA AV
ATEPIAL fiAUUTC 0*l.
ATEPIAL »ULFU«
EMfPO» HOU-Cl PETfOLtUK
ENERGY SUU»Ct NIT OAS
F«*EP<*Y *OU"C» COAL
FNEH6Y SUUtC* *ISC
tNl'OY SOU°Ct .000 FIHCa
"AT'PIAL PUT1S-
A7FP1AL PHOSPHATE «OCa
ATMIAL CLAT
ATEPIAL ***OCCSS AOb
"" ";"-U"t
lA-f
SOLIl) ««STlS PROCESS
SOLID «ASTE »0!IT-CONSu>
.I-OSO-1-.IC *0>"'£ CUO
ATEPaONht SU5P SDL 105
ATFBROM'.t ACIP
ATFUPOMNt HFTAL ION
ATEUPOHNl C-'0*>IU>
ATFP^OXNI; ALUMINUM
ATFPMC-N^ i-»ONIA
AlfH-ON.^ P!sTIC|D(
K.-f
ENtPsr
INOU9Tk|AL bOLlO .»STES
AT» EMISSIONS
I«E*«Y 50UXCE PtTPOLCMM
FIICPOT 50UPCE NAT 049
ENtPO* SnU"Ci COAL
CNCkOv SUU«CE NUCL 1TPKP
FNEPOY SOuxCI »000 HASTE
INOCI OP CN»IPON«rNTAL IHPACT9
MANE
exEOSr
ATE"
INDUSTRIAL S'lLin "ASTES
ATK EMISSIONS
ATEP.DOPNC «ASTE5
POST-CONSUNfeR SOL WASTE
ENEPSf SOURCE PCTPOLEUN
ENEPSY SOu-CE NAT CAS
ENEP6Y SOURCE COAL
[NEPGY SOURCE NUCL nYP«a
FNCRGY suu**c£ HOOO VASTC
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
ILL »TU
ILL 9TU
ILL BTU
ILI "TU
ILL "7U
ILL "TU
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
»ll »TU
11 bTU
TWf>U *tAL
POUND
POUND
POUND
CU8IC FT
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUMD
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
P0u»0
POUNn
ROUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNH
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
OOUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
UNITS
IL "U
T"OU 5«L
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
BOUNDS
CUBIC FT
IL ITU
MIL BTU
IL 8TU
IL BTU
IL «TU
STANDARD
VALUE*
.16820
.09*20
.01730
.6507*
.17909
.08675
.05535
.04549
.02154
. .00409
.94173
I»T PULP
l.M L8
0.00000
1.11948
.11296
0.00000
.1331?
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.01420
.0093*
.002"
.00053
.011*1
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.into
o.oonoo
.1*634
.01568
.0*049
0.00000
,oiio»
.01862
.00815
.02*10
.0000]
.0000*
.00101
.00065
0.00000
0.00000
.003M
.009*9
.00000
.00000
.00001
.Ol«»6
.00109
.0001*
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.511*6
.01905
.00297
.06606
0.00000
.00*67
. 00536
.0025T
.00053
.onus
32.*
16.0
19.*
16.6
10.3
16.6
0.0
12.1
11. 1
11. »
13.0
28. »
5LUO.N
PULP
0.00000
1.71505
.17200
0.00000
.20269
0.00000
0.00000
a. ooooo
.02162
.00622
.00323
.00066
.0180.
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Q. OOOOO
.23*05
.01919
.05102
0.00000
.015*8
.02385
.00950
.03117
.00005
.00013
0.00000
0.00000
.00*35
.01596
.00000
.00001
.022**
.00139
-.00023
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
ooooo
.00000
.00000
.ooooo
2.301*9
.02999
.00*16
.09720
0.0000*
.00771
.00621
. 0032J
.0006*
.0190*
»9.»
21.3
29.5
24.1
13.*
24. 3
0.9
13.9
13.7
19.0
16.0
*3.2
PAPf RMA*
0.00000
o.onooo
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.»»05"
.01070
.002*2
.005*1
0.00000
0.00000
o.onooo
0.00000
0.00000
.30692
.96663
.17115
0.00000
.01912
.OS041
.01031
.0176?
.OOO'I
.0001*
0.00000
4.00000
.01201
.01899
.00001
.00010
.0?390
.00310
.000*'
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.onooo
90000
.00000
.ooooo
.03929
.0*767
.0073*
.20*09
0.00000
.02192
.02099
.01070
.002*2
.00961
,«
36.3
*8.5
*2.5
11.*
13.0
0.0
39.*
5.3
*9,7
59.1
11.5
CONVEPT
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00520
.00130
.00029
0.00000
0.00000
n. 09000
0.00000
0.00000
.00013
.00»«2
.00733
.0076*
.02042
0.00000
.00178
.00900
.00762
.007*7
.ooonl
.0000?
"«!5!
o.oocoo
0.00000
.0010*
.00001
.00000
.00000
.00070
.00007
,000*0
.00010
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
9.00000
0.00000
O.OOOflO
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.90000
. 002*8
.000?*
.000*2
.0224*
0.00000
.0012*
.005?0
.00130
.90029
0.00000
.1
*.P
.3
2.*
3.5
1.9
0.9
2.2
11. »
6.0
7.1
9.0
CiPTONt
0.05,4 It
0.00000
.02*57
.00*31
0.00000
.012*5
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.0005*
.00072
.0002*
.00002
.00051
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00001
0.00000
.00709
.00116
.001*6
0.00000
.00052
.00063
.00037
.00118
.00000
.90001
0.90000
0.00000
0.00000
.00022
.0002*
.00000
.00000
.00000
.000*2
.oooor
00001
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
.05092
.0005*
.00017
.00296
0.00000
.00038
.00022
.00019
.00002
.00051
l.l
.8
.6
1.0
.5
.5
0.0
.7
.5
1.3
.5
1.2
POLT
BA»P>H«
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
O.OOOOn
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00507
.00076
.00017
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00020
.00399
.0030.
.00*40
.01223
0.00000
.0011?
.00349
.009*2
.90*59
.90001
.00001
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
0.00000
9.00000
.0009?
.00004
.00000
.00000
.00001
.0003?
.00010
.00071
.00006
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
9.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.ooono
0.00000
0.00000
.00*09
.00060
.00028
,01843
0.00000
,00119
,00107
,0007*
.00017
0.00000
.1
*.
i!
2.
0.0
2.2
11.2
3.9
*.2
0.0
o.ooono
o.ooono
3.513*9
.219)5
o.ooono
.3*»7A
O.ooono
0.00000
0.00000
o.ooono
.01637
.05515
.0*5*9
.0?1«*
.On*09
.0*173
0.00000
0.00000
o.ooono
0.00001)
0.00000
0.00000
.1071
.1««7«
.OI'-M
.006-1
.09*70
,l**17
,33*»4
.n«875
0.00000
.087*3
13533
.0861?
.22453
.098**
.00125
.012H*
.002-.9
ooont.
0.00000
.nno'O
.ooono
.0^1*7
o.ooono
o.oonno
.033»5
.06*96
.00002
.Ooon?
.0000*
.00071
.97111*
.00*?*
.001S]
.0007*
n.onooo
o.oonno
o.oonoo
o.ooono
o.ooono
o.ooono
.oooon
.90000
o.ooonn
o.ooooo
o.ooonn
o.ooonn
o.ooono
*.65*70
.l*«>o
.0«*'0
.01710
.*507*
.179H9
.06875
.05919
.0*6*9
.021«4
Oo*n9
.0*17]
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
ino.o
100.0
loo.n
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
110.0
108
-------
TABIE 43B
»t*OU»Ct MO (NVKONUCNTM. "OMLt tMLTtlS
THOU IINKI H.T COM N»P »»
INPUT! TO ST1TFNS
NME
»ITE»I«L COTTON
N»TE*UL lUL'.TC »»INf
"»TEB|»L .000 riBto
"TCBIAL LINfiTONf:
N1TEBKL IHOK ORE
NtTEBKL SALT
"ATE6I4L UL4SS S*N»
N>TEB|»L N«T SOOt AS"
NITEBUL FEL?T 0«5
ENEBOY SOU'CE CO«L
ENEBGY SOUtfCt "ISC
ENCBGY SUUMCE .000 ri*CB
ENfPOY SOUKCE MYO»OBOKtS
"ATEBIAL POTAS-
7EBIAL PHOSKHlU DOCK
"ATEBIAL LL»Y
MAfCUIAi .*>" *U**
H*Te»f.\L ML 1C*
«»TE»I*L **WOCE«S *OD
ENfftQT »riuCt^S
CNE0G* TB-NSPQOT
EN»GT OF TL -f^.uocE
*TfB VLLWr
UUTHUT* rJO-» SrSTt-»
*""
sot 10 i-sus trrvess
SOLID »*srEs FUEL cn-«
SOLID HASTES -tNl-r,
SOLID .*brt »OST-CONSim
*T»*o$Pttc>ic PESTICIDE
iTMOS P*-*TtCUL*TE<-
T«*OS h|TcUCt>« 0»f)tS
AT<*OS 'VOi4tiC*>*>HOMS
ftT«QS Syi*J»* Oxtt)*^
«T<*OS C*-»i*M -UNO»fO£
A TMOS *L Uf.M T £ S
ATNflS OTHtw oar.t*,ic<>
AT»OS OHo-OUS SUL'1^
AT**0* A**"«ON I "
*T«OS HTU"UOtN FLiUtMllE
T«OS L§« i
ATMft« ."(rilHT
* T«*o^***ew i c C^UOT* i 'it
«Tr»?n**«t nt$ sours
*Tr-"«OHNt Fturwl -CS
»*TE>HO»*10>"4STES
POST-CONSUNEU SOL "STE
fNEBOY SOUNCE PCTBOLCUN
ENEBOY SOUXCC N«T 0«S
ENEBOY SOURCE CO>L
(NEBOY SOU-tCC NUCL NYP.B
CNCBGY soutcc .000 .«STE
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
NILL HTU
ILL ITU
HILL KTU
"ILL l«T'<
"ILL *TU
"ILL *TU
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNC
POUND
POUNDS
»IL «TU
NIL (TU
>IL (TU
THOU 6>L
UNITS
POUND
POUNO
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUW>
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
poimn
POIINO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
VOUNU
POIIHO
POUNn
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNH
POUNO
IMITS
POUNDS
NIL BTU
THOU 0»L
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
NIL *TU
NIL BTU
NIL (TU
»1L ITU
NIL >TU
!T1NO«BO
VALUES
!l6«20
.09(20
.01710
.65071
.1740*
.08975
.OSS IS
.045**
.02134
.00409
.0417]
wmuo
0.071 IK
0.00000
0.00000
.47917
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00*47
.002*1
.00270
0.00000
.00571
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.06*25
.01562
.00009
0.00000
.00011
.06512
.04422
.IMS]
0.00000
0.00000
.01(06
.015(2
.00951
.0540*
.00340
.00800
.007**
0.00000
.00001
0.00000
.00000
.00000
0.00010
0.00000
0.00000
.00515
.01***
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00002
.00*20
.00041
.00010
.00074
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
.747*2
.01570
.00011
.00200
.110*4
.015*0
0.00000
.00** 7
.002(1
.00270
0.00000
.00571
16.
9.
.
11.
20.
20.
0.
(.
6.
It.
0.
11.7
OI1POHL
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.0(000
.0(055
0.00000
0.00000
0.000(0
0.00(00
0.00000
0.00(00
0.000(0
0.0(0(0
0.000(0
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00(55
0.00000
.OOOSI
0.00000
.0021*
0.00000
.01(75
0.00000
.000*0
.00*11
.00*2*
.00221
.07221
.000*1
.000?
0.00000
.00002
0.00000
.00011
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00456
.00001
.00000
.00001
.00001
.000(5
.00001
.00001
.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
0.00000
.00(55
.00051
.0000]
.0*900
.004*0
.01(7)
.00(55
0.000(0
0.0(0(0
0.000(0
0.000(0
0.0
5.1
.5
.2
15.2
2.6
100.0
15.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TBftNOOB
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.003.11
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00111
0.00000
.00019
0.00000
.00076
0.00000
0.00000
0.10000
.00055
.007*7
.002*7
.001«(
.0946*
.00011
.000*0
0.00000
.00001
0.00000
.00010
0.00000
0.00000
0.01000
0.00000
.0016*
.00000
.00000
.01000
.00000
.00002
.00001
.00000
.00000
0.01000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.01000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
0.00000
.00311
.0001*
.00001
.01*1*
.00166
0.00(00
.00311
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.
2.
.
.
2.
.
0.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
TOT4L
0.00000
0.00000
1.5034*
.2«*1S
0.00000
,14«7lt
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.01017
.05535
.045*9
.021»4
.00409
.04171
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.4007]
.t»«7«
.012*1
.00651
.0*«20
.7*0*1
.16417
.31624
.00875
0.00000
.o*rti
.11511
.0(612
.22453
.09054
.00125
.OI2>4
.0025*
.0000*
0.00000
.00020
.00000
.00167
0.00000
0.00000
.033*5
.06»>6
.00002
.00002
.00004
.00071
.07106
.006*6
.001*3
.00074
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
4.M970
.16*20
.0«*20
.01 no
.6S07S
.17*0*
.00"7«
.05535
.0434*
.02134
.0040*
.0*171
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
109
-------
TABLE 44
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL "OHIt ANALYSIS
ONC THOU CLOTH NAP-CONN 17 uses
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
SUMMARY
TO SYSTEM!
N4IIC
NATERIAL C07TOH
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
HATER1AL «OOU FIBER
NATERIAL LIMESTONE
NATERIAL IKON ORE
MATERIAL SILT
NATERIAL OLASS 91NO
NATERIAL N>7 900* 4SM
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL B>UI|TE ODE
MATERIAL SUL'UH
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
CHEROT SOURCE NAT OA9
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
CNEROV SOURCE RISC
ENERGY SOURCE DODO FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HYOROPotER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL liYPSUH
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PDOCFSi 100
ENERGY PROCESi
fNEROY TRANSPC-T
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
ATCR VOLUME
F«OM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID »ASTES PVOCESS
SOLID IASTES FUEL COM|
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID >A97E POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICULATES
ATHOS NITUOOEN OIIOES
ATMOS HVUHOCARBONS
AYMOS SULFUR OIIOES
ATMOS CAHBON MONOIIOE
ATHOS ALDEwYCCS
ATMOS OTHE" ORGANIC*
ATMOS 00060US SULFUR
ATHOS AMHON1A
ATKOS HYOROOEH FLOUR10E
ATMOS LEAU
ATMQS MENCURT
AT*OSP»E"K CKLORINE
AMRBORNE UIS SOLIDS
ATERBORNE FLUORIDES
ATERBORNE OISS SOLIDS
HATERBORNE BOO
ATERBOMHE P«ENOL
IATEP40RNI JULFIDES
ATERPOPNE OIL
ATERBORNE COO
ATERBORNt SUSP SOL 109
ATERPORNE ACID
MATEPBORNE METAL ION
ATERRORNE CHEMICALS
ATERBORNE CYANIDE
ATERBORNt ALKALINITY
ATERBOPNl CHROMIUM
ATERBORNE IRON
ATCOaORNE ALUMINUM
ATERBORNE NICKEL
ttATCRMORNE MERCURY
ATtRBOPNE LEAD
ATERBOHNE PHOSPHATES
ATERBDPNE ZINC
lATERBORNt AMMONIA
XTtRBORNt NITROOEN
AICR80RNE PESTICIDE
or ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
RAM MATERIALS
ENERGY
ATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID «AS7ES
ATM (MDllSIONf
ATIRBORNE IAITCS
POST-CONSUMER SOL «ASTE
ENEP.OY SOURCE PCTROLCIM
ENEROT SOURCE NAT 4A1
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENEROY SOURCE NUCL »YP»R
ENEROY SOURCE woo WASTE
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUMO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
HILL ITU
MILL ITU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
ILL BTu
MILL BTU
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNDS
IL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUNO
CUIIC FT
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
OUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
UNITS
POUNDS
NIL BTU
THOU OAL
CUIIC FT
POUNDS
POUNOS
CUBIC FT
IL ITU
MIL ITU
MIL ITU
MIL ITU
MIL ITU
INOII OP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
RA> MATERIALS
ENEROY
>ATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID IAS.TES
ATH EMISSIONS
ATERBORNE IASTES
POST-CONSUNER SOL HASTE
ENFBdY SOURCE PETRXEUM
ENfOr SOURCE N»T OAS
ENEROY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPO*
ENEROY SOURCE 1000 HASTE
STANDARD
VALUES
I.2TO
.792
.461
.144
I.20B
.B24
.07]
.060
.9*3
.100
.Oil
.000
CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH
NAP-CONN NAP-COMH NAP-CONN NAP-CONN NAP-CONN NAP-COHN NAP-CONN
FIltR IT nro PKO TRAN HASH PCS« JYS TOT
IT UUS IT USES IT USES IT U9I1 IT USES IT USES IT USES
4.411
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
.020
.006
.001
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.0*1
.O2t
.000
.00)
.009
1.010
.004
.011
.010
.022
.010
.010
.Oil
.050
.001
.001
0.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.011
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.lot
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.001
4.4SJ
.OtT
.001
.ou
.10*
.11*
0.000
.010
.00«
.001
.009
0.000
91.1
>.»
1.1
4.7
1.4
14.6
0.
19.
1.
.
1.
0.
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.937
.000
.000
.000
.000
.010
.039
.09*
.001
.01*
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.223
.10*
0.000
0.000
.07*
1 .044
.toe
l.Itl
0.000
.11*
.14*
.064
.t|4
.024
.000
.000
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
,000
.000
0.000
0.000
.017
.019
.000
.000
.000
.171
.011
.013
.009
.000
looo
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
I.T47
.10*
.074
.044
.1*1
.264
0.000
.031
.09*
.Oil
.Cl«
0.000
11.7
IA.S
14.1
34.0
to. 9
31.4
4.0
".1
9.0
0.0
TT.4
0.0
.000
.000
.091
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
000
.000
.000
.001
.003
.001
.000
.000
0.000
.900
.000
.000
.000
.000
.007
.003
.000
.002
.000
.007
.004
.009
0.000
0.000
.001
.001
.009
.006
.001
.000
.001
0.000
.000
o.ooo
.000
.too
0.000
0.000
0.000
.001
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.094
.009
.000
.000
.014
.004
0,000
,001
.003
,001
.000
.000
7
6
I
2
4
*
0 0
1 1
s
6
9
a< ii
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.
,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.
0.
000 0.000
000 .109
000 0.000
000 0.000
000 0.000
000 1.013
000 .142
000 .1*3
000 0.000
000 0.000
000 .034
004 .013
000 .440
000 .016
000 .00*
000 .000
000 .000
000 .000
1100 .000
000 .000
000 .000
000 .000
000 .302
000 .921
006 .002
000 .002 1
.000 4. til
.000 .309
.000 .092
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 2.990
.000 .162
.000 .It]
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 .073
.OOt .060
.000 .993
.000 .100
.000 .010
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .001
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .973
.000 .712
.OOt .011
.000 .007
.000 .102 .000 .t41
.001 .101 .001 .S2B
0.000 .121 0.000 1.603
0.000 0.000 .073 .073
0.000 0.000 0.000 .010
.001 .039 .000 .291
.013 .249 .009 .911
.
.
,
.
.
0.
o!
.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
g.
0.
.
.
,
.
,
0.
.
.
0.
0.
0.
009 ,t79
002 .104
020 .076
000 .001
001 .003
000 .000
000 .006
000 0.000 (
000 .000
000 .090
000 .004
000 .006
000 0.000
003 .110
000 .106
000 .000
000 .000
000 .030
000 .044
000 .107
000 .004
000 .000
000 .000
000 .000
000 .000
000 0.000
000 0.000
000 0.000
000 .000
000 .001
000 0.000
000 .000
000 .010
000 .000
.009 .612
.001 .944
.010 .210
.000 .001
.002 .004
.000 .000
.000 .007
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .017
.000 .006
.000 0.000
.002 .Itl
.000 .123
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .010
.000 .216
.000 .291
.000 .024
.000 .Olt
.000 .000
.000 .060
.000 .000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 .000
.000 .001
.000 0.000
.000 .000
.000 .010
.000 .002
000 1.462 0.000 1.2TO
006 .929
000 .162
ooo .0*1
041 1.017
001 .411
000 0.000
004 .01]
000 .440
000 ,011
000 .004
.004 .792
.000 ,t43
,000 ,144
.091 I. 201
.001 .114
.073 .073
.004 .010
9.000 .991
9.000 .100
1.000 .Oil
000 .000 0.000 .000
0. I3.T
. 44.
I.
96.
1. 46.
91.
0. 0.
7. 16.
61.
0. IB.
0.0 21.
0.0 11.
0. 100.0
. 100.0
100.0
100.0
2. 100.0
100.0
100. 100.0
9. 100.0
0. 100.0
o. 100.0
0. 100.0
0. 190.0
110
-------
TAME 45A
**MU*CC MM imiMMcmi. **on\.r
tNou Mvr mnunr WNIM »i or t
D»» PULP ILUtx MPfOJMI CM«NT
1.** LI PULP l»44» LK
t.M L»
O.IT* LI
P»LT
MM'tkt
O.OT14
TOTU.
TO »»STt-t
NUC
iMtrt
«4TC»I*L COTTON
MTMI4L -riX'^Tt *N>INC
4TCPI4L *0«0 r|at»
N1
UTTkltL M*T V.OD* »S»
1TEOI1L riL"SP4«
MTOIII. o4u«ITI oat
4TCM4L MH.ru-
PC*fk fuCL COM
SOllI >>ST>» "INI*.
SOLID ««5Tt VOSI-CMSIM
"tSMClUt
onuNO
POUM
cuiic rT
POUM
.040*0
.10507
I.MMO
Oll'*«
hOO
»iif.«.
T»OS C«« VW -HJNOJlOl
T-OS -.[t
TWO* -T I
OUNO
POUM
T«n& o< o-jub
»«OS »N»CSI«
POUND
BOUM
OUNO
C-I.O*IN«
.»Tfil.O».i OIS SOt I US
.4TCMO-NC L'M.lN
c-^n^ti-
O*** I >
Q-NC ««.U*|N.r
o-w »IC«CL
oiro
OUNO
OUM
OUNO
MMN.l
POUNK
POUNC
POUM
OUM
PHUNO
POUND
OUNO
POUND
POUNfl
pnuM
.00004
.000*1
looooo
0.00000
.00001
.00001
9.00000
toO«T»
.OMII
.03*22
.00271
olooooo
*.»
OUNO
POIMO
-4TC-OO-N4
IINC .
4-40*14
NlTJOOtK
«(sTicint
Uf «N»l»ON«.Nl4<. l-0«rT
POUM
POUND
POUM
OUNO
.00
POUM
WITS
.(MM
t.OOOOO
0.00010
(.(((((
O.OOOM
O.OOMO
O.OOOM
Io4|TJ
.02*7*
.04*
.011)7
.OMI2
.01014
loOOOO
0.00000
.MOM
.002*4
O.OOOM
0.00000
.OUM
.OOOM
.MM*
.MMO
.MU
.0*41*
.00041
O.OOOM
O.OOOM
I.OMM
I.OOOM
0.00000
.00001
.MM
.000*0
.000
t.oooo*
.(101
O.OMM
.*433«
0.00000
0.00000
.»«.t».0
.017.1
.00(44
0.00010
.00011
0.00009
.0*00
.00000
0.00000
O.IOOM
.0)104
.04*1 I
.0000*
.00001
.00001
.2*
.*!**
.001*1
.211
.Ml
.MOM
.0000
.MM
.OOOOO
.00
*.«
O.MIM
I.(0001
I.OOMO
O.MOOO
.01*12
. 01*24
O.MMO
0.00000
.004)1
.01102
.*
.01470
.OOI'I
.00*03
.0000%
0.00000
0.0*0X0
0.00000
0.00000
.10000
.00(10
O.OOMO
O.MOOO
.00141
.OOOM
.00000
.(MOO
.00000
.00000
.00000
.001**
.OOOM
O.OOOM
.MM
0.00000
0. OOIM
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.oooot
0.1000*
0.0010*
0.0100*
0.00000
.0241*
.01010
.0011]
0.00000
0.00000
.00171
.00104
.00124
00)92
.000*9
.00001
.4000?
.0000'
.00000
0.0(000
.00000
.10000
.00(11
(.(oooo
0.00000
.00071
.000'*
.(((00
.00000
0(M(
.ooooo
.001*1
.00021
.0*00%
0.00000
0.00000
0.0000*
0.00000
O.MOO*
0.00000
(.00000
.MOO
.00000
(.(((((
O.OMM
I.MMI
O.OMM
O.MOOI
.00114
.00214
.OOMI
0.00000
0.0*000
.000*1
.00171
.00*01
.00214
.00031
.000*0
.00000
0.00000
.00000
0.0000*
.00000
.000(0
(.00000
O.MOOO
.(010
.MO**
.00002
.00*00
.(((00
.00011
.00*11
.00001
.00011
.00001
0.00(00
(.00000
O.OMM
(.((000
0.00000
g.goooo
0.0(000
0.00000
0.00000
0.0(000
0.00000
0.0(0(0
0.00000
0.00000
.ZIOVT
I. OOOOO
.IIS".
.OOIM
.0901-
0.00010
.00(14
.00011
.00414
0.000*0
0.019U
.0»'4J
.00003
.0»on«
.0001*
.000*1
.|T|»T
.Ol&T)
.OOJ«--<
.000-3
0.00000
(.on*
c.or.O'ig
O.OOO'O
Q.OOOtiA
0.00000
.OOOnC
.ooooo
O.ooono
0.00000
0.00(00
O.OOOilO
o.oog»o
. SULIO ->STC«
C*»ISSIUNS
SOL Msn
SOW*C< XTIOLtUB
sower. Mt o«
.00(13
.OOlfO
.M0«0
0.00000
.MIST
.002*2
.OOOM
.0*0(1
.OOOM
II.OT10*
.IT.ni
.mil
,0«1»"
I.10404
.00*1
.HO*'
.111*1
.0«01S
.0»OTI
.10(73
Htm 4n>|4LS
CvtMT
*TF*
INPUST«I4L SOLID XStrs
47" ([""ISSIOIS
«TCIMOmt MSTCS
POST-CONSWIf SOL MSTC
SOURCE PcnoLttM
EsCMr SOU>*Ct COM.
Ckta*T souacE NUCI NT**
CNCP6* SOUOCC OOB ««Stt
Il.tTlW
.37401
.mil
.0*14*
I.M*0*
.40031
.»(«T
.mil
.05075
.oion
.1007)
M.I
10.7
t*.6
IT.*
11.7
l*.t
If.t
14.1
11.1
11.4
10.4
11.1
t*.l
!*.»
M.t
IT.*
M.l
IT.S
16.4
I4.S
1*.*
*».*
.*
*!.!
4«.l
41.*
41.4
M.t
**.«
**.?
**.4
I.I
14.4
*.*
1.7
.1
1.4
3.4
.T
l.t
*.*
4.7
T.I
i.a
1.1
I.
.
1.
.
I.
.
i.
.
I.
.0
.9
.1
.1
.T
.1
.1
2.1
.T
r' .»
1 0.0
1(1.0
100.0
100.1
IM.O
100.*
1M.(
100.0
1(0.0
10(.(
100.0
100.0
100.0
111
-------
TABLE 45B
MMunet ««» ».N»i»g»i»tFir«. MOFUI
THOU MIT iwiuit N.MIN*
«Tt»l«L COTTON
*rr<*r*L >uLF*7e P.*IHC
*7OI*L *OUI< F1HE*
MTt«I*L LI "EM ONE
*7FP.|*L I "UN OM
»*TE*UL S-LT
"*TFlt(AL **L*1S §**»n
TfBIK MI lunp *9M
«»TE»I»L FtL>»«»«
(TtlllM. OAUMTt 0*1
CNCBOT SOWCt tTHOLfU"
f-Ne»Of 10U"C( N*7 0*1
r-li<)Qv 9tfJ*C( CO*L
£NtHU» SUUMCt «l«
iNt"nr sou-ct «oon FIUCO
CNCHtt* 10O"Cb MVD^CJfOtoCII
*rF«l*L OH',-
TFP.KL i~«ipt«*7£ "oc«
7EH1IL U**^>UM
r'."^'^'"""" "°0
r.»°\::tu;"L °'*t>"":'
ujT^UTl FrtO" S7Sre*a
"""'
snLio >*<>ri>i v-ocist
>!>Lin *irk» FUEL COMI
>''LIn «*S7tS *1N1NH
knLfft KASTF tiS7-CONlu'*
7"fl! Mir^itOfcN OF1 "-.S
*r«<19 SUL I1" uilOFS
*Ti*0!i C*i« ON *ONOHi)e
AT»Q9 «LU MYI|£S
4T-09 Ot» i OJIU"tC5
*T^OS 01 '0 nU^ suf-U"
r«os » it>
«T«"5 LE«
ATMOS *f." 'J*.
*Tnn*iPHFf C C'.LOblNt
«ATFP«D»)N ,' 1 s 9UL TxS
.AirBMIlNS FI.uul.llE5
ATECt^O'-jt CU)
.ircw.'0-Nt susi- «"LIO*.
ATF.aMOHNC "<: TAL !'"<
..IFOJ0.Nl C..~IT.t
ATEP-OMM} C-MUMf^M
A7Frf«OI*i.t I-UN
.lTF.««U-Nt *LU"|1U«
ATfllMOMNt -EOCUfl*
VATE**HO**Hk L?fc'i
»ATEe40"..f k*HU^PMA7>^
ATF'HOBNfc ll'tC
JtTFB*0"Nt A»WONt*
«TFBaOl«N» NlTcr-^fN
.irE«HOf*NE PCiTict'.t
ftUIMAfr ff FNW I^ONIH.NfA,. I"MACT9
NA«F
... ..,!.,. LS
'"trS"
IuOUI7llt*L SOLID .««TEJ
Af" EVNII^lONf
.»Tf»«0«Ni «*SrC9
POST-CON«UMt<4 ftOL >*t7C
ENE*OT lou»Ct PCTtlOLCui*
iir'av 9ou«ct 1*7 9*1
CNCPOV IDU^Ci CO*L
OUNO
POUND
OUNO
OUNfl
POUNO
OUNO
BOUND
POUNO
OUNO
AUNT)
"ILL "U
"TLL 870
"ILL *7U
"ILL »7U
"ILL »TU
"ILL »TU
POUNO
ou«n
OUNO
BOUND
«TL "Tu
"TL 870
IL ITU
UNIT'
POUNf.
OUNO
OUNP
CUBIC FT
POUNO
BOU'JU
POUNO
POUNfi
PTIUNO
POUN<)
POUNft
on,, si,
BnUNO
BRUNO
BOU'IO
POUNO
fcOUNf,
MftUNfl
POUND
POIInr,
"OUM1
BBUN?
flUMn
BOUN"
POUNw
POl'Ni)
pouNn
nirio
POUNO
POUND
pn.jNO
POUNO
BOU'lO
UNTTS
OOUNO?
THOU GAL
CUMC C7
OUNOS
OUNOS
CUKIC FT
IL RTU
IL «TU
a ITU
*-«-<*' >wv"» -vvw MT0«a NIL *.TU
tN(Ba< IDUhCk1 .Ouu >«STt "IL ItU
I*W(> 0' ENVIBOWF.NTAl I"**
ATtB
INUUS7PKL
I7N EWI9SION5
POST-CONSUNt" SOL "ASTE
ENEBS': iOU»CE PETPOL£U«
ENCBSr SOURCE NI7 GAS
EN£«Ot SOUOCE CO>L
ENtBOY SOUHCE NUCL BTPuB
E'.f»OY
.000 XSTE
.37*01
.21121
.0*1**
1.2690*
.*0012
.22(97
.111*1
.09939
.09071
.01(29
.10(73
»f« Camua OH'OHL TIUNJPOH
MPMB.I |
.till
.00000
.00000
.OIIC7
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00001
.00000
.00(00
.10000
!oooi2
.00011
.00000
.(0(29
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.one}!
.00(69
.00000
0.00000
.00001
.00121
.00140
.0010
0.00000
0.00000
.001*6
.0006*
.00011
.001].
.(((2i
.00000
.0001!
.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1* L»
.00000
.00000
.«}»»«
.00000
.00000
.otooo
.000(0
.00(00
.00(00
.000(0
.00(00
.001*2
.0012*
.00000
.00691
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00(00
.00(00
.((I6(
.01890
.00011
.00000
.0003'
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00(00
.00(0(
.000(0
.00000
.(0(00
.00000
.00000
.011000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.(((((
.0(000
.00000
.0(000
00000
.00000
.00000
.On»77
.00000
.00030
.00(00
.000(0
.000(0
.00000
.00000
.0(000
.0(000
.00(00
.00(00
.00(00
.00000
.00000
.00000
.((((0
.00000
.ooooo
.ooooo
.00000
.00000
.00(00
.00000
.000(0
.90000
.00»«(
.00000
.1003K
.079(6 0.00000 0.01000
.091*2
.0*6*3 (
.00000
.00000
.(607
.01919
.01190
.069*7
.004*1
.00010
.Oa9»S
.00001
.00000 C
.00000
.00000 0
.00000
.00000 1
.(«119
.00000
.22097
.000(0
.00(90
.00009
.OOMA
.OOK*
.0*102
.000*1
.001*1
.00000
i.ooooo
1.00000
.00115
.01479
.0099*
.001»l
.00«1*.
.000"
.0(969 .000)6
.00001 .0000?
.00000
.00010
.000((
.00050
.00000
.00000
.000(1
.00000
.0(000
.00000
0.00000 0.00000 0.911000 O.OOOItO
.(((*(
.00080
.00000
.00000
.00000
.000X0
.00001
.00000
.00003
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.ooooo
.00000
.00000
.onto
.00061
.00001
.00001
.00*11
.001**
0.00000
.01111
.00011
.9001!
0.00800
.00019
0 0
1
1
J
0 0
2
.02*19
.00000
.00000
.00(00
.0(00]
.0112]
.00090
.00012
.000«0
.00000
.00000
.000(0
.00000
.00000
.00000
.0(0(0
.00000
.00000
.(0(00
.00000
.00(01
.00000
.00000
.onooo
.00(01
.00002
.00001
.00000
aoooo
.000(0
.aoooa
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00(00
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.0(((0 0.00000
.000(1
.00(00
.00000
.00000
.00(01
.(0(02
.0(0(1
.(0(00
.00000
.(((00
.0(000
.00000
.(0(00
.00000
.00000
.00000
.000(0
.00000
.00(00
.00000
,0(0(0
.9(906 0.0(000 0.00000
.01900
.00(3?
.OOJ»2
. U(»7
.0«1»»
1.00010
.009*1
.003*2
.00120
1.0(0(0
.00*77
.00010
.((((2
.(7»l*
.(OF6|
.22097
.00*77
1.00000
I. ooooo
>. 0(0(0
,0066«
.000311
.(((02
.4.19(8
.1011*
(.(0(00
,00»»(
1.00000
0.00(00
0.0(000
.00*91 0.000(0 (.(((00
(
J
)
12
10
0
*
3
6 «
0 0
6 9
0.0
1,3
.1 .
.0
t.a
.7
100.0
*.2
0.0
(.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.
,
.
1.
,
0.
!.
0.
0.
0.0
(.(
(.(((00
o.(o((o
«.3(017
.711(1
0.00000
.911(7
0,00000
0.00000
(.((0(0
0.00000
.09*91
.1139)
.09(19
,(9(79,
.(1(2*
.10071
.(0(00
.00000
.00000
.00000
0(0(0
0.00000
.9113*
.39(83
.01327
.00190
.29121
1.92*6*
.31194
.79*11
.22(97
.171.9
.29713
.162(6
.9212
.1I99<
.00191
.0170*
.00671
.OOOln
0.00000
.0001*
.00(01
.00*1*
0.0(000
0.0(000
.067*1
.139*1
.((((1
.0000.
.00009
.0001?
.171*7
.(1671
.((]*
.((091
0.0*000
(.00(00
0.0(000
(.000(0
(.(00(0
(.(0(00
.00(00
.0(000
(.(((((
(.((((0
0.0(000
0.00(00
0.00000
11.07199
.37*01
.29121
.(*!**
1.1*90*
.*I011
.11(97
.11191
.09019
.(9079
.01021
.10(7)
100.
100.
100.
1(0.
too.
100.
1(0.
100.
100.
1(0.
100.
1(0.
112
-------
TABLE 46
RttOUJKt UO CHVIRONHENT4L MO'Ut 1NU.TIII
III CMHKS CUT" Oil* HLIUNUIII
n imt*s
MTMIM. COTTON
MTCR1U. SULFtTI t*INC
*TfR|M. MOO riKR
MTCRIM. LlMSTOMt
MTCRIU. |«M OKI
MTCRItL SALT
MTtRIM. *.»11~S»NO
WTERUL MT SOOA ASM
ATCRIAL rtvos'A*
MTCRIAL MUUTt out
ATCRIAL SULFUR
CWMT SOURCC CTROLCUH
tHtRIT SOURCC HIT MS
CNtRIT SOURCE COAL
iNtRtT SOURCC mtc
tNCRit SOURCE HOOD nut*
CHCRlr SOURCE HTO*0»0«f*
MTCRIAl »OT»S«
HATCRIAL HOWHAU HOCK
ATERIAL CLAT
ATCRIAL «T»SUM
MATCRIAL SILICA
MTERIAL MOCISS AOO
(NtMY MOCKS
CHCROv TRANSPORT
INMOT or MIL RESOURCE
MICR VOLUME
UNIT*
OUHO
OUHO
OUHO
OUNO
R8UHO
FOUND
OUHO
OUNO
Ul ITg
1U. ITU
ILL «TU
III «TU
ILL ITU
HILL tTU
OUNO
OUHO
OUNO
OUTPUTS 'HOD ITSTC'S
SOLID MSTC1 OCCSS
SOLID XStCS rud. COM*
SOLID MSTCS «iNi«a
SOLID MITE »OST-CttHSun
TMoiMCRic csTiciot '
»t«o« TICUL«TCS
ATCOS KITROIEN 0>IMS
ttnOS HTOROCARIONS
ATMOS sw.ru* oiiots
itnoj :III*OH NONOitoc
'05 tLOfHTDCS
ATMOS OTMCR o*a>Nics
TKOS oooaout sw.ru*
I>IC
ICID
MfMOKHC HCT>L ION
l»IC«*0*MC CKCMIOIS
etwioc
C»»O»IU«
ALUMINUM
NICKIL
MTCMOMIC »t»CU«r
LHO
MTCWOMC 1I1C
MTtlltOMt 1IMOMU
OTOtOWIt MIt«O»t«
MTCMOIMC »ts- rcioc
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUMO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUMO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
.OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
MKC
» MTtRIALS
ENCRIT
Mtc»
INDUSTRIAL SOLID MSTES
ATM EMISSIONS
MTCRSORNC MSTES
OST-CONSUNC* SOL MITC
CNEROT SOURCE XTROLEUM
CNERIT SOURCC NAT MS
CNCRIT SOURCE COAL
CNfRIT SOURCC NUCL NT»MR
INCRIT SOURCC MOO MITE
INOCl tf CMIRONMCNTAL IH*ACTS
KM NlTtHIALS
CNtTCT
««riP
INOUSTRIAL SOLID MSTCS
' SOURCC COIL
CNCR9T SOURCE NUCL MT»«R
CNCRST SOURCC MOD MSTC
UNITS
IL ITU
THOU ML
cuiic rr
OUNOS
OUNOS
cmic rt
IL ITU
IL ITU
IL ITU
IL ITU
IL ITU
STMOAIW
MLUM
l.**f
.11
.sit
.»»»
l.Mt
.Ml
.«*
.111
in
TON COTTON COTTON COTTON COTTON COTTON COTTON
»» IT OIA«C* Ol»»t« OI**CR OUH» OltMR OIAHI
Oft Ml TRAN MS" RCSI ITS TOT
1* 11 I.MI LI
.til
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
.101
.III
.III
.101
0.011
l.lll
l.lll
.III
l.lll
l.lll
0.011
.lit
.111
.100
.001
.000
c
.IS*
$M
'1
l.lll -
III .'
.Ill
.111
.III
.III
.111
.III
.III
*)**)
.III
.III
.III
.III
I.OII
l.lll
l.lll
.III
.III
.III
.III
.III
.III
.IM
.III
.III
.III
I.IM
l.lll
;**
I.IM
O.lll
«,MO
o'.ooo
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
.III
.III
.III
.IM
.111
.III
.III
.III
.11*
l.lll
.III
.III
.III
.III
l.lll
11
1
1
1
I
1
l.lll
I.OII
l.lll
1.111
l.lll
.Ml
' l.lll
l.lll
I.IOI
.III
.III
.III
.111
.11*
.III
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
I.MI
I.IOI
I.IOI
-.O.lll
.lit
.Oil
l.lll
l.lll
.00.
.Ill
Oil
1.1*1
l.lll
.III
.11*
.IIS
.Itl
.III
.III
.to*
I.OM
.III
l.lll
.III
.III
.III
l.lll
l.lll
.III
.111
.III
.III
.III
.11*
.lit
..111
.III
I.IM
I.IM
l.lll
.III
I.M*
0.001
O.IM
.III
.Ml
l.lll
,1.111
l.lll
I.MO
.Ml
.1*7
.III
.11*
.Ml
.Ml
.IIS
I.IM
.lit
111
.11*
.111
l.lll
.III
.III
.11*
.Ml
.III
.III
.III
.III
.III
.Ml
.010
.110
.Ml
.III
.III
.III
.101
.III
.Ml
. .Ill
.Ml
.III
.Ml
.III
.001
.000
.000
.001
.III
.001
I.MI
I.IOI
.Ml
.Ml
.III
.111
.III
.110
.100
0.10*
.000
O.MI
.III
.III
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
.Ml
.III
.III
.100
.III
.Ml
.III
.III
.III
.III
.III
.III
.III
.001
.010
.1*0
.Ml
Ml
.III
.III
.III
.Ml
.III
.IM
.III
.Ml
.Ml
.III
.III
l.lll
.III
.III
.1*1
.III
.III
0
*!
Ill CMC
l.lll
I.IM
l.lll
l.lll
1.1*1
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
l.lll
.1*1
I.MI
l.lll
l.lll
I.IM
I.IM
I.IM
I.IM
.Ml
I.Mf
I.IM
O.OM
0.000
.Ml
I.MI
.III
l.lll
.III
.Ml
O.IM
l.lll
.001
.001
.Oil
.III
.Ml
.000
.001
O.MO
.Ml
O.OM
.Oil
1.000
0.001
O.IM
I.IM
.III
.100
.000
.101
.III
III
.III
.III
.Ml
0.000
0.001
0.001
O.lll
.Ml
.Oil
1.000
l.lll
O.MI
l.lll
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.110
0.000
.000
.Ml
.Ml
.lit
III
I.MI
.III
I.MI
I.IOI
0.001
0.000
1
1
1
I
1
I
I.IM
.111
I.IM
.III
I.IIO
.til
.111
.1**
I.IM
l.lll
.**
.Ml
IM
.Itl
.IM
.III
.100
.000
.Ml
.III
.III
III
.1SI
JM
.in
.011
.SOS
1.1*1
.7*1
i.lll
.Ml
1.000
.IM
.ISO
tt*
.T«t
.IS]
.101
.III
.101
.001
0.00*
.III
.III
.lit
.III
l.lll
.171
.!«
.Ml
.III
.III
.11*
.1*1
.1*1*
.Olt
.000
O.OM
.001
.000
O.OM
0.010
0.001
.001
.000
.000
I.IM
.III
.III
.010
1.101
*ot
.SIS
.1*1
1.1*1
ST*
I.IM
.III
.IIS
.Ul
.Oil
.III
TA..I
*T.
**.
**.
*l>.
**.
0.
*».
*»
**.
«r.
s*.
l.lll
1.111
I.MI
I.MI
.Ml
I.IM
I.OII
l.lll
l.lll
I.MI
l.lll
.Ml
I.MI
l.lll
l.lll
I.IM
l.lll
I.MI
O.OM
0.011
O.OM
O.OM
O.OM
0.0*0
.Oil
I.MI
.Ml
I.IM
.010
.III
.11*
I.IM
.100
.III
.III
.III
.III
.100
.III
l.lll
.Ml
l.lll
.III
l.lll
l.lll
I.OII
I.MI
.III
.III
.III
.III
.III
.III
.III
.III
.III
l.lll
I.MI
1.000
l.lll
.Ml
I.IM
I.OII
I.IM
.III
l.lll
I.IOI
I.OII
1.000
O.IM
0.000
.000
.Oil
.III
.III
.III
.11*
.III
III
O.lll
l.lll
0.110
0
100
0
0
0
0
.til
.111
.11*
1.000
I.MI
«<»
.1*1
1**
'l.lll
l.lll
. .*
.11*
.11*
.111
.It*
.010
O.OM
I.IM
.III
I.IM
O.MI
I.MO
.IM
.»!«
.Ill
.011
.510
l.lll
.TT1
I. Ill
.11*
.001
.171
.MI
.til
.71*
.OSI
.III
.oot
.001
.III
.III
.001
.100
.001
.Oil
O.lll
.07*
.1*1
.III
.III
.Oil
.011
.1*1
.0*1
.lit
.001
0.001
.001
.000
o.ooi
0.010
0.001
.001
.Ml
.001
l.lll
.000
.Oil
.III
.....
I.I)
.sio
1*.
l.llt
.Ml
.01*
.11*
.111
.111
.It*
.III
III.
III.
III.
111.
III.
III.
111.
111.
III.
111.
111.
111.
113
-------
TABIE 47
fiOUUCI ANO INVIMOtWINTAL PROfILt AHA.LTSU
100 CNAIMII CLOTH 01AP CLAUN U49
INPUT* TO ITSTtH*
MM
NtTtRIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATt BRINE
NITER IAL 1000 FIBER
MATERIAL LINESTOHf
MATERIAL IRON OBt
MATERIAL MIT
MATERIAL GLASS UNO
MATERIAL NIT SOOt ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUMTE OX
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
CNCHOr SOURCE N«T GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COIL
ENEROY SOURCE RISC
CNCR3T SOURCE ,000 FIBER
CNEROT SOURCE HTOROPO»ER
HATERIAL POTASH
HATERIAL PHOSPHITE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
HATERIAL GYPSUH
HATERIAL SILICA
NATERIAL PROCESS 100
ENERGY PROCESS
ENEROT TRANSPORT
ENERGY or NHL RESOURCE
A IE8 VOLUME
OUTPUTS 'RON STSTENS
NANE
SOL 10 HASTES PROCESS
SOLID IASTES FUEL COM
SOLIO KASTES HININO,
SOLID M03 PART1CULATES
TNOS N1TROOEN OIIOCS
TNOS HYDROCARBONS
TNOS SULFUR OI10ES
TNOS CARSON HONOXIDE
THOS ALOEHYOES
TNOS OTHER OOGANICS
moS ODOROUS SULFUR
TWOS AMMONIA
TMOS HTOROOEN FLOUPIOE
TNOS LEAO
TNOS MERCURY
TNOS'MERIC CHLORINE
ATE&90RNE OIS SOLIOS
ATESBOINt FLUORIDES
ATEBBORNE OISS SOLIOS
ATERBORNC BOO
ATERBOBNE PifNOL
ATE'BORNE SULFIOES
ATERBORNE OIL
A7ERBORNE COO
ATERBORNE SUSP SOLIOS
ATERBORNE AC 10
ATERBOPNE HETAL ION
ATERBORNE CHENICALS
ATERBORNE CTANIOE
ATERBORNC ALKALINITY
VATERBOBNE CHROM1UN
ATERBORNE IRON
ATERBORNE ALUN I NUN
ATERBORNE NICKEL
ATERBORNE NERCURT
ATERBORNE LEAO
ATERBORNI PHOSPHATES
ATERSORNt IINC
ATERBORNC AMMONIA
ATERBORNC NITRfEN
ATCRBODNE PCSTI.10I
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 1NPACT5
NANE
ENERGY
ATE R
INDUSTRIAL SDL10 BASTES
ATM CNN US IONS
MTCR80RNE ««STES
POST-CONSUMER SOL 1ASTE
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCC NAT GAS
ENERlY SOURCE COAL
ENEROY SOURCE NUCL HY««R
ENERGY SOURCE «000 »ITC
INOEI Of ENVIKONMCNTAL IMMCTJ
NANE
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
HILL BTU
HILL BTU
MILL BTU
NlLL BTU
HILL BTU
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNDS
IL BTU
NIL BTU
NIL BTU
THOU GAL
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNOS
NIL BTU
THOU 0«L
CUBIC FT
POUNOS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
MIL BTU
NIL ITU
NIL BTU
MIL ITU
MIL ITU
STAHOASO
VALUES
RM MATERIALS l.ll«
ENEROY .1*4
ATER .12«
INDUSTRIAL SOLIO HASTES .0)1
ATM EMNISSIONS .3**
ATERBORNE «A5TES .ITT
POST-CONSUHER SOL »ASTE .008
ENEROY SOURCE PETROLEUM .910
ENERGV 10UPCE NAT GAS .119
ENERGY SOURCE COAL .913
ENERGY SOURCC NUCL HYP>8 .00!
ENERBV SOURCE HOOD «ASTE .000
COTTON
FIBER ST
O.tl LI
.«TB
.000
.000
.000
.900
.000
.000
.000
.000
!o9l
.091
.001
.000
.000
.900
.009
.009
.009
.090
.000
.090
.00*
.003
.099
.999
.091
.111
.901
.901
OiOOO
.0*1
.001
.015
.004
.091
.90S
.009
.000
0.099
.000
.090
.000
.999
9.900
9.909
0.000
.001
.000
.000
.009
.000
.009
.on
.000
.909
.000
.090
099
.909
.00*
.009
.909
.00*
.00*
.999
.09*
.9*1
.009
.000
.4*]
.09}
.091
.991
.910
.911
0.00*
.11
.901
.999
.000
0.00*
«3.0
1.
.
5.
S.
T.
0.
11.
.
t
0.
COTTON COTTON COTTON COTTON COTTON COTTON
DIAPER 01 APE" OUPER 01A
MFB PKG TRAN 11
.«0 LI
ER DIAPER DIAPER
< PCS. SY1 TOT
9.999 9.999 .900 0.090 .00* .»'
0.900 0.099 .090
0.000 .011 .099
9.999 9.999 .900
9.999 9.000 .000
.16* 0.000 .009
9.909 9.000 .000
9.999 9.000 .900
9.909 9.999 .000
.90* 0.009 .999
.99* .000 .001
.00* .090 .000
.09* .000 .900
.001 .000 .999
9.990 .099 .999
9.909 9.099 .090
9.999 9.909 .000
9.99* 9.999 .000
0.09* 0.099 .000
0.999 9.099 .009
0.000 0.090 .009
.024 .001 .000
.929 .099 .090
0.000 .099 .901
0.000 .000 0.000
.009 .000 .000
.113 .091 ' 0.000
.044 .901 .000
.11* .001 0.090
.04* .000 .091
.000 .009 .911
1.000 .000 9.009
.999 .999 9.900
.141 .909 .307
.OS2 .099 OS2
.046 .990 .946
.099 .999 9.999
!ou !ooo ion
.90) .999 .010
.13) .990 .13*
.904 .000 .013
.001 .000 .002
.000 .000 .999
.999 .000 .090
.000 .000 .900
.000 .000 .000
.009 .99* .999
.909 .000 .000
.000 .909 .090
.OB* .000 .116
.13V .009 .162
.001 .000 .091
.001 0.000 .991
.120 .099 .129
1.6*4 0.000 1.901
.921 .000 .067
.06B 0.000 .107
0.000 0.099 0.909 0.000 0.999 .901
.Ott .091 .900
.01* .099 .001
.00* .099 .009
.045 .001 .000
.093 .999 .902
.090 .009 .000
.000 .000 .909
0.000 0.090 0.000
.000 .090 .900
0.000 0.000 0.000
.000 .900 .000
.090 .000 0.000
.001 0.000 0.000
9.009 9.000 0.000
0.009 0.090 0.900
.002 .090 .009
.092 .999 .000
.000 .000 .000
.090 .900 .000
.909 .000 .000
.01* .090 .900
.0*4 .000 .000
..0*2 .000 .900
.901 .990 .909
9.909 .099 .000
.00* .999 .032
.077 .909 .193
.12* .900 .142
.02) .000 .070
.921 .091 .932
.000 .000 .009
.901 .000 .001
.003 0.000 .093
.002 .000 .092
9.000 0.990 .900
.000 .009 .009
.909 9.900 .000
.001 0.900 .002
.001 0.900 .001
0.000 0.099 9.900
.031 .000 .934
.036 .009 .93*
.990 .900 .000
.000 .000 .990
.00* .000 .09*
.014 .009 .033
.036 .090 .051
.091 .009 .004
.002 .000 .003
.090 0.009 .909
0.090 0.099 .909 0.000 0.009 0.009
9.99* 0.099 .999 0.090 0.100 0.009
0.0*1 0.000 .000
0.000 0.900 .000
.*«* 0.009 .090
.009 0.990 .909
0.099 9.090 .000
9.000 0.090 .000
0.009 9.009 .000
0.09* 0.000 .000
0.00* 0.909 .099
.194 .913 0.09*
.929 .090 .001
OOB .000 .000
.009 .000 .000
.orr .0*1 .004
.01« .901 .000
0.009 9.090 0.009
.094 .9*9 .091
.00* .909 0.009
.00* .000 0.000
.991 .900 9.09*
0.010 ,000 0.009
IT. 3 1. 0.0
lt.1 . .4
6.J . .0
IT. 4 . .0
24.* . 1.0
16.4 . .2
9.0 9. 9.0
3B.O 1. 0.2
4.2 . 1.0
49. « . 0.0
(.4.! . 0.0
».) 14. 0.9
0.909 9.000 0.000
0*000 0.000 9.099
.990 9.099 .909
.999 9.090 .900
.000 0.099 .999
9.990 0.000 0.00*
.000 0.000 .009
.9*3 9.900 .903
.009 9.900 .000
.434 0.009 1.124
.140 .999 .164
.129 .009 .129
.924 .999 .031
.2*4 .001 .31*
.133 .990 .ITT
9.009 .09* .00*
.91 .990 .010
.11) 0.99* .13*
.104 0.90* .913
.991 9.9*9 .091
.099 9.090 .00*
3*. 9. 199.
99. . 199.
*3. . 199.
TT. . 109.
6*. . 199.
75. . 190.
9. 10*. 190.
32. . 109.
95. 9. 199.
29. 9. 109.
31. 9. 199.
19. 0. 1*0.
114
-------
TABLE 48A
flounce »"0 CNVIMNMMTM. firiLt ANALYSIS
out HUNOMO OISP oi«pf»s n or t
INPUTS TO STSTF«S
N*»F.
MATERIAL COTTON POUND
MATERIAL 9ULFATE fRINE POlMK
MATERIAL »00l> FtBEU POUND
MATERIAL LIMESTONE POu*"
NATFRIAL HON DOC POUND
MATE*I*L 4ALT POUNO
MATERIAL "LASS SANO POUND
NATErtlAL NAT SOP* ASM POUND
M«TE»1*L FEL'SPAP POUND
N»TE*IAL «*U>ITE ORE pouNii
MATERIAL iULFUP POUND
ENER&T SOURCE PfTPOtfun M|LL *7IJ
ENERGT SOu-Ct NAT OAS MILL »'U
ENE»GT SUU4CI CO*L »1LL VTU
ENEPGT sou^ct msc »ILI CTU
INCPGr iOu000 FIPE* "In PTU
ENE»OV SUUPCE HVOOOPMEP "ILL *Tu
»Alr«IAL POTAS«
NATERIAL CLAT POUNO
»*TEBIAL »VPSU* POUNO
"ATFRIAL >IL1CA PnUNO
ATF.'IAL o-OCESS ADO POUNDS
r^EoliT 7N.N5POUT «IL PT
SOL 1C .ASTEb PNOCCS* POUND
5CLI3 .«SItS FuE'. CUMM POUND
SOLID "ASTES "INl-i, POUND
SOL 10 ««S7t "OST-C3NSU" C'«IC FT
AT'OSP**C':C PESTICIDE POUND
AT"OS PA-*7 ICULA7E-; POJNO
AT"05 -^^-OC^^HONS Of'UNP
ATMO* SULFU(« Olir.t* POUND
AT<*OS NTi)i>o6£N FLOU**U>E
AT"OS L£*'-
A7MOSPMENIC C-LOPINC
.ATE-MOPNE 01* SOLUS
oTF.«an"Nt i."=s sotirs
A7EP10PNE tOl
.A7F»«0«St SUtFIOfS
.»'EO^O".t CUD
!Tf«0'"'t SUSP SOLIDS
....--,»-,v «EIAt. ION
>ATE°«1u>Nt Ct«-IC«tS
ATCPDUUNt C'ANIDE
AI..ALINITT
POiriO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
PCUNf
POUNII
POUND
POUNP
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
PATFfldOPNt ALUNINUN
(1IEU40XNC IC'CL
^ATER^C-»Nt "EOCUB*
ATFPaQVSL P-USPNATCS
>ATE«90l».P
£NE»er
kATE"
INOUSTSIAL SOLID AITE
INEPOT SOU'CE PETPOtBL*
CNEHIT SOURCE MIT OAI
ENC*OT SOU"C>. C04L
(NtDOT SOURCE NUCU NTPKR
ENE*OT SOU'CE «OOP «A«TE
IL I"PACTS
BA> NITE'IACS
ATER
INOUSTPIAL SOLID >ASTES
ATM E»»IS110NS
MATERAOANE "ASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL PASTE
ENEMY SOUHCE PETROLEUM
tNEPGT iOJUCE NAT 6AJ
ENEWT SUURCt COIL
ENEMT SOU'CE NUtl MTP*«
ESEBST SOURCE MOO MSTE
"IL PT.U
TNflU GAL
CURIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CM 1C FT
MIL ITU
MIL ITU
MIL ITU
MIL RTU
'II. ITU
STANDARD
VALUES
ll.MtT*
.37109
.1661*
.03*10
1.195VT
.35577
.1*911
.0*11*
.10**!
.0605*
.00*13
.100*6
DJ**M
T t SSUC
1.41 L«
o.ooooo
0.00000
i.o«.iii
.10**!
0.00000
.111**
0.08000
0.09000
0.00000
0.00000
.01111
.006**
.0151*
.*0«.9«
.00131
.01015
0.00*00
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.12771
.0*1*1
9.00000
.105*0
.015*5
.0951T
0.00000
0.00000
,OI«0*
.0101*
.01*1*
.04*11
.0990?
.OOOOT
.0001*
.0009*
.90000
C. 00000
.00000
.09900
0.00000
0.00000
.00*90
.911*1
.00000
.00999
.90900
.09001
.01555
.0010*
.00045
0.10000
oiooooo
0.00900
0.00000
0.00000
0.00*00
.00000
.90100
0.0900*
0.00001
0.00090
0.00000
1.0150
.0*10*
.not
.0»«»5
.H51T
.035*1
0.00000
.01161
.0151*
.0»tl
.001)1
.010*8
11.0
11.1
1S.O
11.9
*.6
lO.t
«.«
11.*
».»
15. «
It.*
PE FILM
9.00000
0.00000
0. 00000
9.09000
0.00000
0.00000
0.999*0
0.09909
0.90000
.toooo
0.00000
.007.*
.03101
.00«<*
.0010*
0.90000
0.00000
0.10000
0.00000
0.00000
0.900(0
0.00000
.0156T
,01*«1
.0150*
.01*11
.oit*6
.07T**
0.00000
0.00000
.OOTO*
.01161
.052*1
.02*05
.00*35
.0000«
. 9000'
0.00000
.00000
0.90000
.90900
.00000
0.00900
0.90000
.00576
.00056
.00000
.99990
.00006
.0011*
.0006*
.001*0
.00037
0.00000
o.'ooooo
0.000*0
0.00009
0.0000*
«. 000*0
0.00000
0.00000
O.OOOM
0.0000*
0.90000
9.90000
.0154.T
.0*515
.0037*
.00101
.11401
.01095
*.«***0
.07*0
.011(1
.00*0.
.0010*
t. 000*0
.1
It. I
1.1
».7
».7
3.0
l.l
M.I
1.0
13.3
0.0
P* rot.
0.00*00
0.00000
.3»*04
.01*56
0.00000
.1900*
0.00000
0.00900
0.00000
0.00009
.160*5
.009?;
.00(T1
.01T1*
.00073
.00*15
0.00000
0.00*00
0.00010
0.00000
9.90900
9.00000
.9575*
.0*051
0.00000
.1*9*1
.05360
.mi*
0.00000
0.00090
.03611
.02*»l
.01361
. 0*710
.9966*
.90010
.00011
.90316
.0000?
0.000*0
.00009
.90900
0.00000
0.00000
.005*4
.00577
.00000
.90001
.9000*
.03115
.00*74
.906*1
.00071
0.00000
0.00000
O.*0*0*
.0000
O.MOOO
0.00*0*
.00000
.00000
0.00000
. 09015
0.00*0*
0.90000
0.00000
.*«6T6
.0*060
.01***
.006*1
.1TT1T
.0*147
(.0000*
.0097?
tow
.01711
.000']
0*19
T.]
10.*
*.*
It.l
i*.a
IT. 3
10.9
t.O
?1.S
0.9
4.1
MSIN
0.00000
0.0*009
0.00000
9.00000
0.09000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00009
9.00000
0.90000
0.00000
.90191
.011*9
.00030
.00007
0.90000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.90000
0.00000
0.0000*
.00*10
.0034*
.00»7«
.007*1
.00176
.00418
0.00000
0.00000
.00044
.00501
.01125
.00145
.00110
.00001
.00001
0.00000
.0001*
0.00000
.00900
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.001*1
.000*3
.00000
.90000
.0000!
.00*55
.0001*
.0900*
.99002
0.90000
0.00000
o.ooono
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
9.90000
0.00000
0.00000
.00001
0.00090
0.000*0
.00*10
.01*04
.001ST
.00010
.016**
.OOT*5
0.00000
.001*1
- .01160
.01011
.OOOOT
t. 00000
.0
1.1
1.5
.5
1.1
1.1
2.1
10. (
.5
.1
0.0
POLTIS7D
.091*0
.00000
.09000
.00000
.00000
.00009
.00000
.0000*
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.0091*
.00011
.00001
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.09000
0.0000*
0. 90000
.00006
.0001*
.09014
.00011
.00014
.0*031
0.09099
t. 00000
.00005
.00014
.0005*
.0002*
.00019
.00000
.00900
0.00000
.00009
0.90000
.0099*
.09000
0.00000
9.99900
.0000*
.00001
.00000
.ooeoo
.00000
.0000*
.00001
.0*091
.00*00
9.90*00
0.99000
.00000
0.00000
0.0*«*0
0.00000
0.00000
0.00900
0.00000
0.00000
.00900
0.00000
0.00000
.00906
.00031
.00001
.00001
.01111
.lltll
0.0*100
.00011
.00111
.0*001
.00101
C.MOOC
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0 0
FLU"
PUL*
7.*1 Lt
0.00000
0.00000
6.0**TO
.60310
0.00000
.7100*
0.00000
0.90000
0.00000
0.00090
.075111
.03563
.01*61
.01370
.9026*
.06316
0.90000
0.09000
0.00000
9.00000
0.99099
0.00000
.596**
.1*176
oiooooo
.«]*«*
.0*175
.11675
0.00000
0.99999
.05913
.0*9*5
.04150
.110H
.01711
.00017
.000*7
.005*3
.00001
0.00000
.00903
.00000
0.00000
9.00099
'.01010
.05101
.00000
.90000
.00000
.0*001
.070*4
.0559
.00100
0.00009
0.00000
0.90*00
t. 00900
0.0*900
0.0*000
.00000
.00000
0.00000
0. 0*000
9.0000*
0.00000
0.00090
6.0711?
.14*0*
.10174
.01911
.35T»«
.15*50
0.0*010
.039*1
.01161
.011TI
.com
.06116
61. t
38. «
61.1
40.1
19.9
44.6
35.6
16.1
11.4
3».S
63.0
TOT 1C
O.OOOtO
0.0000*
9.119*9
.71TT
0.00000
1.49*37
0.90900
0.00000
0.90009
0.00000
.I6S1*
.0*11*
.109*1
.960*9
.00113
.100*0
0.00900
0.00009
0.99900
0.00000
0.90000
0.00009
1.91241
.321M
.0131*
.0151'
.1662*
1.50111
.1919]
.95*5*
.43659
,0»0*l
.0909*
.015?*
.01016
. OOO'O
0.00000
.00007
.00001
.006**
0.09000
o.otono
.05111
.10317
.0000;
.00001
.00011
.0199*
.1291T
.01911
.09)70
.OOOS3
0.00909
9.00000
.90000
0.00000
0.09909
0.00000
.09000
.00000
0.00000
.00075
.00001
0.00000
0.00009
ll.AMTI
.17100
. 166?*
.91820
1.1*597
.35577
. UVSI
.0*11*
.10*42
.0405*
.00023
.100*6
1*0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.t
1*0.
100.0
ltt.0
1*0.0
100.0
115
-------
TABI£ 48B
0(40URC( ANO ENVIRONIKNTAL PROFILE ANALTSIS
ONI HUNORfD OUP BIAPCRI °l
COftRUAAT CARTONS *OLT CONVERT DISPOSAL TRANSPOR
1.22 LB 1.47 La DRAPPCR]
9.91V LR
"ATEHIAL COTTON POUNO
MATER!
MATER!
"A7IR!
MATER!
MATE*!
MATFRI
MATERI
MATER!
MATERt
MATFRI
t ME RUT
EN( H«v
EN£Rli»
ENERG*
tNEPGT
CNEROT
MATF.WI
NATE6!
MiTE»t
"4TFP|
"ATE"!
MATE*!
ENFRGV
ENERG*
iNE»0-»
IL SULFATIT. N-INE
LL «000 FISE"
IL LIMESTONE
IL IkUN ORE
IL SALT
IL liLAfS SANn
IL NAT 4004 ASH
IL FELI'SPA"
IL riAUBITE OI,T .
>OUNO
>OUNO
>OUN"
>OUNO
>OUNO
"OUNO
OUNU
OUNC
OUNf.
OUNO
ILL «TU
ILL RTIP
ILL RTU
ILL I'TU
ILL «Tu
ILL "TU
'OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
flUNtf
OUNO
1UND4
IL i'TU
IL <4TU
UF HkTt 3f.iluRCE *!L *TU
OUTPUTS *"U* STSTt^
S"L!U "AiTtb WOCtSS
S(.-LIO «lSrf FUEL COMH
SOU;' »u>i "INOMuF
T'-OS OThe.-* URr.4N|C5
4T«OS 0- O-IUS iUl'l.-
AT**OS Aixgo-fu
ATH04 LE«.-
*r-osP*-eMc c-AT'RRO»NC -4STE?
POST-CON4ll"t" SOL «ASTE
ENEKOf 10UHCI PtTHOLIIM
kNOOY iOu'Cl NAT Oil
INCWQT 10U"Cfc COAL
CNFROV IOUMCE NUCL i*v*«R
iNfPOT MUHCE "000 «ASTE
INOlI OF CMVIROWEN7AL IMPACTS
POUNO
POUNH
CUPIC FT
POUNO
PPUNO
OOUN1
PfUjNll
POUNO
POIINU
K1UNA
POIINP
poi.sr
WOU'lO
PO'JMl
OOUNO
POUN1
POUNO
POUNf"
POUNO
POUNH
pnnNO
POUNO
POUND
30UNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
"OUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
PflUNO
P"UNOS
*IL I'TU
THOU OAt.
CU8IC FT
POUNDS
POUN04
CUOTC 'T
»IL "TU
NIL RTU
NIL »TU
NIL 8TU
PA> MATERIALS 12.00871
FNEROT .3710*
ATE* .1662*
INDUSTRIAL 40LIO OOU HASTE .10046
0.00000
0.00000
.5014
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00460
.00154
.001.18
0.00000
.00714
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
9.00000
0.00000
.01540
.91944
.00011
.91174
.04511
.04421
0.00000
1.00000
,04761
.01980
.00645
,99010
« 00917
0,00000
,00001
0.01900
.09000
.00000
0,00000
9.00000
9.00000
.one**
.92502
.90000
,00000
.00001
.011*1
.00051
.900*1
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.09000
0.00000
0,00000
0.00000
0.00000
.91574
.01945
.0003*
.00790
.16185
.04492
0.00000
.004*0
.00114
.00110
0.00000
.90714
7.1
5.)
.2
6.5
13,7
12.6
0.9
6. 1
3.2
9.6
9.0
7.1
0.00000
0.00000
.81210
.12960
9.00000
.37440
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
..010*6
.0062*
.oooia
.00062
.01406
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.13526
.04058
.00044
.23277
.09214
.04840
0.00000
0.00000
.01501
.01821
.00604
.00904
.90015
.000*1
.ooooo
0.00000
.00001
.00000
.000*1
0,00000
0.00000
.00644
.006*2
.00000
.00000
.0000!
.01214
.00201-
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.90000
1.40120
.04102
.016*7
.00104
.0042*
.01121
0.00000
.010*0
.006M
.90010
.90062
.016*6
11.5
11.1
10.2
' 11.2
7.2
7.*
0.0
11.9
5.7
13.5
7.6
14.*
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00012
.00044
.09007
.09002
0.00000
0.00090
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00040
.0002*
.0000?
.00030
.00044
.0011*
0.00000
0.00000
.00011
.90014
.01007
.00000
,00000
0.00000
.00090
0.00090
.00000
.09000
0.90000
0.00000
0.00000
.0000*
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00001
.00001
.00002
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.90000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00090
0.00000
.00040
.00070
.90006
.00001
.0017*
.00016
0.00000
.90012
.00040
.00097
.00002
o.ooooo
.0
ff
.0
.1
.2
.0
0.0
.1
,4
.1
,?
0.9
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00090
.01212
.OOJH4
,006»4
.00155
0.00000
0.00000
0.09000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00001
.01404
.02000
.04022
.10*42
0. 09009
0,00000
.ooasi
.01410
.00111
.0000?
0.00000
0.09090
0.00990
0.00000
,09900
0.00900
0.900CO
9,00999
.OOOM
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00001
.00001
,00210
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00010
0.00000
0.00010
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00011
.01404
.09022
.0022*
.06847
.00149
0.00000
.00242
.00244
.90684
.00149
0.00000
.0
1.0
.1
6.0
5.7
1.0
0.0
3.9
2.6
11.3
le. a
9.0
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.
9,
0
ooooo
ooooo
90000
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
00064
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
00910
ooooo
ooooo
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
!o07]6
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
ooooo
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
OOOOO 0.00000
OOOOO 0.00000
00016
ooooo
10*41
ooooo
00007
000**
027*3
00006
.001*>
.00000
I. OOOOO
1.00000
.00127
.01803
.09659
.00402
.00917
.00020
OOOOO 0.00000
ooooo
ooooo
00001
00900
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
00014
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
.00000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
0.00000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ooooo
09000
ooooo
.00000
.00069
.00004
.00000
.01116
.09019
.10*41
.00069
.ooooo
.00000
.00000
.00000
0.0
.2
.9
.
2.
,
100.
0.
0,
0.
0.
.00002
9.00000
.00001
9.00000
1.00000
9.00000
9.00000
.0034*
.00001
.00000
.00000
.00004
.00002
.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
.00736
.00042
.00002
.01*01
.0016*
0.00000
.00736
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.0
2.0
.1
.1
3.1
1.0
0.0
a.o
9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00000
0.00000
9.21949
.87277
0.00000
|.490'T
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.26524
.0929*
.10942
.0*04*
.00071
.10046
0.10000
0.00000
0.000(10
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.03J-H
.12241
.01114
.9151*
.166'*
1.50111
.191*3
.444S4
.1«9M
0.00000
.19071
.2606K
.111440
.41649
.0*041
.00094
,01!>>4
.0101*
.00020
0.00000
.000117
.09001
,00644
0,00900
0.00010
.95012
.10117
.00002
.00002
.00011
.019««
.12*17
.02011
.00170
.00991
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
0.000(10
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00000
0.00000
.000*4
.00001
0.00000
0.00000
12.09970
.371(1*
.1«62»
.OlfJ'O
1.19S*T
.J4J77
,0»0«9
.0011]
,1004*
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
116
-------
TABIE 49
CIOUIICC MO IMVimcMCNTtl. PROFILE ANALYSIS
ONI THOU CLOTH IHCITS 10* USES
CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH
SMtET SHttT SHeeT (HtCT
COTTM IT POLYe ST »r« PUB
110 UUS 111 USCS 110 USei 100 USCt
CLOTH CLOTH
IHCCT SHEET
TPAN HASH
100 uses 100 uses
CLOTH CLOTH
IdttT SHKT
CSI ITS TOT
100 uses in uses
INPUTS TO STSTENJ
NATIRIAL COTTON
HATER IAL SULFA7E MINE
NATERIAL HOOD rueii
NATERIAl LIHCSTONE
HATERIAL mo* one
NATERIAL SALT
NATERI4L CLASS SAND
HATEPIAL HIT SOO< >SH
HATERIAL FELDSPAR
HATERIAL BAUAITC Ml
HATERIAL SULFUR
EHERIY SOURCE PCTHOLeuN
ENEPOT SOURCE »«T eOOD FIBfP
ENERBY SOUXCE HYDROPOVCP
NATERIAL POTAS"
HATCRIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
HATERIAL CLAT
HATERIAL OYPSUN
NATE*IAL SILICA
NATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENEPOr PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF NATL RESOURCE
*TFB VCLUHE
OUTPUTS FltO" SYSTENS
101.10 PASTES PBOCESS
SOLID HASTES rail, COM
SOLIO MSTES H1NIH4
SOLID «AST£ POST-CONSUN
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATHOS PAPMCULATES
AI«OS NITROOEN 01 IOCS
ATHOS HTOPOCARIONS
ATHOS SULFUR OIIDES
ATNOS CARBON NONOIIOE
AT«OS ALDEHYDES
ATHOS OTHER ORGANIC?
ATNOS ODGHOUS SULFUtt
ATHOS AHNONIA
ATHOS HTOHQGEN FLOURIOE
ATHOS LEAU
ATHOS KRCURY
ATHOSPMERIC CHLO'INE
ATERBOHNE OIS SOLIDS
ATERPORNE FLUORIDES
HATERSORNE Dili SOLIDS
ATERBORNt >CO
ATE'RORNE »-£WL
ATEKOPSE SUL'iOES
ATERIORNt OIL
ATIRIOPNE COO
ATCRSORNt SUSP SOLIDS
IATERBOPNE ACID .
ATCRPOBNE HETAL ION
ATER10RNI CxE'lCALS
AtEXIORNE CTANIDE
ATER60RNE ALMLlxITT
CHOOHIU"
IPON
AtE»RORNt ALUHINUH
TERRORNC NIC>EL
ATEABORNt NtRCORr
ATERBOUNE LEAD
ATCRBORHE PHOSPHATES
Arr'BOMiE IINC
ATE'IORNE AMONIA
.ATERIODNt NITROtE
AtER|0*NE PtSTICI.i
SUHHART OP ENVIRONMENTAL IHPACTS
NAHE
RA> HlTEPULS
INEOT
«AT|R
INDUSTRIAL SOLIO >ASTES
ATH EHRISSIOHS
>ATE*IO*NC MSTCS
POST-CONSUHER SOL KASTt
(MEPOr SOURCE PCTIOLCUH
ENEKBT SOUP.CC NAt OAS
ENER8T SOURCE COAL
ENSKIT SOURCE NUCL MTP«»
CNCKOT SOUPCE (ODD «A$TE
INOtH OP ENVIPONHCHTAL IHPACTS
NAHE
RA. HATERULS
ENER»T
HATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTCS
ATH EMilSSIONS
ATEOBOPNE M.J7ES
POST>CONSUHEII SOL "ASTE
ENC»«T SOURCE PEIROLEUH
ENEIOT S:i'»C£ HIT GAS
EHEP.OT SOURCE COAL
CNIP.OT SOURCE NUCL HTPI*
ENEMY SOURCE MOO IASTC
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
HILL ITU
HILL ITU
HILL BTU
HILL BTU
HILL ITU
HILL ITU
POUND
POUHO
POUND
POUHD
POUND
POUNDS
"H BTU
"II BTU
HIL BTU
THOU BAL
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
OUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUHD
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
NIL BTU
THOU IAL
CUBIC rr
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC PT
NIL ITU
NIL BTU
NIL ITU
NIL BTU
NIL BTU
STANDARD
VALUES
M.J9A
6.IT*
!.«»
I.000
It.Slt
S.14«
.120
.471
s.in
.os
.OB)
.002
s.m
O.OII
O.IIO
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.000
O!O»A
1.000
0.000
.026
.III
.001
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
!os>
.031
.000
.OOA
.006
1.3J5
.012
.016
0.000
.01)
.02*
.019
.011
.ots
.065
.001
.002
0.000
.001
.000
.010
.Oil
0.000
o.oot
0.000
.01*
.101
loot
000
.000
.10
.000
.000
.100
0.000
1.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
olooo
0.000
0.101
O.OII
.III
.000
.00)
S.I32
.0)6
.001
.Oil
.»«2
.160
O.OII
.02*
.001
.001
.III
0.101
21.0
.6
.2
1.1
l.T
J.O
s.
.
.
,
0.
.000 I.OOt
.000 0.100
.000 O.IIO
.000 I.IOI
.000 I.IIO
.000 A.6S1
.006 0.001
.000 O.OII
.010 0.000
.000 1.001
.000 .114
.171 .107
.OfJ .164
.014 * .24S
.01) .141
.000 O.OII
.000 l.lll
.010 1.000
.000 0.101
.000 0.100
.000 0.000
.TO .674
.1ST .SSI
.004 0.000
.121 0.000
.011 .22*
.20S S.RS2
.101 1.2)4
.22) ).lll
t.OOO 0.000
1.000 0.000
,0)T .5T)
.1)1 .SOI
.S4I .IS)
.2)7 1.261
.210 .OTI
.Oil .001
.001 .001
>.OOI 0.000
.000 .000
9.000 0.000
.000 .000
.000 .000
g.ooo .0?)
g.ioo o.ooo
0.000 0.000
.OTI ,0!2
.007 ,04S
000 «001
.000 .001
.101 .600
.001 .520
.005 .110
.004 .061
.001 .016
0.000 O.OII
0.000 O.lll
g.ooo o.ooo
.000 .001
0.000 0.001
1.000 O.OII
1.000 .Oil
0.000 .Oil
0.000 0.010
O.lll l.lll
.010 0.010
1.000 1.001
I.OII 0.060
.070 S.4M
.211 .931
.Oil .22*
.007 .141
1.144 2.TOI
.0*1 .11)
l.lll 0.000
.171 .107
.01) .164
.014 .24S
.10) .142
I.OII O.lll
.) 21.4
4.7 1.0
.9 9.1
.7 14.1
1.0 11. 1
i.a is.2
37.5 22.6
I.I ).2
3.2 S6.0
3.0 91. S
0.0 0.0
0.000
0.000
.163
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0*000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.003
.001
.002
.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.023
.001
.000
.006
.001
.022
.017
.021
0.000
0 .000
.011
.001
.011
.020
.002
.000
.002
0.001
.001
0.001
.000
.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
.003
.009
.000
.000
.000
.002
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.100
0.000
0.100
O.OII
.116
.019
.001
.101
.05*
.011
o.ooo
.003
.III
.112
.001
.001
7
2
0
1
4
2
6
2
4
)
71 4
O.IIO 0.001
0.000 3.173
I.IIO 0.000
0.000 .000
0.000 .000
0.000 .640
0.000 .635
0.000 .000
0.000 .000
0.000 .352
.017 .130
.000 .002
0.000 .176
0.000 .037
0.000 .001
0.000 .000
0.000 .000
0.000 .00*
0.000 .000
0.000 .000
0.000 .713
0.000 .209
.017 .010
0.000 .021
.001 3.677
0.000 56. Ml
.004 1.00*
0.000 3.12*
0.000 0.000
.002 .341
.037 2.*4)
.OIS 4.756
.007 1.057
.056 .797
.001 .011
.002 .02*
0.000 .064
.000 .OSI
0.000 0.000
.000 .000
0.000 .000
0.000 .040
0.000 .026
0.000 0.000
.00* 1.0*7
.110 1.06S
.000 .000
.110 .2*4
.101 .444
.000 I.OT1
.000 .0*0
.000 .011
0.000 .010
1.000 0.000
0.000 .002
0.001 .000
0.000 0.001
0.000 0.000
l.lll .III
0.100 .III
0.001 .019
0.000 0.001
0.001 .000
0.000 .101
0.000 .001
0.000 13.161
.017 9.24*
.011 3.677
.001 .129
.121 10.077
.00* 4.246
1.001 0.010
.017 .130
.000 4.V02
0.100 .171
O.OII .0)7
0.000 .101
0 0 t*. 6
) 19.0
0 *).9
0 12.9
* 6«.)
2 71.4
3 6 27.3
0 «4.T
0 0 40.2
00 45.1
0 0 21.6
0.010 5.777
.000 3.07)
.000 .163
.000 0.000
.000 1.000
.000 «.2*1
.*<>0 1.6)5
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 .465
.014 .475
.000 9.177
.000 .431
.000 .013
.001 .002
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 .001
.000 0.000
.000 ' 0.000
.'oOO 3^543
.000 5.<60
.014 .059
0.000 .1S«
.001 3.*33
0.000 64.50)
.003 2.311
0.000 7.214
.220 .220
.001 .<«4
.015 3.706
.019 5.65)
.004 2.607
.lit 1.21*
.001 .016
.oog .049
0.000 .064
.000 .05*
0.000 .000
.000 .001
0.000 .000
0.010 .06)
0.000 .026
0.000 0.000
.007 1.260
.000 1.123
.000 .001
.000 .2*5
.000 .066
.000 1.330
.000 .133
.000 .091
0.000 .001
0.000 0.000
0.000 ' .002
0.000 .001
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 .000
0.001 .100
O.lll .009
0.000 0.000
0.000 .000
0.000 .101
0.000 .003
0.000 25. 3*4
.014 6. 174
.001 3.*))
.000 1.000
.163 14.5)2
.007 S.)46
.220 .220
.014 .479
0.000 5.177
0.000 .4)1
0.000 .013
6.000 .012
0. 100.
100.
100.
. uo.
i. lie.
100.
2! no!
0. 100.
o. too.
0. 111.
0. 100.
117
-------
TABLE 50
flounce AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALrsis
ONI THOUSAND DISPOSABLE IMCCTI
INPUT! TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATI BRINC
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LINCITONt
MATERIAL IRON ORC
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS S>NU
MATERIAL NAT I00t ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUIITf OX
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT Of
ENERGY SOURCE COIL
ENERGY SOURCE "ISC
ENERGY SOURCE 1000 HMO
ENCROr SOURCE HVOROPOHCR
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE »OC«
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PMOCCSS »00
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOL to BASTES PROCESS
SOLID WASTES FUEL COM*
SOLID HASTES "ININO
S»L!D HASTE P03T-CONSUN
ATMOSPHIRIC PESTICIDE
ATNOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OIIOCS
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
AT»OS SULFUR OXDES
At»05 CARBON HONDA IDE
ATMOS ALDtxTOCS
ATMOS OTMl» ORGANICS
ATMOS OOORUUS SULFUR
ATHOS AMMONIA
AT«OS HTUkOGEN FLOURIOE
ATMOS LEAU
ATMOS »E»CURT
ATMOSPNCHIC CHLO»I«lE
HATERBORNt ulS SOL10S
ATERRORNC FLUORIDES
ATERBOBNC DISS SOLIDS
HATEBBORNC bOO
ATCBBORNC PHENOL
ATERBORNE SULFIOES
ATERBORNE OIL
HATERBORNE COO
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATEBBORNC ACIO
AtERBORhC OCTAL ION
ATCB80MNL CHEN1CALS
ATER90RNE CYANIDE
BATERBORNt ALKALINITY
ATERRORNE CHRONIUN
HATERRORME IRON
HATERBOMNE ALUMINUM
ATERRORNE NIOCL
ATEHSORNC MCRCURT
KATERBORxe LEAD
ATERBORME PHOSPHATES
ATERBORNt ZINC
ATERBOBNl AXMONIA
.ATERBOONE NITROM
ATfBSOBNt PESTtCI.^
SUHMART OF CNVIROHMCNTAL IMPACTS
NAME
RAH MATERIALS
ENCROr
ATCR
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES
ATM CMM1SSIONS
ATtRBORNC HAfTCI
POST-CONSUMER SOL "ASTE
tMIROT SOURCE PtTROLCUN
(MROT SOURCE NAT 4>|
CNCROr SOURCE COAL
ENEROr SOURCt NUCL »'<«
ENIROT SOUMCI 1000 «ASTt
IMOEI OP CNVIRONMCNTAL IMPACTS
NAME
DM MATERIALS
ENERGY
ATB
INDUSTRIAL SOLID VASTCS
ATM EMMISSIONS
ATCRBORNE HASTCS
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE
ENERGY SOURCE PCTROLEUN
ENERGY so. RCE NAT G>I
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPVR
EMERGT SOURCE 1000 "ASIC
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL ITU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
FOUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNDS
MIL RTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
TMOU GAL
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
°OUMO
POUNO
POUND
°OUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
OUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
ROUND
POUNO
POUNDS
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUI 1C FT
MIL BTU
NIL ITU
MIL ITU
MIL ITU
NIL ITU
STANDARD
VALUES
i.lit
.611
II.6JT
».J5»
3.737
2.029
5.769
1.20T
.2»T
.793
LOPE NONHOVCN OIIPOS OISPOI OISPOS OISPOS OISP01
FILM ST1 rilCR SHEET SHEET SHCET SMfCT IHtET
It*
1 LI 107.4 LI 1110 LI «.l
.000 0.000 0.000
.000 0.000 .000
.000 73.431 .000
.000 7. lit .000
.000 0.000 .000
.000 B.63T .000
.000 0.000 .000
.000 0.000 .000
.000 0.000 .000
.000 .«21 .000
.0<> ,60« .012
.651 1.061 .032
.TOT .A20 .077
.160 .092 .017
.000 .769 .000
.000 0.000 .000
.000 0.000 ,000
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.040 .000 .000
.731 .««6 .090
.T65 2.»17 .137
.18« .016 .000
LB 211 LB N SHEETS N SHfETS
.000 .000 0.000 0.000
.000 .000 0.000 .000
.<5B .000 0.000 T6.7B9
.000 .000 0.000 T.129
.000 .000 0.000 0.000
.000 .000 9.900 9.637
.000 .900 0.000 O.OKO
.000 .000 9.000 0.000
.000 .000 0.000 0.000
.000 .009 0.000 .921
.019 .011 .262 2.925
.012 .000 .914 5.761
.911 .000 0.000 1.20T
.000 .009 0.000 .267
.024 .000 0.000 .791
.990 .900 0.000 0.000
.000 .090 0.900 0.000
.000 .000 0.000 0.000
.099 .000 0.900 0.000
.000 .000 0.000 0.000
.207 .000 0.000 11.004
.066 .000 0.000 3.907
.900 .013 .276 .492
.5*4 1.7S6 ,001 .001 .001 .019 2.125
>.10B 14.A1B .002
k.139 2.92> .450
11.321 6.6«S 1.227
.273 0.000 0.000 11. BO]
.196 .001 .061 7.335
.162 9.000 0.000 19.273
9.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
.014 1.057 .093
.636 .331 .921
.90S .90S .000
.910 .910 ,000
1.900 .066 0.909
.dOO .000 9.000
.000 .030 0.000
.090 .000 .909
1.900 .042 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
.I ,A1> .001
.OH .101 .000
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.009 .000 .000
.219 .001 .000
.091 1.992 .000
.117 .146 .023
.034 ,012 .006
.169 .001 .038 2.175
.227 .003 .120 1.071
.023 .344 .994 2.16B
.900 .001 .011 .022
.033 .075 .022 .ISO
1.000 0.009 9.000 .066
.090 .900 .001 .001
.000 .000 .001 .002
.000 9.900 0.900 .000
.000 0.000 0.900 .042
.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
.022 .007 .132 1.A23
.904 .090 .009 .9|]
.090 .090 .000 .000
.000 .900 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000 .009
.009 .000 .001 .291
.939 .000 .001 1.224
.902 .000 .000 .396
.000 .090 .000 .09*
.000 0.000 .000 .003 0.000 0.000 .003
.000 0.000 .000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
.000 0.000 .000
.000 9.900 .000
.000 0.000 .900
.000 0.000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.000 .000 .000
.000 0.000 .090
.000 0.000 .000
.000 0.000 .000
1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
1.900 9.009 0.000 0.000
1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
9.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
1.009 0.000 0.000 .000
1.000 0.000 0.000 .000
1.900 0.000 0.000 0.000
1.000 9.000 0.000 0.000
9.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
.000 9.000 .000 0.000 0.900 0.000 0.000
.000 0.000 .000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
1.751 M.79A .000 3. 1*5 0.000 0.000 106. A80
1
J.612 2.932 .157
.349 1.736 ,002
.264 .319 .023
1.9*4 1.091 .76B
1.9*1 l.4»* .019
1.000 0.000 0.000
1.094 .609 .012
1.631 1.061 .011
.707 .420 .977
.160 .991 .917
0.001 .7t» 0.000
l.S 91.5 .0
63.7 29. 1.6
21. 73. .1
41. 32. 3.7
39. 2B. 2.7
19. ST. .9
0. 0. 0.0
34. 10.1 i.6
90. IB. A .6
3B. ]«.< 6.3
59, 14.4 6.3
0. 9T.O 0.0
.066 .011 .276 10.059
.001 .001 .015 2. 313
.008 .900 .001 .611
.331 .63] 1.702 2B.61T
.131 .007 .115 4.U4
0.000 3.T3T 0.000 1.737
.019 .011 .262 2.023
.Oil 0.001 .014 9.761
Oil 0.909 0.000 1.20T
0.000 0.001 0.000 .167
.024 0.000 0.001 .'91
2.9 0. 0. 101.
.7 . 2. 100.
100.
1. . . 100.
1. 2. 5. 100.
1. . 1. 100.
0. 100. 0. 100.
. 12. 100.
. 9. . 100.
0. 0. 100.
0. 0. 0. 100.
3. 0. 0. 100.
118
-------
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
TABLE 51
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
CMC MILLION GLASS TUW 1000 USES
GLASS GLASS GLASS CLASS
TUMBLER TUMBLER TUMBLER TUW.ER
RAH Mt Mf« P«« TUMI SYS
1000 USC 1000 USE 1000 USE 1010 USE
GLASS OLASB GLASS
TUMBLER TUMBLER TUMBLER
HASH PCSli STS TOT
1000 USE 1000 USE
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE MINE
MATERIAL "ODD FIBER
MATERIAL LINESTONC
MATERIAL IBON ODE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
NATERIAL NAT SODA ISM
NATERIAL FELDSPAR
NATERIAL BAUIITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUK
ENERGY SOUHCE NtT GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCt MISC
ENERGY SOUHCE HOOD F1RER
ENERGY SOURCE HYOROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
NATERIAL PHOSPHITE HOCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MTERUL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS AOD
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY Or NAIL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS F*OM SYSTEM*
KANE
SOLID BASTES PROCESS POUMO
SOLIO HASTES FUEL COM POUND
SOLID HASTES MINING POUND
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM CUBIC FT
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE POUND
ATMOS PARTICULATES POUND
ATMOS NITROGEN OIIDES POUND
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS POUND
ATHOS SULrilM OIIDES POUND
ATIMJS CARIIUN NONOIIOE POUND
ATMOS ALDEHYDES POUND
ATMOS OTHEM OftOANICS POUND
ATMOS ODOMUUS SULFUR . POUMO
ATMOS AMMO*I A POUNO
ATMOS HTUROGEN FLOUPIOE POUND
ATMOS LEAD POUND
ATMOS MERCURT POUND
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE POUNO
ATERBOMNE 01S SOLIDS POUNO
tATERRORNE FLUORIDES POUND
I'ERRORNE OISS SOLIDS POUND
AlERflORNE HOD POUNO
ATERHOXNE PHENOL POUNO
.A1EBRORNE SULF10E* POUND
t.TERBORNE OIL POUND
ATEHBORNC COO POUNO
ATERBORNE SUSP SOLlOS POUND
ATERBORNE ACID POUNO
ATERRORNE METAL ION POUND
ATERBORNt CHEMICALS POUNO
ATERBORNE CYANIDE POUND
ATERRORNE ALKALINITY POUND
ATERAORNE CHBONIUH POUNO
ATERBORNE I"ON POUNO
ATERBORNt ALUMINUM POUNO
ATERRORNE N10EL POUND
ATCRBORNE MERCURY 001*0
ATERRORNE L1AO POUND
ATERRORNt PHOSPHATES POUND
ATtRBORNf ZINC POUND
ATCRBORHE AHHONIA POUNO
ATERHORNE NITROGEN POUNO
ATERRORNE PESTICIDE POUND
OF ENV1RONHENIAL IMPACTS
NAHE UNITS
RAH MATERIALS POUNDS
ENERGY NIL ITU
ATER THOU GAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMMISSIONS POUNDS
ATERBORNE HASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE CUBIC FT
ENERGY SOUPCt PETROLEUM MIL BTU
ENERGY SOUHCE NAT GAS MIL RTU
ENERGY SOURCE COAL MIL BTU
ENERGY SOUHCE NUCL HYP»R NIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD >ASTE NIL BTU
INDEI OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NANE STANDARD
VALUES
RAH MATERIALS 1671.216
ENERGY 1**.1IB
ATER Bt.StZ
INDUSTRIAL SOLID (ASTES ll.T)*
ATM EMISSIONS Skt.lST
ATIRBORNE HASTES »3.«]1
POST-CONSUNER SOL HASTE 1.II1
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM tl.OT*
ENERGY SOUHCE NAT GAS llB.tt*
EHEROY SOURCE COAL is.TBS
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYKR 7.»1«
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD HASTE ,T*B
0.000
0.000
0.000
Zk.TTI
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
22.3T1
0.000
0.000
.110
.Z*4
.OAT
.00]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.0*
.002
0.000
.ZT8
».»)«
.IT«
S>.6»>
0.000
0.000
!.?»»
.2«6
.101
.110
.06*
.00?
.002
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.101
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.0*T
.009
.001
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
»».1«3
.0*
.?T«
.TT1
2.211
.211
0.000
.120
.2«t
.OAT
.001
0.000
2
5
0
0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.1«T
.SSB
.1*0
.OAJ
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.10
.m
.000
.000
.10B
1.701
.lit
1.041
1.000
1.000
.570
.2AS
I.SBO
!.»!
.2fB
.OOA
,00«
9.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
9.000
g.ooo
.122
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.021
.os«
.015
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
t.tlo
i.tso
.IOB
.107
I.OBA
.MS
g.ooo
.1*7
I. SSB
.1«0
.0*1
g.ooo
1
0
1
0
o.ooo
0.000
01.3*4
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.SIT
.!!»
.12*
0.000
.485
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ieo
1.BT4
.011
0.000
.037
T.ait
5.J07
4.t24
0.000
0.000
4. SAT
l.BVI
1.141
(..««!
.»ST
.010
.9*6
0.000
.001
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.«*!
2.}««
.000
.000
.000
.001
1.111
.0*4
.012
.out
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
B9.T10
1.80*
.017
.2*0
IS. Til
«.10B
0.000
.SIT
.]]«
.124
0.000
.4RS
9.4
1.0
.0
.7
.0
.1
.0
.s
.1
.«
0.0
01. a
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
.110
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.110
0.000
.007
0.000
.030
0.000
0.000
0.000
.017
.2RT
.104
.0*7
.114)
.005
.01?
0.000
.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.06*
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
.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
0.000
0.000
.110
.007
.000
.002
.066
0.000
.110
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0
0
0
0
.000
61 .054
.000
.000
.000
6 .2*6
27 ,*BB
2* .ISO
.000
.000
71.117
20. MS
II6.4B4
IS. 222
7.06«
.11*
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
211.S*B
17S.16S
.!
4.291
86.091
9a.«»i
206. 76«
62B.S*6
0.000
0.000
*9.*aa
110.710
!?«.«'«
200.270
26.6B9
.ISO
.7?»
1.184
.6*1
.006
.001
.1?!
o.ooo
0.000
is], oa
«. 71
. 04
. 06
. 77
6.10T
7.9^6
12.211
2.685
.009
0.000
.380
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
OT«
0.000
.005
l.*2T
.008
1531. ?«
179.804
86.091
12.611
S40.46S
iaa.92T
0.000
20.115
116.484
IS. 222
7.869
.114
91.
47.
94.
91.
9S.
a.
0.
45.
9«.
98.
99.
14.
.BOO
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.006
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.006
1.000
.000
9.000
.001
1.000
.81]
1.000
.001
.006
.006
.002
.042
.001
.002
9.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
g.ooo
0.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
g.ooo
.006
.000
.000
.060
.00]
1.833
.006
0.000
0.000
g.ooo
g.aoo
0
100
0
0
0
0
o.oaa
aiT.osa
81.544
26.772
0.000
64.246
27B.ABB
146. ISO
22.171
O.OBO
71.917
21.0TS
110.648
1S.TB1
T.9I4
.798
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
244.648
1T9.411
.447
4.291
86.522
111.041
211.421
690. RTS
1.811
0.000
S5.926
114.41]
111.016
20B.S69
28.001
.372
1.699
1.1*4
.82*
!o07
.001
.121
0.000
0.000
IS*. 7*2
ft. 471
.005
.006
.077
6.391
9.188
.12.1*9
2.714
.048
0.000
.380
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.07*
0.000
.005
l.*27
.008
1671.216
ia*.2ia
B6.S22
11.71*
54.. 357
191.911
1.813
21.0T5
iia.6»a
1S.7B1
7.91*
.79B
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
1*0.
100.
100.
100.
100.
119
-------
INPUT! TO SYSTEMS
NAHC
TABLE 52
ESOUBCE HMD ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
UMITI
OW HIILN POLYPPOP TUM 1000 USE
PXTPROP POLYPMOP
TuNtxiR TUPW.III
CSIN SY <"0
till US( 10M US(
POLTPROP
TUNIXER
PK1
1000 USC
POCYPPOP
TUNU.F.R
TIM
l«OI USI
POLYPNOP POLYP«OP POLYPPOP
TUNlLtR TUN1LEB TUHlLC*
ASM PCS* SYI TOT
looo usc 1000 usi 1000 use
AIEBIAL COTTON POUNO
ATtatAl SULFATE BRINC POUND
ATERIAL "000 FI1CR POUND
MATERIAL LIMESTONE POUND
MATERIAL [DON ORE POUND
HATERIAL SALT POUND
MAUBIAL GLASS SANO POUND
NATEaiAL "AT »OD* ASM POUND
MATERIAL FELDSPAR POUND
KATE DIAL HAUIITC DM POUNO
MATF.RIAL SULPu* POUNO
ENEBOY SOUHCI PETROLEUM HILL «TU
ENERGY SOURCE NAT US NfLL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE COAL NILL »'U
ENEH8Y SOURCE "ISC HILL S'U
ENERGY SOURCE «ooo FIMR KILL BTU
ENERGY SOUMCk HYOROPOVCR KILL «TU
»AIE»I«L POTASH POUND
MATERIAL PMO4PHATE POC< POUND
MATERIAL CLAY POUNO
MATERIAL GYPiUM POUNO
MATERIAL SILICA POUNO
MATERIAL PNOCCSS ADD POUNDS
tMFBOY PRUCESS NIL 8IU
tNlROY TRANSPORT MIL HTU
ENERGY OF HAIL BtsOuacC HIL ITU
ATEN VOLUME THOU OAl
000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.o*r
.557
.11*
.010
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.102
l.*06
.136
a. JIT
111
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0*6
.0*7
.11]
.01S
.00<
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.211
.000
.000
.161
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0«»
.091
.027
.001
.049
.000
.000
.000
1.000
.000
60S
.ISO
.002
.022
.006
.000 0.000
.000 tlT.OSt
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 6«.2«t
.000 2T8.««8
.000 2*6. ISO
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 TI.41T
.OAi 20. us
.00* 116.414
.000 IS. 211
.000 7.169
.000 .11A
.000 0.000
,000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0. 0
.000 211. 1
.000 ITS. 3
.0*7 . 9
.000 ». 1
.001 S6. 1
.000 0.000
.000 617.054
.000 J.OOO
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 64.246
.000 ITS. AW
.000 246.150
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 71,«17
.034 IS. 143
.000 no. 10
.000 IS. 49*
.000 7.426
.000 .162
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 211.235
.000 176.452
.S6 5.114
.000 4.549
.102 16.171
OUTPUTS *"ON SYSTIHH
MANE
SOLID PASTES PROCESS
SOL 10 MASTLS FUEL COMM
SOL in »STCS MINING
SOLID »«STt POST-CONSUM
TM05PMEHIC PESTICIDE
AIMOS PAMT1CULATE3
ATMOS NtTMOiiEN 01 HIES
ATMOS MYUHOCAR10NS
TMOS SULFUR OIIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOllOC
ATMOS ALOCMVi>ES
ATMOS OTMtM UMGANICS
AIMOS OOOMUUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
TMOS HYIWOGEN FLOUBlnE
ATMOS Lt«l>
TMO* MEHCUM*
TMOSPMENIC CHLOBINE
ATEHfcOBNt CIS SOLIDS
ATEBMOBNi FLUORIOFS
ATEBaORNt OISS SOLIDS
ATEUhOUME BOU
ATERRORNfc PHENOL
AIEMbOPNt ^ULFIDES
4IERMOMNE U1L
AIERP-ORNE COO
AIEHHORNE SUSP SOLIDS
TfRBORNE ACID
AIEBMORNE METAL ION
TEBHRMNC CHEMICALS
ATEUtlOMNC CYANIDE
ATCBRURNC ALKALINITY
ATERPORNfc CHROMIUM
ATEURORNE 1MON
ATCHBORNk ALUMlxtuM
ATEBHORNE NICKEL
ATERdOUNl MERCURY
AIEBbORNt: LtAD
ATERROPNt PHOSPHATES
TERBORNC ZINC
ATEBftORNC AMHONIA
TtBBUSNE NITBOOIN
AFCR00RNE PC^TICIOC
UNITS
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
CUHIC FT
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
pnuNO
PrtUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO '
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POIINO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
2.111
.7*0
2. ISO
0.000
0.000
.141
1.672
6.6SS
1.012
.1*0
.001
.006
0.000
.000
0.300
.000 (
.000
1.000
.410
.OA)
.000
.000
.004
.1*6
111
.041
.010
.000
.000
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.too
.441
.661
.006
1.000
>.ooo
.1*0
.24*
.o*s
.620
.010
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.011
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.03S
.009
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.ST9 0
.02
.iw o
1.000 0
g.ooo o
.111
.1S«
.127
,*«7
.041
.001
.067
1.000 0
.000
1.000 0
.000
.000 0
1.000 0
.051
.171
.000
.000
.000
.002
.0*0
.005
.001
.00*
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
000
010
000
000
000
006
117
0*1
on
115
002
00*
000
000
000
000
000
000
02i
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
90. 90S
206.764
620.546
0.000
0.000
».»<,
110.730
12«.»7* <
200.270
26.6f« 3*
.ISO
.72«
1.1*4
.021
0.000
.006
.001
0.000
35l!»0<
4.07
.00
.00
.07
6.1*
7.»5
12.231
2.6*5
.009
0.000
.1*0
.000
0.000
.000
.000
.074
0.000
.005
1.427
.001
).000 102.114
.213 20«.*47
.000 »1?.»90
.*ll l.«ll
1.000 0.000
.504 50.661
.114 1 11.1 01
.271 1*2.061
.261 201.670
.061 62.11*
.16 .771
,3I« 2.125
.000 1.104
.3U .813
.000 0.000
.101 .106
. 0 .001
. 0 .121
. 0 0.000
! a 154. TH
. 7 «.242
.002 .007
.003 .004
.001 .00*
.027 6.402
.017 0.164
.005 12.117
.001 >.T07
.000 .015
.000 '0.000
.000 .110
.000 .000
.000 0.000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .07*
.000 0.000
.000 .009
.000 1.41T
.000 .101
SuHHAPV OF ENVIMOHNCNTAL 1NPACTS
NAME
"I. XATEHIALS POUNDS
(NFRSY NIL *TU
IfR IMOU IAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID ««SIFS CUP.IC FT
ATH EHMlSSIONS POUNOS
TEB10BNC BASTES POUNOS
POST-CONSWEK SOL «ASTE cue 1C FT
EMtBOY SOURCI PETROLEUH HIL BTU
ENEBOr SOUKCE MAI GAS NIL ITU
INfROY SUUBCE COAL »IL BTU
LNEROV souHCt NUCL MYPUR HIL ITU
EXE BOY SOURCE HOOD M3TC HIL ITU
1NOEI OF ENVIPONHENIAL IMPACTS
»»£ STANDARD
VALUIS
4.102
1.774
.111
.071
4.414
.026
0,000
.057
3.557
.11*
.010
0,000
0.000
.212
.161
.014
1.111
.097
0.000
.046
.0*7
.111
.029
0.000
6.414
.171
.00*
.014
1.214
.116
0.000
.045
.052
.027
.001
.0*4
0.000
.047
.001
.000
.102
.021
0.000
.04]
.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
1511.424
174.104
06.041
12.611
540. *65
111.42T
0.000
20.115
116.414
15.222
7.164
.114
0.000
4.156
.102
.016
44.116
2.636
l.tll
.136
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1541.440
111.140
6.171
12.79*
602.170
142.10*
l.tll
23.161
120. 10
15.446
7.426
.162
OA* HATENIALS 1541.940
CNEPOY 111.1*0
»ATE» 16.171
INDUSTRIAL SOLID >ASTES 12.751
ATN CHHISS10NS 602.170
AICBBORNC HASTES IK.IOA
POST-CONSUMER SOL >ASTC l.«ll
ENERGY SOURCE PCTROLEUN ss.ui
ENERGY souxct NAT OAS l?o.l»l
ENERGY SOURCE COAL is.496
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL NYP«R 7.926
CNEROY SOURCE nooo WASTE .142
1 0
0
4
6
6
i
0 0
2
0
0 0
0 .4 0
1 .1
.0
.1
.2
.1
0.0 0
.2
.0
.1 0
1 .0 0
1 30.1 0
44.
45.
44.
4*.
14.
44.
0.
74.
47.
*«.
49.
69.
0
2
1
100
14
0
0
0
0
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
120
-------
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
TABLE 53
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
ONE MILLION TMCRNOFORNCO «oz CUP
POLYSTY POLYSTY POLYSTY POLVSTY
RESIN it THERMO r TBCRMO r THERMO '
*ot cu» toz CUP 90Z cur
14110 LI M»« P«4 TRAN
POLTSTV POLVSTV
THERMO r THERMO r
9oz CUP 90z cur
PCS> STS TOT
UNIT!
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SUC' It IRINE
MATERIAL HOOD FUCK
NATCRIAL LIHCSTOMC
MATERIAL IRON ORC
MATERIAL SALT
NATCRIAL GLASS S»M>
MATCR1AL N>T SOOt ASH
MATERIAL FCLOSPAR
MATERIAL IAUMTE ORC
MATERIAL SULFUR
CNCROV SOURCC PCTROLCUN
CNtROY SOURCC NAT us
CNC*IY SOURCC COAL
CNCRIY SOURCC "11C
CNCRIY SOURCC 1000 FIICR
CNtROY SOURCC MYOROPO»CR
NATCRIAL POTASH
MATCRIAL PNOSPMATC ROCK
NATCRIAL CLAY
NATERIAL 4YPSUH
MATCRIAL SILICA
NATCRIAL PROCESS >00
CNCROY PROCCSS
CNCROiT TRANSPORT
[NCROY OF NATL RCSOURCC
ATCR >OLU»C
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
HILL tTu
NILL ITU
KILL ITU
NILL ITU
"ILL ITU
RILL ITU
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNDS
NIL ITU
NIL ITU
MIL ITU
THOU SAL
.00 (.00
.00 0.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.51 1
.TT 1
.It 4
.75
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.41
.00 TI
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.95
.It
.5»
.15
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00 T
.00
.00
.«
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.61 t
.«!
.»>
.11
.«T
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.99
.» 19.91 19.68
.IT 0.00 .19 I
.11 0.00 1.11
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.41
.11
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.1}
.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 T10.94
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0 00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.25 ITS. II
.00 »1.11
.00 S9.lt
.00 II.T4
.00 9.97
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 773.17
.00 109.46
.n 4i.4o
.00 141.91
.TT 1.42 .T9 !.«« .49 90.91
OUTPUTS 'RON STSTCNS
SOLID tSTCS PROCCSS
SOLID ASTCS ruCl COKI
SOLID ASTCS NININO
SOLID 4STC POST-CONSUN
ATllOSP CRIC PCSTICIOC
ATNOS AR7ICUL1TCS
ATMOS ITDOOCN OIIDCS
ATNOS YOROCARIONS
ATNOS SULFUR OIIDCS
AT«OS CARBON MONOMOC
ATNOS ALOCHYDCS
ATHOS OTHCR OROAN1CS
ATNOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATNOS ANNOHIA
ATN05 HTOBOOC" FLOURIDC
ATNOS LCAO
ATNOS NCRCURY
ATliOSPNCRIC CHLORINC
irATCRIORNC OIS SOLIDS
ATCRIORNC FLUORIOCS
ATCRSORNC OISS SOLIDS
ATERIORNC aou
ATCRIORNC P1CNOL
ATCRIORNC SULF1DCS
ATCRIORNC OIL
ATCRIORNC COO
ATCRIORNC SUSP SOLIDS
ATCRIORNC ACIO
ATCR80RNC NCTAL ION
ATCRBORNC CHCNICALS
ATCRIORNC CYAN10C
ATCRIORNC 1LIALINITT
ATCRIORNC CHROH1UN
ATCRRORNC IRON
ATCRIORNC ALUNINUN
ATCRIORNC NICKCL
ATCRIORNC NCRCURY
ATCRIORNC LCAD
ATCRIORNC PHOSPHATCS
ATCRIORNC ZINC
ATCRIORNC ANNONIA
ATCRBb 1C NItROOCN
ATCRIO*. DATCRIALS
CNCRtY
ATCR
INDUSTRIAL SOLID IASTES
TK ENNISSIONS
ATERIORNC «»STCS
POST-CONSUNCR SOL KAITE
ENCRBT SOURCE PCTROLEIM
ENCRIY SOURCE NAT MS
CNCRIY SOURCE COAL
CNCR9Y SOURCC NUCL NTPUR
CNCROT SOURCE MOO «MTC
INOO OF ENVIRONMENTAL IHPtCTS
NANE
POUNDS
NIL ITU
TNOU IAL
CUIIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUIIC FT
NIL ITU
NIL ITU
MIL ITU
NIL ITU
NIL ITU
690. tt
551.26
44. TT
11.14
1110.10
111.10
0.00
119.90
I14.TT
It. 14
t.T*
1.00
0.00
9.91
1.41
15.45
43T.01
11.99
1. 10
IT.9S
11.11
41.99
9.M
O.It
TIS.91
22.04
.79
t.ll
111.14
11.14
0.00
9.61
4.91
1.41
.11
9.IT
o.oo
tt.Tl
1.40
.01
119.9*
11. Ot
0.00
29.41
1.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
T.Z9
.49
.01
104.40
1.9T
llt.Tf
T.tS
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
1414.11
144. T9
90.91
10.90
1941.40
269.40
III.TS
ITS. 11
243.11
91.14
1Z.T4
9.97
STANDARD
»ALUC»
RA> MATERIALS
CNCRIY
ATE*
INDUSTRIAL SOLID IASTES
ATM CMNISS10NS
ATCRIORNC tASTCS
POST-CONSUME" SOL «»STC
CNCRIY SOURCC PETROLEUM
CNCRIY SOURCC NAT OAS
CNCR9Y SOURCC COAL
CNtROY SOURCE NUCL NTMR
CNCR4T SOURCC >OOD >ASTE
1414.11
494. TI
90.91
10.90
1941.40
Z45.ll
114. TS
1T9.I1
141.11
54.11
U.T4
9.9T
4T.I
T9.1
41 .4
41.A
54.1
TO.T
0.0
15.0
14. t
to. 9
tl.l
0.0
0.0
12. «
2.1
50. T
ZZ.l
1.1
4.0
4.1
T.9
Tl.T
TT.4
O.I
52.
1.
j i
T.
T.
14.
0.
1.
2.
5.
1.
100.
I 0.
t 1.
2.
.
1.
4.
0.
1.
.
0.
0.
0.
0.
I,
.
.
Ja
I.
) 100.
1 1.
1 0.
) 0.
> 0.
D 0.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
104.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
121
-------
TABLE 54A
MOU'CI >M> INVJ»ON»CNT«L P»0'ILl MKLT1I1
IL 4 01 «»« CO CU»« »t «» 2
ULP«000 «UL' 4NC >UL* »" »«
MMVMT MTCBIIL 12440 L« 91*0 LA
1*000 Lll 12*90 L*
OLT
mas
160 L6
"*?lBt*L COTTON
MiTCBUL *ULPATG .WINIT
"?*!*», vflOl1 Fmc«*
"WO!*.. LI-H-.TO',*
.*IC-UL v*tr
NMC-UL -r 50n. *v,
»*Tt»?*C PtUMTC O-c
"4re*I At lULMjM
tltUOV SUU-C-. PCT-tHiU"
f*C*»(jT SOU-O MAT .I
tNfct>G» ^oj-ct crui.
E*Hii» SOu-Ct *[«C
C*ituOv *tOU*Ct "OOf- f I°£3
O|i*r,» suu-'C'i -*rf)»i)»'u«CH
*»T{ *1*H *!»?*-
**«Tfwi»L f"U'.0M*Tf -»'JC"
«»TF»I»L '-L*T
[««: ;:"":.'.7
.41*. VI-L.I-P
POUW
POusn
POU«tO
pniixo
P0ti*»n
POUND
pflUNn
»nuNi
pnuNi<
ILL 'ru
"ILL "TU
"ILL »TU
"ILL "TU
"ILL P7U
ILL flu
POUNO
POUNO
»OUN"
POU**OS
"11 nTU
IL MTU
TWIJ .--il.'
*'. ID "t
MIL 10 ..
POU'IO
POUNH
«T-<>« HIT-U--' . 0>I.,6S
I»OS -»0toli'.l ".OSv
T«,s mn.r-.i.. ...|">*.
4T-OS C4^I'U*< -flNO.Iu*.
Mr-.
pnij^n
POJN'l
*0u««0
POU'fO
"OU'rl
P<)U«0
POUNO
.4TrUMOt*»r ^L-ALI'iIT*
AFfQiSO-Nf -t>C'J..Y
l-IOUS7-l»i. SOLIO -45Tt5
». F<*»1JS1UN$
»47FMo««t res
mjT-cnNsu«e- sou »STC
llfBOr 5UU-CI 'CTxOLtU*
mcx* sou»ci xtr no
tXfOOT L-
ft£»0»
I10US7KHI. SOL in ««srts
»4ST£5
fOST-COXSu»t- SOL »S7I
(Near suuxcc ftn-ix-eu"
tttOQt SUUMCE «U7 GAS
CNCPGV SOURCE C041
. Estooi SOUMCC NUCL MTP«O
ChCRCT source 1000 MAHTC
13224.
563
14!
9S
1«1«
?66
24I.
2M.
118
97
861
92S
4*1
164
16]
157
099
486
619
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
0.000 134
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000 11
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000 6
.000 2
.0*3
.121
2.240 1
o.ono
.006
0.000
.043
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.101
.001
.001
.001
.011
,ont
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.061 1
.12*
.007
3.121 11
jiooo
2.061
t.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0
.4
.1
.0
1.4
.4
.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.000 n.noo
.000 0.000
.000 M24.320
.000 0.000
.704 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.44* 0.000
.4*0 74.224
.711 *».22»
.719 1.9*1
.000 0.000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .ono
.977 8* .4.00
.561 273.50*
.001 0.000
.629 124.913
1.935 94.79]
1.000 -.4S1
.00* 0.000
1.000 0.000
.000 O.ono
k.914. 0.000
9.000 0.000
9.000 0.000
2.493 ?6.w46
.002 .001
.002 .001
.002 .001
.014 .011
.796 0.714
.166 .672
9.000 0.000
9.000 0.000
1.000 0.000
9.000 0.000
9.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.001 .000
0.000 .000
0.000 .000
9.000 .000
9.000 .000
9.000 .000
1.964 271. 90A
.629 12«.403
6.66] 34.136
0.07T 916.270
4.121 129.144
0.000 0.000
«..1T4 11.447
6.440 74.124
4.711 «4.IM
1.7H 1.411
9.000 104.07*
11.4 TO. 4
4.2 4*. t
4 «*,5
12 1 *2.2
9 1 32.0
1 4 47.0
I 4 14.7
9.9 67.6
10.0 "7.6
17.6 20.7
0.0 41.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*.679 1
2.613 2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
17.200 10
?2.0M 6.
l.»'39 (
10.6*5
3.400 3
o.ono
.0*6
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
40.11* 1
.00*
on7
*»4
. l.M
.2C3
0.000
0.000
.00?
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0*1
0.000
O.ono
10.195
.944
21D.471 21
41.1*7 |
0.000
120.204 2
0.67* 1
1.611 1
.9*1
o.ooo
.1
21.4
7.9
1 .7
13.9
16.2
95.1
7.3
2.7
6.0
0.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.3*9
.416
.190
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.665 :
.000
069
'.004 1
.444
1.000
.030
9.000
.000
0.000
9.000
9.000
O.U63
.004
.010
.Oil
.9-9
.0*9
1.74.0
0.000
0.000
9.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
1.961
4.106
0 . 959 1
4.09T
o.ooo
2.111
0.3*9
1.416
4.110
0.000
.9
12.2
1.1
16.5
17.4
7.1
10.2
15.9
21.9
o!o
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
wo
.000
.000
.000
.271
Il79
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.254
.119
.211
F.TII
1.749
.710
9.000
.000
1.000
.000
1.000
9.000
9.000
.000
.000
.010
3"
.10S
..lot
9.000
0.000
9.000
9.000
9.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
4.2*4
.619
.2*9
9.144
1.7*1
0.000
1.217
9.171
.796
olooo
.0
1.1
.*
.9
1.2
.7
.6
*.4
.9
o!o
0.000
0.000
9900.010
943.7>n
0.000
14«?.l-»
0.000
0.000
o.ono
o.nno
121.OI
310.0«S
119.9*6
97.614
9.7*9
114.045
o.ono
o.orn
o.ono
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.ono
11M.W3
4?0.2»
11.2-0
\\i.3.'
l.V.4-1
2710.10?
10M.OM
775. «4|
241.317
o.ono
l»l.4|4
2J1.4IO
?»0.«-4
964.. 144
>fcl ,9*4
».2M
?0. 3-*
i.««.1
.1-'
O.Ono
..114
7 . r, . »
3.000
n.flnn
l'3.744
70.3K
0.000
o.nno
.08.1
0.000
n.ooo
0.000
.000
.001
I*S.**l
.'1.144
16|4.3«3
l««.6"
I41.J17
J18.0.*
ll«.«»«
97.414
4. 7M4
114.«.«
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
180.0
122
-------
TABLE 54B
BC*OIII>CC 4110 e"vmoN"tNt«i MOHL?
«ii or P4p-««i co CUP* P i
COPPUb
UTO I*
OI«PO»4l TIUNIPOI)
«TIP|»L COTTUN POUNO
N»Ti»i4i .0011 >]--
"»TF«|«l l<"eSTONt
N4TFIIIAI JI»UN OPE
N«TE'I«L »4lt
4aTFe|4L CLASS si*..!
»4trB|»l P4UOTE 'l-t
UTtblAl HULFU-
Ei.taG* SUU"CF. PETMOLtll"
INtKOY '.UU-CC N4t ..45
POUND
POUNn
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
"ILL «Ti)
ILL PTu
- - "III '"TU
BNfPOY SOu-CE «0nn FI»E* "ILL PTU
POUNO
pou*n
"OUNO5
«ll -TU
»ll »TU
"II "TU
TNC.II r.4L
"TEBUl P;-uCE*S «i>0
tNPVGY H*uCt~S
FNfcpftY TutN>»!i.«T
JNEPtiY t»F "etl wrviiu*"
0.000
0.600
I". 400 6«
24.000
0.000
4J.44S
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
1.533
2.444
1.402
1.M23
1**
.IK
.060
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
30.15) 4
9.04* t
.ail
O.ooo
3.7KJ
.000
.060
.100
.000
.600
.000
.060
.066
.000
.000
.060
.626
.Ml
.51)
.060
.41)
.600
.000
.600
.060
.666
.060
.900
.340
.114
1.000
.443
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.600
0.006
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.62*
n.ooo
0.066
0.600
0.000
6.000
0.600
6.000
0.000
6.606
0.000
0.000
0.060
9.42*
0.000
.496
,060
.606
.660
.006
.666
.006
.000
.060
.000
.000
.600
.112
.600
.606
.600
.006
.006
.000
.000
.600
.000
.660
.000
.000
.112
.060
0.000
0.000
9500.010
«4).7>0
0.000
14«2.l>>ft
0.000
O.O'O
0.000
0.000
1I6.SH6
97. 61"
9.789
119.045
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
U»l.»«3
410. tci
4T"OS NIT-ntfcN 0>!>ifS
r>J«!C FT
POUNO
POUND
IT-IS LFii
iT-riS.'MtP.IC f-lOw.o*
MTruM >LJO"MMS
k*1E*1<«0>H«t *- 1 *0(
ATP.*)«0"Nt Sui.Ft'*''
TK**>«0>-.« Ct'"
-ftr«fs.u-N( si iso sl (l-
»*Tf HI'O^Nt **' f*t. I*1**
TrwMu>>Nc C-e-tC*f.S
«T»«tirj .t (.riNP>»
»4Mra- uw*fr. t^»i.l»«lTt
*1 tt*HO»»-«t >p"0«tt *| T**nfif N
.4TFB-U .r i*tsTIC1Ut
*.««>F
**« WATtnlit**'
f NtWijY
Jtlff
I^DUST-UL SOLID -ASTRS
»Th CMNISStOKS
ATFCWOMMC »«STCS
(OST*CON$u**f** fcOL «*STC
CNtBOV SOUUCfc PCT^OUCU**
CHC»ar «u»ce N»T H«S
rwewr fcoo-ce C»>M
e«e*OY *ou*ct NUCL MT»H*
INCPOV WUfCt MOOD ««
POUNO
POUNP
POUNTi
POUND
UN1T<
POU«0<
"IL **TU
THOU OIL
CU4K FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUPIC PT
NIL *>TU
NIL PTU
IL PTU
«IL PTU
«!L PTU
51.1191
20.440
10. "11
0.600
.1.347
4.0*9
7.40*
1.347
.011
.034
.140
.660
.0*2
.900
.207
0.000
0,006
1.4H7
1.542
.000
.000
.060
.002
».7»3
.447
.012
0.660
.060
.060
.000
.060
.000
.666
.000
.000
6.000
0.000
0.600
0.060
0.060
5.090
57.661
40.1«6
0.000
49.574
20.607
71.461
7.11*
.!«>
11.273
0.060
.014
.602
.600
0.060
0.606
6.066
4.941
21.042
.061
.66)
.664
.024
I>.0*1
.5W
.111
.«65
0.066
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.000
0.600
0.066
0.006
6.066
0.060
6.006
0.006
0.060
2.40*
0.006
241. 3«7
lioio
10.774.
2.304
V4.JT4
.C24
7.5*7
0.060
.0"
.!*»
0.600
0.006
0.006
0.666
l.IJS
.011
.00*
.004
.007
.033
.033
.910
.6(11
0.000
0.000
0.060
0.000
0.606
0.600
0.660
0.606
0.000
0.666
6.666
6.660
0.000
0.006
4.616
6.060
0.060
2.441
39.14U
7.719
14.3115
.700
1.474
0.000
.0.4
.n»x
0.000
0.000
0.060
6.006
A. 5*6
.622
.604
.016
.011
.0«6
.0*4.
.017
.004
0.060
6.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
6.600
6.660
0.000
O.OAO
0.666
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.606
336.636
1.141
1.7m
1.124
19.237
6.244
4.666
1.444
1.402
l.ttl
.114
1.1)1
974.066
20.454
.46)
2.664
170.561
44.740
.666
.Uf
.»«J
.51)
.660
.4)1
0.066
9.42«
.4411
.032
1)1.2)0
5.264
241.J37
4.62*
6.666
6.606
6.606
6.066
6.666
17.332
996
.054
163.135
P.T4t
0.660
17.1)2
6.066
0.666
6.066
6.666
22*0. 10>
1011.031
'7>..0<1
241.357
0.000
101.414
293.471!
240.4X4
5H..144
J61.9»9
2.231
.It'
0.000
.314
.00*
T.0>>
0.000
0.000
lnj.746
70.JI7
.0]'
.041
.TIJ
J.4»1
6". 099
If. 001
0.000
0.000
.001
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
.000
.003
0.000
0.000
.041
0.000
0.000
11W.6M
*4).»2f
U«.4P|
».1«4
1614.16)
P66.««6
J41.357
211.6*1
itt.m
9».41»
*.r««
119.K45
INDll OP INV1»ON"(NI»L
JTiNH»PO
V»LUE3
». >I>T("14LS 13224.463
EN(PST 56).*>3
17FP 145.401
INDIISTP14L SOLIO .«iTFS 55.164
It" [NKISSIONS 1614.36)
1TC8ROXNC PISTES 266.696
POSt-CONSUNEK SOL «4S7E 241.)57
CNCPOT SOU«CC »ETt"OLtU» 216.663
ENCPOY SOU-Cl NIT 04S 11«.*«4
CNfROr SOueCt COtL 47.614
ENCPOY \OUkCE NUCL HTDVB 9.789
CNCBOY SOUXCE «000 »15TE 119.643
1.5
1.6
2.6
2.6
I.I
2.4
6.6
1.1
1.2
1.4
T.4
).
10.
17.
6
2
3
3.
0
6
0.0
1.7
0.6
1.1
.T
.1
1.1
6
7
0
0
0
0
100.0
160.0
100.0
100.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
160.6
160.0
160.0
166.6
160.6
123
-------
TABLE 55
ntouKt NU.VIIS
OM IMLLION CMIN4 eun leee uats
INPUTS TO SYSTEM
N4M
ATtRtAL COTTON
ITERUL SULFJTI BRINE
ATERIAL MOO rilt*
4TEII4L IKON OM
ATIRIAL S4LT
NATERUL OL4SS S4NO
ATERIAL N4T S004 4SM
4T(I|«L FELOSP4*
ATEP.IAL I4U«1IC OM
4T(>I«L SULFUR
EMM" SOUKl RtTHOLtUN
ENEMY SOURCE N4T I4S
ENERGY SOURCE C04L
INCBOT tOUfCl RISC
INERGT SOUKC1 MOO FIBER
ENfROY SOUHCE HTOHOROVC*.
4TERI4L POTASH
MATERIAL RHOiRHATE ROC*
ATEMAL CL4T
4TERI4L GTRSUN
ATERIAL SILICA
4TEBI4L PROCESS 400
ENCB8T PHOCESS
ENERGY TRAN1POMT
(NERGT 0* N4TL RESOURCE
4TER VOLUNE
OUTPUTS FRO* SYSTEMS
N4Mf
SOLID «45TCS PROCESS
SOLID PASTES FUEL CO»P
SOLID H4STES NINIMO
SOLID 4ASTE POST-COhSU«
ATMOSPHERIC RESTICIOE
4TMS RARTICULtrt*
*T«OS NIMOGEN 01IOCS
ATMS HYDROCARBONS
ITNOS SULFUM GUIDES
4TMQS C4RHON NQNOIIOE
A7MOS 4LOEtY'JES
47<^)S OTHER GRG4NICS
AtMOS ODOROUS SULFua
A7*OS AMHON14
4TMOS HYOROGE* FLOURIDC
47HOS LI4U
4TOOS MERCURY
4T»05RHCBIC CHLORINE
ATERItORNl DIS SOLIDS
4iEB8o»« FLUORIDES
ATE°«ORNE DISS SOLIDS
4TEMA.OONC BUO
4TERRORN4 P*NOL
ATERBORNE SULFIOES
ATEORORNl OIL
4TERB041NE COD
4TERR.ORNC SUSP SOLIDS
ATERBORNE 4CIO
ATERBORNE NSI4L IUN
RAIER*JO«N4. CTANIOC
ATERRORNE ALKALINITY
VATERQOAME CNP.OMIUN
.47ER«ORMC laON
4TERBORN4. 4LUNINUH
4TEWBORNE NICKEL
4TERR-ORNC NCRCuRY
VATER90RNE LEAD
4TCRROHNE RHOSRH4TES
ATEatORNt ZINC
ATERtOlINC AMMONIA
AlERROUNt N1TROOCN
ATER»0»NE RtSTIClOe
*UNN4PV OF ENVtRONMNTAL IMPACTS
14.C
»4. MATERIAL*
ENCRGY
ATE'
INDUSTRIAL SOLID MSTCS
TH EMISSIONS
ATCRBORNE MASTE*
EWROT SOURCE RCTROLEUN
ENER«T SOWCE NA? r.4S
ENERBY SOUHCE COAL
EHCRttV SOUKCE NUCL HYP»R
CNL06T SOURCE MOO IASTE
IHOti OP EN«|*OHNEMTAL IMPACTS
NAK
» NATERIALS
ENEIST
4tf1
INDUSTRIAL SOLID "457ES
AT> EMISSIONS
DATEReOONE DASTES
ROST>CON9UNER SOL HASTI
EHfR«Y SOUHCE PETR.OLEU*
ENERSY SOURCE NAT IAS
CMR9Y SOWCt COAL
ENEROT SOU«C( MICL HYPVR
ENEBDY SOURCE MOO lASTf
UNITS
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUND
POUND
ROUNO
POUND
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUND
ILL (TU
ILL ITU
ILL *TU
ILL ITU
ILL »TU
ILL STU
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNDS
IL BTU
IL ITU
IL «TU
THOU ML
UNITS
POUND
ROUND
ROUND
CUR ic FT
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNO
RflllNO
ROUNO
POUND
ROUNO
POUND
ROUND
ROUND
POUND
ROUND
ROUND
POUND
POUND
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUND
POUND
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNO
POUND
ROUNO
ROUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
ROUNO
POUND
UNITS
POUNDS
IL BTU
THOU »AL
CUBIC FT
ROUNDS
POUNDS
CUVjIC FT
IL RTU
MIL tTU
IL BTU
IL ITU
NIL BTU
STANDARD
ALUES
4TTT.661
4M.I2T
t**.*14
41.141
14IT.*SI
1141.111
1.164
S*. 429
2T4.30S
11.424
1B.1T2
*tl
CHINA
CUR TOI
RAN MT
11*1 USC
0.100
1.100
IT. 611
I. Ill
l.lll
I.IIO
l.lll
t.tll
314.4*1
U31S
.1*4
.411
.1*1
.lit
O.OIt
l.lll
114. *2I
31.117
m .234
10.TTI
1,111
.lot
0.100
2.01T
1.611
4.46*
744. J87
O.llt
M! 744
1.450
1.741
ITTA
021
.447
1.000
.001
o.oot
.010
.000
0.000
o.eit
.124
11
1.141
.112
.001
.104
21*414
.114
7.601
.621
0.010
O.Otl
0.0*4
l.ltl
1.011
I. Ill
l.lll
1.000
0.000
O.Otl
1.000
o.oot
1.000
1121.1*1
1.117
2.00T
10.22T
IT. 440
11.041
U315
.8*4
.611
.04*
.11*
21.
.
1.
24.
1.
2.
t.
2.
,
,
IS.
CNINA CHIN*
CUP TOI CUP TOZ
ft m*
lilt UK lit! UM
l.ltl t.lll
l.lll 1.0*0
1.1*1 IT. Ill
l.lll .lit
t.llt .010
0.00* .000
0.011 .Oil
I.OII .1*0
0.000 .000
{.tit .010
.111 .III
.SI* .241
4. Ml .1ST
1.21) .14*
.11) .000
O.IOt .318
l.lll .001
0.100 .000
0.011 .100
0.001 .000
t.Oll .000
O.Otl .000
O.OOt .711
11.91) .164
0.011 .014
0.001 0.000
1.756 .017
1*0. Oil .618
7. ISA .444
10.064 .114
0.011 .001
O.OtO .000
3.4*1 .101
7.12) .176
9. IB* .516
4.441 1.946
1.412 .10)
021 ,004
.044 ,4)T
0,000 0.000
0.000 .001
0.000 O.COO
0.000 .001
.Oil .010
O.llt 0.001
O.Otl t.OOO
0.000 0.010
1.TI2 .246
.7T5 1.107
.000 .001
.000 .000
.010 .011
1.530 .001
1.44T .514
.1*4 .011
.0*4 .006
.000 O.IOt
0.001 0.001
0.000 O.Otl
1.111 0.000
0.001 0.000
0.100 .000
0.010 .000
O.llt .000
t.oot .ott
1.011 .Itt
1.111 ,ttt
0.100 .010
0.001 .000
v
O.llt 41.418
11. tl) .870
1.754 .017
l.lll .111
' 14.444 T.1S2
4.12) 1.4K*
.SI* .241
9.161 .1ST
1.24) .14*
.21) 0.0*1
0.1** .lit
0.0 .4
2.7 .1
1.4 .0
6.T .1
2.1 .4
.4 .1
O.I 0.0
.9 .4
3.4 .1
US .2
1.6 I.I
l.l 34.1
CHINA CHINA
CUP TOI CUP TOI
TRAN MSN
1100 USE 111! UK
1.000 l.ltl
.010 1514.14*
.011 O.Otl
.100 0.001
.111 191.6*1
.000 447.541
.000 SBI.1IT
.001 t.ttt
.111 t.tOO
.111 16*. 192
.IT* 49.44*
.111 2*1.1*1
.000 74.404
.001 IT. Tit
.000 .2*1
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 O.OIt
.100 O.tll
.000 1.011
.000 O.tOO
.001 SSI. 412
.000 345.794
.174 .111
.000 10.111
.041 194.492
0.000 233.70*
.174 446. 11T
t.OOO 1411.440
0.000 0.000
1.000 0.000
.144 111.472
1.S01 2*4.14]
.400 141.441
.511 492.11*
1.111 41.19*
.049 .793
.113 1.4ST
0.000 1.79*
.001 1.439
0.000 0.000
.006 ,014
0.000 .001
0.000 .763
0.000 0.001
0.000 0,000
.414 1012.700
.001 9.412
.001 .010
.001 .011
.001 .110
.006 1S.OT4
.004 11.712
.Oil 27.72T
.100 8.042
.000 O.Ott
.000 .1*1
.000 .011
.000 0.001
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.001 .174
.001 O.OtO
.000 .012
.001 3.161
.001 .111
0.010 1615.16)
1.174 406.740
.061 1*4.442
.004 2B.6T1
T.439 1222.101
.4** 11*4.44)
1.174 44.94*
.100 2*).)*)
0.000 7*. 40*
0.000 17.710
0.000 .26*
0. 74.7
41. T
. 47.
. 61.
84.
*4.
0. 1.
1. TT.
. 94.
1. 97.
1. 91.
1. 14.
CHIN*
CUP TOI
PCM
III* USE
.lit
.110
.010
BOfl
.110
.001
.111
.111
.lit
.til
.111
1 .201
.111
.to
.lit
.111
.lit
.111
.111
.100
.000
.000
.000
.000
11.211
1.001
.4)4
t.OOO
1.541
0.101
1.144
0.000
l.OTO
10.1*1
11.074
1.694
73.308
.IT]
1.11)
0.000
.021
o.oot
.211
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.101
5.441
.014
.014
.114
,007
.096
.119
.011
.001
0.000
0.000
1.000
t.Oll
0.000
0.001
1.100
0.000
O.IOt
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
l.lll
10.201
.6)4
.014
101.242
9.9T*
Illltl
1.110
O.COO
l.llt
1.110
1.0
2.
,
.
T.
.
111.
IT.
0.
0.
0.
0.
CHINA
CUR TOI
SYS TOT
lit* UM
l.tll
1904. 1BI
7S.1T*
1*110
151.641
417.141
SBI.1IT
1*4.111
319. »ll
14*. 142
54.42S
1T4.3I9
11.424
11.071
.10
o.oot
0.000
0.000
104.420
31.317
291.114
565.994
411.6*4
12.112
11.111
144.934
42t.»44
411. 41t
2199.4)6
1.164
1.001
144. OTO
320.0**
111.111
4T1.471
114.127
1.761
5.814
2.796
1.974
0.000
.111
.008
.76)
0.000
.014
1011.716
12.701
.01*
.021
.143
10.471
41.261
1B.1BI
13.81*
1*00*
.84*
.001
0.000
O.Ott
l.llt
111
.110
.174
1.101
.012
1.361
.01*
4TTT.661
434, 12T
194,434
41.44*
1407.438
1141. IB)
94^42*
174.10*
81.414
1B.1T2
.400
100.0
It*.
lot.
101.
111.
111.
III.
111.
100.
111.
III.
111.
124
-------
TABLE 56
RESOURCe »HO CNVIRONMCNTM. PROFlLf IMLT11J
ONI MILLN NCLWIM CUP 1000 USIf
INPUTS TO
STSTENS
N4«rf
NITCRUL COTTON
ITCRIIL SULFITE BRINE
NITERUL »000 FIBER
ITERUL LINESTONE
ITERUL IRON ORE
HITFRUL SILT
MTERIIL GLISS SIND
47CR1IL NIT SOftl ISM
NITERUL FCLUSPIR
ITERUL B4UIITE ORC
NITERUL SULFUU
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEU*
ENERGY SOUMCC NIT 045
ENERGY SOURCE COIL
ENERGY SOUNCE RISC
ENERGY SOURCC >OOD FIRCR
CNCRGY sou»cc HTI>ROPO>CR
ITERUL POTISH
N1TCRIM. PnOSPMTC ROCK
ITERI4L CL4Y
ITCRIIL GYPSUN
ITCR1IL SILICl
ITERIIL PROCESS 600
CNCRGY PRUCESS
ENERGY TRINSPORT
CNCROT OF NI7L RCSOURCC
4TFB VOLUNC
UNITS
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
ILL BTU
ILL ITU
ILL ITU
ILL ITU
ILL RTU
ILL BTU
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNDS
IL ITU
MIL HTU
IL RTU
TMOU OIL
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
kUMMIHV f
INOCI OF
NI.F
SOLID ISttS PROCESS
SOLID ISIIS FUEL COMB
SOLID 1STCS MINING
SOLID ISIf POST-CONSUN
4T»OSP CRIC PESTICIDE
ITNOS IRTICULlTCS
ITNOS ITHOGtM OI10ES
TXOS TOHOCIRIIONS
4T«OS SULFUR 0«IOES
ITKOS CIMtOM NONOIIDt
47WOS 4LDC**YUC4
ITnOS OTNl» OHG6N1CS
ITMS ODOROUS SULFUR
IT»OS INNONI6
ITNOS MTUHObCN FLOURIOC
ITNOS LEII'
Tuns CRIUPY
T«OS»«CRIC CHLORINE
ITCRBORnC 01$ SOLIDS
ITCRRORNC FLUORIDES
ITCRRORNE OISS SOLIDS
ITCRRORNC 100
ITERUORNl P-CNOL
ITERROUNL SULMUCS
plTCRROMiC OIL
ITCRBORNC COO
ITERVORNC SUSP SOLIDS
ITERBORNC ICID
ITEPBORNC NETIL ION
ITCRBO'NC CHENICILS
itc»»oR»i CTiNtoe
««7(MO»«[ 1LKIL1NITT
ITCRBOPNC CXRONIUN
ITCRNORNE IRON
l7C*(ttORNE ILUNINUH
.ItERHORNt NIC«tL
ItERBORNC NCRCURT
1TF.RRORNC LElD
ITFRBORNC PXOSPMITES
iTERAORNi ZINC
ITERRORNt IMNONII
ITCRilORNC N17RDGCN
1TERRORNC PCSTICIOC
tf FNVIBONMkMTIL IMP4CT*
NI.I
fll« H4TCRULS
CNCROT
ITFR
INUUSTRI4L SOLID «SIE5
t» CMISSIONS
ITERBORNC »STES
POST-CONSWCH SOL >ISTE
ENCRGT SOURCC PETROLEUN
ENCROT SOURCE NIT bIS
ENCRGT SOURCC COIL
INERGT SOURCE NUCL HYPVR
ENERGT SOURCE «000 VISTC
(NVIRONPZNTIL INPICTS
N1>C
Rl« NirCRIILS
ENERGY
VITCR
INDU5TRUL SOLID >4STCS
ITN CRNISS10NS
ITCRBORNE >ISTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL >1STE
CNER9T SOURCE PCTROLCUPl
ENEROT SOUUCE 1IT GIS
ENCRGY SOURCE COIL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPM
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD HISTC
UNITS
POUND
POUNO
POUND
CIIRIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNfl
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
OUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUMI
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
UNITS
POUNUS
IL BTU
THOU GIL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CURIC FT
IL «TU
NIL 8TU
IL BTU
IL ITU
NIL ITU
STINDIRO
VILUCS
1717.316
421.130
200.614
2«.2*4
1271.116
1099.171
1.317
4I.517
272.740
0.112
11.029
1.011
NEL6NINC HELMINE MCLUHW «L»NINE
CUM CUPS CUTS CUPS
U IUT NPI M« TRIN
IMI usi it to use iioo ust 1000 use
0.000
0.000
91.111
S.I10
t'.tn
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.Til
1.130
9.04*
.00*
.100
.til
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.4»
*.314
.149
3.442
4.»«7
«.«!
5.001
12.927
0.000
0.000
1.712
».447
19. IM
T.ii*
4.2*4
.010
.021
.03?
1.161
.000
.000
.011
0.000
1.00
.32*
.001
.001
.009
.04*
.TB1
.2*2
.04,2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
o.ooo
0.000
.2*9
0.000
0.000
1.699
It. 109
4.MT
.JT4
16.410
1.699
o.ooo
1.690
*.046
,00»
.100
.til
1.2
I.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
39.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.219
.JIT
.922
.111
o.ioo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
1.0T2
0.000
0.000
1.432
.311
3.070
«.1»0
0.000
0.000
.tso
l.llt
.440
2.ITO
.140
.002
.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.0*2
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.1*0
.040
o.tot
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.0T2
1.432
.161
3.214
.2*1
0.000
.219
.21T
.922
.111
0.010
0 0
1
T
«
4
0
4
1
*
T
0 0
0.000
o.ooo
11.131
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.110
.ft
.072
0.000
.132
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
1.121
.417
.002
0.000
.001
1.745
1.111
1.029
0.000
0.000
1.017
.42]
.234
1.449
.14*
.002
.211
0.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0. 000
.14]
.914
.000
.000
.000
.001
.241
.011
.001
.ore
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.oot
10.074
.419
.toe
.043
1.407
.039
0.000
.11*
.076
.072
0.001
.132
0
14
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.311
.00*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
.til
0.000
.014
0.000
.11*
0.000
0.000
0.000
.071
1.102
.4*1
.221
i.rio
.024
.0*0
0.000
.002
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.2«1
.001
.000
.000
.000
.001
.002
.001
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.592
.014
.002
1.1*2
.100
0.000
.911
.000
0.000
0.010
0.001
0 0
1
0
0
1
0
1 2
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
ELININE MLININC
CUPS CUPS
ISH PCS!
1000 use mo use
0.001
1904.1*0
0.000
0.000
1SU691
*37.34I
SSI. 117
0.000
0.000
169,052
43.949
2*1.1*1
79.40*
17.710
.2*1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
391.412
193.79*
.171
10.111
194.412
211.709
4»*.127
1421.9*0
0.000
0.000
111.972
29S.241
291.931
432.109
*0.099
.795
1.647
2.79*
1.919
.014
.001
.701
0.000
1012.700
9.012
.010
.01]
.110
13.073
11.782
27.727
t.092
.020
0.000
.K9i
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.174
0.000
.012
1.1M
.oia
1*1*. 0*1
406.790
194.492
2*.»71
1222.101
1094. *4]
0.000
49.94*
2*1.191
79.409
17.710
.2*1
97.1
96.*
96.9
*«.
9*.
19.
94.
96.
91.
91.
26.
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.oto
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.012
o.oto
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.012
0.000
.001
0.000
.001
0.000
1.917
0.000
.001
.011
.011
.001
.591
.001
.083
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.007
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
.012
.001
.000
.709
.007
1.317
.012
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0
0
0
0
CLMINC
CUPS
STS TOT
1000 USt
0.000
1904.1*0
74.964
9.110
0.000
131.9*2
*37.941
911.117
0.000
0.000
170.3*9
41.917
272.740
10.112
11.029
1.012
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
362.707
401.799
1.779
13.372
200.614
24 .916
»7 .925
144 .2*7
.317
.001
113.441
104.397
110.212
461.914
47. Ml
.041
2.0)7
2.141
1.110
!o|7
.001
.794
0.000
101»I»5?
10.679
.011
.014
.190
13.126
19.013
20.161
4.137
' .040
0.000
.1*1
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.174
0.100
.271
1.160
.Oil
1717.516
421.130
200.614
29.2t4
1271. Kit
1099.171
1.917
41.517
272.740
00.012
11.029
1.012
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
125
-------
iwvn TO
TABIZ 57
tNVIIOMMNTU.
OMI HILLIOX
row 101 eu*
»OLTSTT
til* *T row nt
HO eu«
4i4i i* HM
rat* tot
MO CU»
HI
OLTtTT
POM »0l
HO eu>
TRIM
win
OLTSTY MITSTT
row Tot ro«» TQI
HO CU» HO CU*
KIK IT! TOT
MTIIIU. COTTON
*.T(*UL si&rtTi m
Mini4L *ooo rittn
4TIRI4L LIHtSTONI
MTIIKL i MM DM
MTtllU. SALT
4TOI4L UL4SS UNO
WTtltM. MT 10M 1«"
MTtllM. rtLM»ll
UTIIIIW. UU1ITI OM
OUNO
OUNO
OUT»UT>
tTHOLlUN
(MMT SOU*Ct HIT 1*1
tMMT SOIMCI COIL
(N(Mf SOU*Ct (ISC
(MMT sou*c( MOO rim
tMMT SOU*C( «YC*OPOvt*
ATtllAL POTASH
ATIIIAL »»OS»M*T( MCK
U7(I|4L CLAT
H4TC1AL IT»SU»
«47f»U(. SILICI
4T(»i*L **oc(ss 400
IMCMT MO<(»
(HCM7 T««m»O«7
CMTM* or BAIL MSOUNCt
l«rt» »OLUM
'ON ITJTIHS
HILL ITU
HILL ITU
NILL ITU
ILL ITU
HILL ITU
ILL ITU
OUNO
OUNO
ITU
IL ITU
IL ITU
tHOU I*L
t.tt l.tl
.It
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.It
.14 |4
.» 14
.It t
It
.11
.11
.00
.11
.It
It
.11
t.ot
.11
.11
.It
.11
.11
.11
.tl
.11
.11
.11
.tl
.11
.41
.IT
.It
.It
.11
.11
.It
.It
.11
.11
4. II lll.l*
l.lt .41
t.t4 S.I*
1.41 It. SI
t.lt
l.lt
III4.4S
1.00
0.00
O.It
l.ll
l.ll
l.lt
It
l.tl
11. tt
tt.TI
l.tl
.15
11.11
0.11
1.01
1.01
1.99
l.lt
l.lt
11S.49
M.9I
*4T
1.04
1 .44
l.ll
l.ll
1.90
1.91
9.99
9.99
O.It
O.It
9.91
l.lt
10.44 1
.44
t.lt
1.91
t.lt
t.ll
l.ll
t.lt
l.ll
l.ll
l.ll
9.91
9.91
11.10 1
l.lt
l.ll
.01
.tt
.11
.11
.01
.09
.99
.11
.It
.19
.It
.11
.99
.91
.11
.It
.01
.09
.91
.99
.99
.11
.11
.It
.11
.09
.9*
l.ll
l.lt
ttl*.41
1.01
9.99
9.91
'.II
l.lt
1.10
l.ll
l.tl
1*7.71
ttS.TI
11. If
l.ll
It. 11
t.lt
0.10
l.ll
l.ll
1.19
l.ll
111.17
401.14
41.14
Itl.tl
»».4«
sot. to usrti raoctss
sot 10 i4STi> ruci cox
KH.U MST(S HIHIM
im.10 xsri Kni-co*tim
n«s»«c«ic tsriciot
ITV«S rtiiicuLiris
TM>S mritoaCH onoei
tTMOS «'0*OC4TCOI>I
rues JOL'UO oiiots
I»0» C»««OH HOHOItOC
4THOS >IOC«'OCI
TKOS 0'-<" 0054MCJ
>IHOS ooo>ous sw.ru*
*T«OS AMMOHI*
tnej MTDMKCH JWCHJ«I«
4THOS LOO
«T«OJ H(«CU*T
TCUMO
XHJM
mum
vouw
»OUMI
>OUNO
>OUMO
>OUftO
»OUNO
rouxo
on SOLIDS
OISS SOLIDS
>irt*«OM( too
MUM
»OUHO
TCUMO
MIMO
»«TC«tO«'lt OIL
TtXOOOt COO
MTfXOMC SUV SOL101
4Tt*IOMif 1C10
MT(*IOm( H(TU. ion
MTtnOMC CKtHfClLl
.4Tt»»0«K CTUIOf
»«tt«tO«»» U.I4LIHIT*
4l|I
IfXOKM »IOCL
4ICWOMC H(»CU*t
IIWOMI LC»0
I4T(»
urt
trt
4Ttnoc«ic mm IDC
tIT.II
IT. 14
4».ll
l.ll
l.lt
*.«!
M.S4
Itl.tt
SS.ll
Tt.M
tl
.tt
l.ll
.94
9.91
.91
.It
9.99
9.11
1.91
41.14
t.lt
.11
11
U
t.tt
4.»1
I.t4
.31
t.lt
t.tt
t.ll
.01
t.tt
l.ll
l.lt
l.lt
l.tl
t.tt
l.tt
.M
l.lt
9.91
*t.ll
lit. 41
lll.tl
l.lt
l.lt
44. M
ti4.n
»».ll
ttl.lt
11.41
l.lt
1.11
t.lt
.14
1.91
.9t
.91
l.lt
t.ll
l.tt
*t.M
.11
M
.tl
It
.Tl
.44
I.4T
I.U
t.lt
t.lt
l.lt
l.ll
l.lt
l.ll
It
t.lt
l.lt
t.10
t.tl
t.tt
t.ll
I.M
IK.St
4I.4T
tl.*l
l.ll
I.Ot
Tl.lt
W.I4
10.14
II«.1S
11. «9
.14
14.11
1.09
.It
9.31
.99
.99
9.91
9.11
9.91
11.41
11.91
.99
.91
9t
.»
17.71
l.lt
.11
1.41
l.ll
9.19
9.91
«.tt
l.ll
1.11
l.ll
9.11
t.ll
l.ll
1.91
l.ll
l.lt
l.ll
4.T1
l.ll
l.ll
9.99
I. 41
4«.7t
IS.tl
l.lt
41.14
.79
1.41
1.19
.91
1.91
.97
t.tl
1.01
l.ll
1.99
19.17
.91
.11
.11
.91
.11
.IT
.It
.11
1.99
I.Ot
l.lt
1.99
l.ll
1.99
9.91
9.91
1.99
t.ll
l.ll
t.ll
9.09
l.lt
1.91
IT
9.99
Ttl.19
1.99
1.14
11. tl
11.91
4.SS
114. IS
l.St
4.71
l.tt
IS
9.19
.11
9.99
9.91
l.ll
1.99
1.14
.It
.11
.01
.11
.It
.1*
.tt
.91
9.91
t.tl
9.91
9.91
t.ll
1.09
0.91
9.91
1.91
l.ll
l.lt
t.lt
l.lt
9.11
411.1*
tTt.lt
411.11
Ttl.tt
9.91
111.99
314.11
1T1.0I
441.91
J46.44
>.4t
t'.SI
9.01
.19
9.11
.4]
.99
9.01
1.01
0.91
Il4.lt
41.01
.It
.It
.71
l.ll
ti.n
I.IT
l.ll
1.41
t.ot
t.ot
.tl
1.99
1.90
l.ll
l.lt
0.01
t.OI
t.ll
.01
t.90
l.ll
or (II«IIO
at
L IWICTI
UM1TS
IMtMt
47(1
INOUSTHI4L SOLIO Ilirtl
*T» CMIUKUIS
I4TMOM M1TI3
POST-COUUM* SOL USTf
CWMT SOMKt >tT*Oktl«l
CkOtT SOUKI MT Ml
Cf C04L
II ITU
THOU Wt
cuatc rr
IWMr MUMt MOO u*Tt
IMtl Or CmiMMBTJITAL IM*ICT1
CMIC n
IL ITU
"IL ITU
HIL ITU
HtL ITU
IL ITU
J7»
KU.UU
til. II
111.14
IS.4I
4.11
US. 74
ii.n
l.ll
1W.I4
Tt.M
4.11
.M
l.ll
l.ll
111.74
11. SI
T.T4
III. 4*
III. 41
t.tl
144.11
141.11
N.M
4.IT
l.ll
1414.*)
41.11
1.44
4.tl
tra.io
Tt.ST
1.01
ll.tt
tt.TI
4.13
.M
11.11
O.It
tt.fO
l.ll
.14
114. Tt
11.41
t.ll
tl.44
.44
1.01
l.ll
t.ll
l.lt
IT. SI
l.t*
.U
117.41
I.3T
711. tO
IT. SI
l.ll
l.lt
l.ll
l.ll
llSS.lt
sn.oo
t«.44
U.tl
1IS1.4I
tll.ll
Ttl.lt
KT.TI
Itl. 71
lt.lt
S.ll
11.11
*A> NATtltllLS 14U.lt U.
(MMT ST1.M 11.
in* ti.** it.
INOVSMIAL SOLIO uins 11.11 TS.
ITH (MUSSIONS 1IU.I* 1*.
urtncoM Mins Ml. U »«.
OST- SOL «*STI 141.11 t.
(MMT SOUKt KTIIOLIUN tIT.TI IS.
CMMT SOUCCt MT US IH.T1 11.
(MMT SOUIKC COIL M.n It.
OCMT SONKt NUCX MTM* 1.41 11.
(MM SOUrct MOO MSTX 11.11 1.
1.
14.
19.
41.
n.
t.
41.
*I.
M.
M.
1.
U.I l.<
7.1 1.1
4.* 4.1
n.* <
14.* 1.
tr.t 4.
9.1 t.l
3.4 t.
S.T
tt.t 1.
1.1 1.
lll.l *.
l.<
1.
1.
it!
i.
in.
i.
i.
i.
i.
9.
III.
Itl.
Itl.
Itl.
tit.
Itl.
111.
111.
110.
lit.
III.
III.
126
-------
INPUT* TO S*STC*S
»A«F
TABLE 58
tSOUBCC *«0 C«WI»ON»tN7AL
IL TO! M»-»e HOT 01 ru»1
CONVHT
ANALYSIS
COATIO
AB«D
AN S"S
14210 LI
A*f> CARTONS
»AKS iso LI
1*0 LI
comun
IMC LI
DISPOSAL T«ANS»0« TOTAL
ATOIAL COTTON
NATFBIAL *ULFATt tWIHC
"ATEBIAL «OOO r|§E»
ATC*IAL il*»TONC
ATCBJAL IKON 0»t
ATF*|AL »ALT
ATCHIAL »L»SS SMtl
ATC»|AL NAT SOOt »S»
ATCBIAL >U"S»A4
«Tt«IAL -lUIItt OOF.
ATCBIAL kM.ru*
HC«Ot SOU'CF BtTBOLEU"
ENf»n SOU-Ct NAT Oil
tie*a» »uu*ct COAL
(MfR«T SIHI-Cl DISC
INC»O» sou*cc >ooo '!>(
t»t"9T SOU-ICE NTO»n»0«t«
ATF.BIAL OT4S-
ATENIAL *-flS»«ATF *oc*
ATF*1AL LLA'
ATFHIAL t?T***W»
NATEBIAL XH.ICA
ATF.BIAL *»»O
FNe<*G* Tfc.NS"0»T
OUNO
OUNI)
OUNI)
OUNO
OUNO
OUND
BOUND
DUMP
BOUNP
OUNK
BOUNU
"ILL "TU
ILL *TU
ILL ItU
ILL DTu
ILL BTU
ILL «TU
BOUND
OUNO
OUND
OUNO
OUNO
OUNOS
IL *TU
IL «TU
T«mi GAL
0.166 0.000
0.000 0.000
I21IT.S2S 0.000 >
1345.720
.00
20SS.S01
1.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.100
17. .049
64.221
141. TSO 1
100.317 |
4.200
160.2*4
0.001
.too
6.101
0.000
0.000
0.000
I40T.TU 4
.51.951 3
4.250
21.5T5
.0(0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.go
.000
.110
.201
.11?
.632
.156
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.001
.TIO
.000
.000
.100
.000
.000
.000
.00
.000
.os«
.615
,2*T
.000
.89*
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000 27.100
.111 T.656
.000 .035
.000 ' 0.000
1IT.V9I) .601 .146
0.000
0.000
79.500 101
12.000
0.000
1S.TT1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.51.
1.0.7
.601
T*l
.060
1.42*
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
12. «2! 10
3.677 2
.000
.000
.350
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.109
4N4
.208
.000
.072
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
.500
.25
.042 .139
0.000 0.000
1.6»1 .492
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
,000
.000
.101 I
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.529
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.601 11.529
0.000 0.000
.350 .7(0
0.000
0.000
1)116.0*5
I3ST.T»0
0.000
2091. 2T2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
ITS. 5*1
93.999
1T2.191
119. 100
9.115
1T1.696
0.000
0.000
O.OflO
0.000
0.000
0.000
1616.460
SJ6.I31
i».ai«
1.575
1»1. 6«7
JUTBUT* HO"
snj.19 ««»TES »»ociss
SOLID »4STt» run. COW
VL13 itti -INI-.
4TM1S SUL>U- 0
47«QS C4»-*u* '
7-0< 4LUt-r>>C
*7-05 OT»t- u«
4T-05 O 0»* "»
4T«OS *»-«.(
4T**OS >*!-. "»c*
4T-«S L14.
ltr»V^M |<|< SOL ID J
»4TrQ«g»\« rt.jo«l.-C»
,4T(I»0»H "ATUULl
CNC08T
ATFR
INOUSTBIAL SOLID -4JTCS
vASTFS
OST-CONSU-t-' SOL -AS'E
E-.C«5I bOUHCC Bf.TB.OLF.UK
E-IJ6T SOU'CE SAT GAS
CNCBST source COAL
ENCIGT SOIMCt NUCL "'"
tNCBCT SOU'Ct >00u >*STE
1»0«,T,
S6«,
191
TS,
1619.
301,
736,
93,
1T2,
119,
9,
1T3,
,11*
iSlO
,6IT
,021
010
,104
013
999
393
106
111
646
91.1
4.4
91.1
2.
6*
69
0
«.,
6.
94
61
*2
1.6
1.4
U2
1.2
5.6
0.0
2.2
.«
1.1
0.0
l.T
12
I*.
0.
T.
2
3
0
5
2.
99
0.0
2
5
2
0
14
0.
0.
0.
0.
100.
100.
100.
loo.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
127
-------
TABLE 59
Mtouwt MO imtMMCHTu. mornt MM.VS.M
CM|M X.4TI I4M Ml
UNITS
KATtllAL COTTON
NATtKIAL WLFATt MINt
MIIIIAL MOO FIN*
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
in* i At.
ATtUIAL
ATtHIAL NAT SODA AIM
ATt.HI.AL »ELOS»««
AUDI* tAUAITt 0*C
INCMT SOUKt miOLtUN
tHUOT SOUHCI NAT CAS
CM44T VMVCl COAL
MOST SOUKt NISC
ENI**T SOUKt 4000 MM*
CNIOQY MUKl xTIMM»0«t*
HOC*
A7IIIM. SILICA
4714I4L MOCISS aOO
CNt*IT MHXtlS
Att41«L
>Tt"IAL CLAT
OUNd
OUNO
OUNO
MM)
TUNO
OUNO
ILL >TU
ILL *TU
ILL *TU
ILL »«U
ILL «'U
ILL *TU
OUNO
ourcwis
ULIO 4ASTI.S WOCtSS
SXIO 4A1TIS 'UtL CONO
SOLIO ASTH ;!«.
ASTt *OST*CONSUN
tsticio*
AlNOS N|T«0»CN 01Idt5
7NOS SULFU* OHMS
r»os OIMON WMoxot
ooo-ooi SW.FIH
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNOS
IL BTU
IL HTU
K *TU
TNOU OAL
OUNO
OUNO
OUNU
Cueic M
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
ObHO
OUNG
«7»09
TNOS ^Oi>
«T»OS»-«»IC C"1.04|NI
.tt*»uiN« 0:5 sxios
JiiS SOLID*
OUNCI
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
OUNO
A7EXOWX OIL
7I4AONNt COO
OUNO
OUNO
sis* sokin om«
>cia «OUNO
INOIA or m
«ATt*l«.S
4rr*
IlkiUSTTMAL S-vIO 9T»
ITN ENKISSIONS
STtS
SOL MSTI
SOUKt MtTMLEUB
C««T SOU«t NAT SAS
ENCMT SOU-CE COAL
INIWT SOUKE VUCL iil»««
MO M9TC
37t.J»4
174.4*1
2I.UA
11«4.274
UT.JST
1.11T
1.111
2)7.4»
71.144
19-474
.m
COIN* tTIIIU CHIN* CHINA
VATIS PlATCt KATfl KATtS
* NAT «Tt « T*M
»MI UK »»« utt «M* UK ***
«.**
.
O.IM
«.*«!
1.000
.Ml
I.IM
t.Ml
M.tl*
1 11.422
«.!
.M4
.m
.IM
.III
l.lll
l.tlQ
.III
.III
IK. 444
U.9I1
61.M4
*.)»
.741
.11%
.III
.*»»
I. Ill
.t4«
244.4TT
O.IM
l.lll
*.«0f
.Til
.4*1
I.IT4
.141
.104
.011
.III
.111
l.lll
.III
.001
l.lll
l.lll
.09*
.Ml
.920
.111
.101
.Ml
.4*1
4.**]
.IT
2.941
.14)
.411
.11*
.
.
.Ill
.
.444
.<
.Ill
.
.
.Ml
.144
M4.M)
.7*4
.4T1
1.1*1
it.no
14.147
l.lll
.14*
.214
.154
.»
I. 411
11
11
1
1
1
9 1
1.14*
1.441
I. It*
l.ll*
.Ml
l.lll
I.IM
I.IM
I.M*
l.lll
I.IM
.IT1
1.M4
.411
.**
.I
I.MI
I.IM
.III
.Ml
I.MI
I.MI
O.IK
».t»t
.IM I
.III 1
.HI
.11* «
.III 1
.III I
.M I
.IM 1
.Ml I
.Ml I
.000 1
.111
.11*
.111 0
.III 1
.044 1
.Ml I
.III I
.III 1
.III I
.Ml 1
.11* I
.Til I
.l»4 t
t.lll l.lll 1
.114
11.11*
2.«4«
4.44*
.
t.lll
1.149
2.12*
1.2TI
1.1*1
.44*
.11?
.114
0.010
1.000
.I
I.OII
.III
0.090
I. Ill
.111
.724
.441
.411 1
I.OII 0
1.011 1
.21
.1'!
.104
.44}
.041 1
.041
.III
1.000 I
.Oil
I.OII 0
.000
.Oil 0
>.l«l 0
I.OII 0
I.MI O.IM 9
' .III
.Oil
.III
.Ml
.»4
.»0«
.IN
.lit
0.001
1.100
».OM
0.044
.Ml
.M*
I.IM
1.000
0.400
I.MI
I.MI
I.MI
I.MI
I.MI
.22)
.Ill
.III
.III
.Oil
.101
.049
.011
.004 0
.041 0
.Ml
.III I
.Oil I
.Oil 0
.000 0
.Ml I
III 0
.III 1
.001 I
.III 1
.Ml 0
.Ml 1
1.010 I.MI 4
l.«4t
.12*
.MS
I.W4
1.404
.Ml
.in
1.IM
.414
.4*4
I.IM
0.
1.
1.
.
.
1.
.
1.
.
.
1.
,17«
.Ml
.on
I..41 I
.«!
O.IM I
.Ml
.11*
.111 I
1.901
.M* I
I
I
1
|
1
I
I I
1
I
tl 1
uu
.Ml
.Ml
.Ml
.IM
.Ml
.III
.Ml
.Ml
.III
.III
.101
.Ml
.Ml
.Ml
.Ml
.III
.001
.000
.III
.000
.001
.Ml
.III
.101
.Oil
.oil
.Ml
.041
.Ml
.Oil
.Ml
.111
.US
.111
.1T4
.Ml
.017
.011
.000
.011
.001
.01
.90
.00
.00
.00
.001
.00*
.001
.002
.111
.001
.OM
.III
.IM
.010
.000
.III
.000
.901
.III
.001
.III
.III
.III
.991
.091
.900
.411
.It)
.Ml
.9)1
.21*
.109
.I
.001
.III
.44*
.IM
4.
.
,
.
.
.
1.
,
.
I.
1.
1.
CHIN* CM1NI
LITt) tlATtl
MIX «!«
4401
1.722
0.000
.01*
.00?
.MT
0.019
9.999
.004
.an
.114
11.141
11.44]
24.M)
1.114
.111
I.IM
.74*
.Ill
0.000
0.00*
I.OII
.000
.OM
.194
0.000
.310
?.«4l
.914
U1I.71T
141. !«
17?. 4IT
».»»l
1944. 21*
II.«4T
0.040
4.4)4
IM.104
TO. 944
11.74*
,tM
44.1
4t.
M.
1.
4.
»4.
4.
M.
4*.
*4.
94.
74.
9.004
I.MI
I.M*
I.MI
I.MI
I.MI
I.M*
.III
I.MI
1.100
I.MI
1.441
O.OM
l.lll
I.MI
.IM
1.999
0.000
0.119
.III
I.MI
1.911
O.IM
l.lll
I.MI
.JIT
I.M*
.I7f
I.IM
1.117
0.901
.144
l.Jlt
1.714
.
(1.0*1
.244
1.072
I.IM
.III
I.OII
.87»
0.001
0.000
0.000
I.OII
.902
.99?
.092
.111
.112
.114
.991
9.901
O.IOt
0.090
O.IM
O.IM
9.999
0.001
0.901
0.100
0.101
0.940
0.000
0.9,1*
0.100
I.MO
3. .41
.217
.112
11.12*
1.404
1.117
).»«!
4.000
I.IM
I.MI
9.440
.1
.4
.1
.0
1.1
.1
140.0
t.T
0.0
t.t
O.I
0.0
CMIM
1ATM
irl TOT
4MI UU
I.IM
1U4.KI
T.lt*
O.OM
.Ml
114.7M
M>.»l
114.2)1
H.ll*
III. 922
lll.tM
41.111
21T.419
71.114
11.174
.112
I.IM
1.1*1
1.099
I 01. 141
12.9*1
1.9*4
»»2. «»»
1S4.IT1
*.««*
174.nl
272. 1J?
MI.4TI
1122.07)
1.IIT
1.099
111. lit
270. «07
2*4.141
94.444
4.411
!.)
2.041
2.«l)
l.'l*.
9.991
.9*4
.997
,»T>
1.991
.00*
742.9*1
.012
.914
.144
1«.11
TI.1I4
I1.4T4
.112
1M.I
100.0
100.0
11*.
IM.
IM.
IM.
IM.
IM.
IM.
IM.
lit.
-------
TABLE 60
RESOURCE AND ENVtROXUNTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
ONt "ILLN HCLANINE RITE 1000 USE
INPUTS TO SVSTENS
NATERIAL COTTON
NATERIAL SULFAtE fUlNC
NATERIAL "000 FIOCO
NATERIAL LINESIONE
NATERIAL IRON one
NATERIAL SALT
NATEMIAI. GLASS SANO
NATERIAL NAT SODA ASN
NATERIAL FELDSPAR
HATERIAL IAUIITE OM
NATERIAL SULFUR
ENEROV SOURCE RfTROLEUN
ENERGY SOUHCC MT 8AS
fNERBY SOUICC CO>L
ENERGY SOURCE NISC
EHERtV SOURCC MOO HOIK
ENtBGT SOURCE NTOKOROHER
ATFRIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PNOVRHATE R.OCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GTRSUH
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADD
tNtROT PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERI»Y or NATL RESOURCE
VATEO VOLUMf
OUTPUTS FRO" SYSTEM*
NAMf
SOLID IASIES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL CON*
SOLID UlSlcIS MINING
SOLID NASTE ROST-CONSUN
ATMOSPHERIC ResTtctoc
ATXOS PARTICIPATES
ATMOS NITftOGEN 01 IOC (
AIXOS MTDROCARHONS
ATNOS SULFUR OX IDS*
ATNOS CAROON NONDIIOC
AIXOS UPCxtOtS
AT«OS OTNtR OROAMICS
ATNOS ouohoui SULFUR
ATwOS ANWONIA
ATNOS NT0400CN FLOURIOC
ATNOS If AD
ATNOS KCilCURt
ATNOSRNfDIC CHLOBINC
ATCRRORNt OIS SOLIDS
AieR«o*N< FLUOR.IOCS
ATCRdORNt OISS SOLIDS
ATCMOBxt 1100
ATMHORNt RxCNOL
ATER40RNC SULFIDCS
ATCBBORht OIL
ATtOORNt COO
AtCRHONIK SUSP SOLIDS
ATERIORNfc ACIC>
ATEiaOMNe NETAL ION
ATERRORNi C«C>1CALS
ATEIROm* CTANIOF
ATEMOBNC ALHALINITT
ATERRORNI CxRONIUN
ATERNORNC IRON
»AtFRaURN£ AI.UNINUN
ATEAtfORNC NICKEL
ATERR.ORNE -IDCUR'
ATERRORNC LEAD
ATF.RkORNf RNOSR1ATCS
AIEU80RNI 1INC
ATtMORNC A-UIONIA
tTEIBORNE NITBOOEN
ATCRR.OR.NE RCSTICIIU
<|»m«RT OF FNVIMNNENTAL INRACTS
NAxf
B» UTERIALS
fNfRSY
ATFH
INDUSTRIAL SOLID >ASTF.S
ATN ENMISSIONS
ATCRDORNt IASTCS
ROST-CONSUNER SOL >ASTE
ENEROT SOURCE RCTHOLEUN
ENERGT SOURCE NAT OAJ
ENERGY SOuxCE COAL
ENEPOY SOUUCt NUCl HTRM
EHER6T SOURCE MOO «ASTE
INOCl OF EN>IROMN(NTAL INRACTS
NANE
POUND
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
NILL ITU
NILL ITU
MILL BTU
MILL ITU
NILL ITU
NILL ITU
ROUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
ROUNO
ROUNDS
MIL ITU
NIL ITU
NIL ITU
TNOU BAL
ROUND
ROUND
ROUND
CUBIC FT
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUND
POUND
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUNO
ROtINO
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUND
ROUND
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNR
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUND
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNO
ROUNDS
«U (TU
TNAU OAL
CUBIC FT
ROUNDS
ROUNDS
CUR 1C FT
NIL «TU
Nil. (TU
NIL ITU
NIL ITU
NIL ITU
STANDARD
VALUES
RA« HATEAIALS 31T1.000
ENIRGT IOS.1IO
ATF.R UJ.OTT
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES M.A*0
ATR ENHISSIONS 1101.1*4
ATCmORNE IASTES U0.401
ROST-CONSuNEk SOL HASTE S.0*«
INCRSY SOURCE RETROLEUN «*.A»T
ENEROr SOURCE NAT OAS ZSO.OA4
ENERBT SOURCE COAL TJ.ATO
CNERBT SOURCE NUCL NTMR it.ioi
ENEROT SOURCE MOD HASTE !.»>*
NELANINE NCLI
PLATE PL»
RAV NAT NFO
10*0 use loot
0.000
0.100
100.320
*.*6*
0.000
11.711
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.2SO
i.82«
IS. 431
1.3BO
.300
1.043
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
16.12S
11.112
.5*5
*.t(3
T.*61
o!so
11.053 |
0.000
0.000
t.*ss
IO.**T
2S.OS4
12.114
7. IT.
.030
.040
2.334
0.000
.000
.000
.057
0.00*
0.000
I.*A|
.*OI
..001
.001
.016
.OT*
I.33S
.44*
.US
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
.442
0.000
0.000
13*. 36*
to.**o
7.441
*4t
*2.14* |
4.310
0.000
1. 12*
1S.431
1.3*0
.30*
1.043
4.
S.
4.
2.
S.
.
0.
*.
*.
1.
1.
Tt.
MINX NELI
rt RLA
PK*
USE 1001
1.000
1.000
1.000 1
.000
.000
.**
.000
.000
.0(0
.000
.000
.42*
.430
.35
.234
.0*0
.000
.000
.000
.0*0
.000
.000
.000
.125
.000
.000
.OT3
Ik. 019
t.STO
D.OOO
D.OOO
1.2**
1.24*
.BT2
I.***
.2TT
.04
.05
D.OOO
D.OOO
D.OOO
.000
D.OOO
t.ooo
t.ooo
.123
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.001
.3IT
.OT*
D.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
t.ooo
D.OOO
D.OOO
D.OOO
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000 1
l.iw
2.4T4
.31*
».3TS
.S22
0.000
.42*
.30
1.03S
.234
0.000
0.
ll
1.
.
.
0.
1.
.
1.
1.
0.
NINE
t
use
.000
.000
.151
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.11*
.OT*
.OTt
.000
.IS2
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.13
.41T
.002
1.000
.001
.T4S
.HI
.02*
.000
.000
.017
.423
.2*4
1.445
.14*
.001
.III
.000
i.too
.000
.000
1.000
1.000
t.ooo
.143
.534
.000
.000
.000
.001
.14*
.011
.003
.oto
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
I.*T4
.41*
.00*
.053
3.4*7
.«*
0.0*0
.11*
.OT*
.OTt
o.ooo
.III
,
.
,
.
.
0.
.
.
.
0.
10.*
CLANINC
TR.AN
looo use
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.25*
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.250
0.000
.015
0.000
.060
0.000
0.000
0.000
.030
.543
1*6
.0*2
.OOT
.Oil
.ota
.001
0.000
.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.12*
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.001
.000
.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
0.000
0.000
.25*
.015
.001
l.TO*
.132
0.000
.24*
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.
,
,
,
.
.
0.
.
0.
0.
0.
0.
NCLANINt NEL
PLATE PLA
ASH PCS
1000 USE 100
.0
1336.041
0.000
0.000
0.000
134. T30
58«.OS1
516.231
0.000
0.000
150.840
40.034
234.104
70.50*
15.760
.230
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.MO
0.000
OV.80I
351.745
.731
«.«**
17J.4IT
107.50*
414.322
12*5.5**
0.000
0.000
**.S22
262.423
261.266
401.054
54.0**
.'OS
1.473
1.T22
0.000
.012
.OOT
.»7T
0.000
0.000
734.443
8.538
.00*
.011
.1*0
13.3*0
16.6*3
24.643
5.31*
.01*
o.ooo
.7**
.000
0.000
olooo
.000
.000
.154
0.000
.010
2.«*2
.016
3211. T3T
361.525
I7J.617
25.4*1
1006.130
112. 46T
0.000
40.134
234.10*
TO. 514
15.7*0
.23*
«5.3
*3.B
04.3
*6.t
93.2
**.o
0.0
*!
*3.«
*6.6
*6.T
I6.t
ININC NCLANINt
E PLATE
1 ITS TOT
) use 1000 use
.to o.ooo
.000 133*. 06*
.000 IK.4T*
.00 *.*4*
.000 0.000
.000 14*. 45*
.0(0 1(4.011
.000 510.231
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 ISt. 11*
.021 .4.407
.000 150.04*
.000 T3.0TO
.000 10.301
.000 1.434
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 507.74*
.000 365.44*
.021 1.600
1.000 IB.2B1
.001 103.077
1.000 227.102
.005 .30.197
t.OOO 1305.750
1.9*9 S.***
1.000 0.000
.002 104.013
.022 2T6.640
.023 200. "5
.005 421.5*0
I. 01? »3.«02
.002 .754
.147 1.09*
.000 4.05*
1.000 0.000
.000 .015
1.000 .007
1.000 .735
t.OOO 0.000
t.OOO 0.000
.Oil 7.3.050
.000 «.*T3
.000 .010
.000 .013
.000 .ITT
.000 13.4T3
.000 . IB. 7*0
.000 25.420
.000 5.567
.000 .03*
.000 0.000
.000 .7*8
.000 .000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 0.000
.000 .000
.000 .000
.000 .154
.000 0.000
.000 .«S2
.000 2.**2
.000 .01*
D.OOO 3371.0*0
.021 3(5.330
.001 1*3.077
.000 2*. 4*6
1.210 11*5.1**
.011 (20.401
5.*** 5.9**
.021 44. AIT
0.000 250.04*
0.000 T3.0TO
0.000 16.301
0.000 1.434
0. 100.
. 100.
100.
100.
100.
. 100.
10*. 1*0.
. 100.
o. too.
0. 100.
0. 100.
0. 100.
129
-------
TABLE 61
KSOUOCI AND CNHIRONMNTAL PROPlLf ANALYSIS
one muioN PDLTITT roi* PL*TCI
INPUTS
TO STSTEHS
NAM
ATCRIAL COTTON
ATCRIM. SULPATC IR1NC
ATCRIAL »OOO PHCR
ATCRIAL LINCSTONC
AtCRIAL IRON ORC
ATCRIAL SALT
ITCRIAL OLASS SAM
ATCRIAL NAT SODA ASH
ATCRIAL PCLOSPAR
ATCRIAL IAUIITC ORC
ATCRIAL SULFUR
CNCROY SOURCE PCTROLCUN
CNCRIY SOURCE NAT IAS
CNCRtY SOUPCC COAL
CNCROY source "ISC
ENCMY SOURCE »ooo PIMR
CNCRIY SOURCE YDROPOlCR
HATER I AL POTASH
ATCRIAL PHOSPHATC ROCK
ATCRIAL CLAY
ATCRIAL GYPSUN
ATCRIAL SILICA
ATCRIAL PROCCSS ADO
CNCPOY PROCCSS
ENCROY TRANSPORT
CNCROY OP 'ATL RCSOUTCE
ATER ASTCS PUCL CON*
SOLID >ASTC9 HlNINfi
SOLID >ASTC OSt-CONSUN
AT»OSP"CRIC »CST1CIOC
ATMS .'ARTICULATES
ATMS NlTROUN 01 IOES
ATMS HYOROCiRIONS
ATMS SUL'U* OIIOCS
ATMS CAUION NOMXIOC
ATMS ALDEHYUCS
ATMOS OTHER ORdA>«ICS
ATMS OOOROUS SULPUR
ATMS AHMftIA
ATNOS HYOROOEN rLOuRlOC
ATMS LEAD
ATMS "IPCURY
ATMSP*C*IC CHLORINE
ATC10RNC OIS SOLI3S
ATEBIORNC PLUORIOCS
ATCRIORNC OISS SOLIDS
ATCRIORNC 100
ATCRIORNC SULFIOCS
ATCMORNC OIL
ATCRIORNC COO
ATEMORNC SUSP SOLIDS
ATCRIORNC ACID
ATCRtORNC NCTAL ION
ATCR*O*NC CHEMICALS
ATCRIORNC CVANIOC
ATCMORxf ALKALINITY
ATCMOMf CHRONIUN
UTIIRRORNC IRON
ATCRIORNC ALUNINUN
ATCRIORNC NICKEL
ATCRIORNC NCRCURY
ATCMORMC LCAO
ITCRIORNC PMSPHATCS
ATCRWPMf 21NC
4TCRIORNC APHONIA
ATeM3>1ie NITROICN
ATCMOKMC PC5TICIDC
IY OP CmlRONNCNTAL IMPACTS
NANC
RAI NATCRIALS
ENCRIY
ATCR
INDUSTRIAL SOLID (ASTCS
ATN CMUtSlOMS
ATCRWMNC IASTCS
POST-CONSUINIR SOL »ASTE
CNCMT source PCTROLCUH
ENEMY source NAT us
CMCMT SOURCE COAL
CNCROY source NUCL HYP«R
ENCMY SOUKC MOO »ASTE
OP ENVIRONNCNTAL ["PACTS
INC
RA« ASTCS
ATN EMISSIONS
ATERIOPMC ASTC
EHCRIY SOURCE PETROLCUN
CNEROY SOURCE NAT IAS
ENEMY SOURCE COAL
ENCRIY source NUCL NYPM
ENEMY SOURCE >000 >ASTE
UNITS
POUM
POUNO
POUM
CUIIC PT
POUM
POUM
POUND
POUNO
POUM
POUNO
POUND
OUM
OUM
POUM
POuM
POUM
POUM
POUM
POUM
POUNO
POUM
POUNO
POUNO
POUM
POUM
POUM
POUM
OUM
OUNO
POUM
POUM
POUM
POUM
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUM
OUM
POUNO
POUM
POUM
POUNO
POUNO
UNITS
POUMS
IL ITU
THOU ML
CUIIC PT
ROUMS
POUNDS
CUIIC PT
IL ITU
IL ITU
IL ITU
IL ITU
IL ITU
STANDARD
YALUCS
4IIT.M
1479.21
101.59
19. tl
4911. IT
409.11
4512.91
715.71
502.17
140.0*
19.41
11.07
PXTSTT
CSIN 1*
IMU LI
o.ot
0.0»
>.
9.11
0.0*
o.»o
t.ot
0.00
0.00
t.lt
0.00
4«t.lT
4.51
IZ.»1
S.ll
0.00
e.oi
O.It
0.01
1.00
1.00
e.ot
Illt.Tl
1T».3J
17. IT
**I.M
II. 1A
1I«I.I«
I».AO
11*. I*
o.«»
0.00
M.»I
J)«.«l
«n.*
2A.S4
.»
0.11
.at
.4*
l.ll
1.00
.01
I.Tt
0.2*
l.ll
1.34
.11
.01
0.00
.01
0.01
.01
.11
0.00
l.ll
1.10
l.ll
.01
.00
.01
.0*
.11
.11
.11
.11
0.11
l.ll
l.ll
l.ll
0.01
1.01
l.ll
1.00
l.ll
l.ll
l.ll
1.01
0.01
0.11
It. II
.11
.11
S4.M
1.44
l.ll
.14
It. 11
.14
.11
l.ll
I.I
1.
.
.
1.
.
1.
.
9.
.
.
1.
POLTSTT
rOA«
PLATC
rt
.01
.00
.00
.01
.00
.01
.11
.01
.00
.00
.01
« .»3
.11
11 .«»
1 .§»
.00
.01
.00
.11
.00
.10
.00
.00
114. SA
0.01
0.00
l.O
AIO.OO
411. 1A
1411.71
0.00
1.01
111.10
111.11
191. «l
5T»,T»
IS. II
.11
.SI
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
.11
.00
0.00
0.10
11. »»
.01
.01
.01
.01
.11
.11
11.14
1.0*
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
o.to
0.01
0.11
0.00
0.01
0.01
.00
0.00
0.01
l.ll
tlt.SA
3.A1
17.11
I127.lt
SI. 11
l.ll
41.4]
41.11
10S.44
11.14
l.ll
I.I
14. t
1.4
51.7
17.1
1.7
0.0
5.5
1.7
TS.l
11. 1
l.l
POLTS7T
POAN
PLATC
PHI
.00
.00
151 .20
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
1 .21
1 .47
1 .70
.1*
1 .07
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.11
111. 10
»4. Al
.79
1.01
I.JO
141. »«
171. »
170.01
1.00
0.00
141.01
44.57
54.21
210.17
11.11
.11
»».!»
0.00
.04
0.00
.01
.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
11.12
71. «1
.01
.01
.01
.*«
14.41
2.09
.51
2.74
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
1.01
t.ot
2770.50
74. IS
2.51
1.01
5tS.lt
IM.lt
l.ll
l».2l
21.97
11.71
.It
11.17
47. »
5.1
2.5
11.5
11.7
12.4
O.I
1.4
4.4
1.1
1.1
101.0
POLT1TY POLT1TT POLTSTT
POAN POAN
PLATC PLATI
TRAM . PCSD
0.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.01
.01
.00
.01
1 .1* 1
.51
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
1 .11 1
.01
.OA
POAN
PLATC
STS TOT
.00 l.ll
.10 0.00
.00 2919.20
.00 0.01
.00 .00
.00 .00
.00 .00
.00 .00
.00 .00
.00 .00
.00 .00
.94 715.71
.00 Sit. 17
.00 140.09
.00 29.42
.00 11.07
.00 .00
.00 .00
.00 .00
.00 .00
.00 .01
.00 .00
.00 I9TI.02
.00 .410.41
.94 142.91
.00 479.90
.01 101.55
0.00 0.01 1151.10
?0.11
0.01
0.01 451
0.00
10.45
211.11 1
IS.!* 1
15.64
119. «0 29
2.15
5.11 1
0.00
.11
0.00
.21
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
41.11 1
.11
.04
.05
.04
.44
.11
.01
.01
1.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.00
0.01
I'. 90
0.90
0.01
0.00
0.11
19.11 3
5.04
.IT
525.01 11
44.44 1
0.00 4M
17.79 :
1.91
9.91
0.90
0.01
1.0
t.l
9.
,
10.
T.
0.
11.
.5
O.I
O.I
O.I
l.ll 177.77
1.00 2!2«.]T
r.52 4512.92
1.00 0.00
1.52 145.24
S.ll 191.44
S.«l 1410.11
1.71 1152.92
1.24 917.71
I.IT 7.119
9.19 54.9]
9.00 0.00
.09 .51
9.00 0.00
.49 .4]
9.00 .91
9.00 0.00
9.90 0.00
0.00 0.00
7.11 155.74
.09 90.19
.02 .12
.02 .15
.02 1.50
.19 41.11
.12 11.19
.04 41.44
.01 10.41
9.90 2.74
.00 ' 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.00 0.11
.00 .49
.00 9.00
.00 0.90
9.00 4017.21
1.54 1479.11
2.01 191.59
.11 49.41
11.74 4411.17
1.14 404.30
1.52 49*2.32
1.94 715.71
9.90 511.17
0.10 140,14
0.11 29.42
l.ll 11.17
I.I 111.
.2.1 111.
2.1 100.
.2 111.
1.1 111.
1.0 101.
00.0 110.
.1 101.
.0 101.
.1 101.
.0 111.
.0 111.
130
-------
TABLE 62
C30UIICC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
MIL 9IN HHU PLATES
CONVWT
ID
IVSTtN
till* Lb
Of
IMS
110 L*
eoMua
94« LI
DISPOSAL T»»HI»0«
INPUTS TO JVITC'S
NA«E
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL 1ULFATE ttHINE
MATERIAL .000 FIBEU
MATERIAL Ll"t STONE
MATERIAL IXON OUT
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL oLASS SANU
MATERIAL NAT SOOA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL DAU>ITt OKI
MATERIAL SULFUR
CN(R6r SOURCt PC TSOLEU"
ENEROT SOUHCE NAT GAS
ENERGY SUUMCt COAL
ENEBGT SOUNCt MISC
ENERGY SOUKCt >OOD FlnER
ENERGY 90U«CE NYOROPO«ER
MATERIAL POTOS*
MATERIAL BlOSPHATE »OC«
"ATFRIAL CLAY
MATERIAL bvcsUM
MATERIAL >IL1CA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADD
ENERGY SUCCESS
ENE°GY THANSPUHT
ENERGY OF «ATL RESOURCE
MITER VIILU"*'
OUTPUTS F*0« SYSTF-b
N»E
SOL 10 »ASTES PUOCESS
siLio .ASUS FUEL COMR
SOLID .AST! POST-CONSUM
AT«OS»«E*IC PESTICIDE
ATMGS PA»TKULATES
AT-OS NIT-OGcN Oil )ES
AT»OS -Yu-uc«i*80Ns
AT-DS SUL»O» oil"l*
ATMOS CAHbUN -.ON01IUE
ATMOS ALOt-"Y1ES
AT«OS OTMl- OMOANIC--
ATHOS DOU-3U* SULFU- .
AT«OS AMMONIA
. ATMOS KTI.IMUGCN FLWHIPE
AT«OS LEAu
ATfc-05 rtEwLUSY
AT-insPHC'lC CNLOMIME
«ATERRORut OIS SOLIDS
ATE'BOMNE FLUOBIuES
>ITER*0»I.E uliS SOLID*
«4TF.RBO»Nl dO')
ATCRHOKnt buLMOES
ATEBBORNE OIL
ATER«OP<«t COil
ATEB'Okli SUSP SOLIDS
ATERBORxE >C!0
«ITCRP.OWNt; »tt*L 1UN
fTERROBMe CiE»ICAL<>
ATERRORNi CTANIOE
ATEP-*0«i»t ALHALIMTV
ATEf^OMNE C"(«0**lu«
ATERROHNt IMUN
MATEBRObN^ ALUMINUM
ATERrtOxNt MJCPEL
ATERHOkNt M&RCURY
ATERROwNC LfcAO
ATF'xOUNt PHOSPHATES
ATERHOXNt ZINC
ATERHORNE A<*«tQNIA
«S.»M
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
0« 000
Z1Z3.I3'
6»9. »l»
4.460
0.080
7RS.626
4414.331
1TT3.*00
0.000
0.000
Z1I.3SO
riT.OM
210.611
461.0*5
es.«o4
.5«3
1.4TO
11. tH
.tit
0.000
.097
.00'
1S.41A
0.000
o.ooo
*0.t«5
45. Tit
ooi
.010
.011
.00
110.601 '
17.504
.013
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.007
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.070
3.906
«.3«6
2.124
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
l«.t*t
0.000
0.000
20.000
55.260
0.000
0.000
11.700
20.140
7.120
51.660
2.520
.014
.045
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.113
.001
001
.001
.001
.012
.007
l.««2
.Til
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0*0
o.ooo
o.oto
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000 I
0.000
0.000 *M
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.9?e
3.9*3
.5<>5
.135
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.190 »
2.11* 1
.160
3.112
1.005 6
3.502 4
0.000
0.000
.1T2 3
2.»«T 1
6.561
3.5" 5
.539
.004
.008
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.T1S
.03? 1
.000
.000
.00*
.24*
.074
.113
.04*
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
.000
.000
.665
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.334
.740
.614
.000
.531
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
i.150
i.135
.0*5
1.000
3.315
'.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
?19>.4t4
TA6.6A0
30.322
3.1U
3*7.710
0.000
?T2.2?1
391. «?4
273. TAO
7«2.303
251.422
.1??
0.000
.340
.00*
15.. I.
0.000
0.000
92.537
115.11]
.0?
.03
.04
.54
124.79
3. M
.71
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
SUMMARY OF ENVIUONMtNTAL IMPACTS
NAME
HA. MATERIALS
ENEUOT
ATFR
INDUSTRIAL iOLIO 4ASTES
ATM EMMISSIONS
ATFRBDIiNE .ASTES
PDST'CONSUMER SOL lAITC
ENEBOY SOUUCt PET90LEUM
ENEROf SOUMCC NAT HAS
CNCROr SOU-CC COAL
ENEROV SOURCE NUCL MY«»B
ENERGY iOUMCE nOOO .A5TE
INOO OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
RAH MATERIALS
ENERGY
>TER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID .ASTES
ATM EMMISSIONS
AH»BO»Nt .ASTES
POST-CONSUME" SOL "ASTE
TNCRCT SOURCE PETROLEUM
rNERGY SOuBCE NAT GAS
ENERGY SOUMCC COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPIR
ENERGY SOURCE DODO »>STE
POUNDS
MIL «TU
TMOU GAL
CUBIC FT
BOUN05
POUNDS
CUHIC FT
Mil BTU
MIL ITU
Mtt STU
MIL BTU
MIL ITU
STANDARD
VALUES
2T346.SI5
T4(.12t
?BB.6S9
9T.T«2
2031. 4TT
363. (IT
367.730
131.026
191.612
161.191
10.601
»1.510
26611. 5B<
6T4.5«(
2B5.62I
52.471
1509. B0<
305.761
0.00
10.401
103.03:
140.741
0.341
245.471
9T.
90.
99.
94.
T4.
4.
0.
67.
94.
11.
IS.
9T.
0.001
19.t9<
.101
1.04
94.22
4. 74
0.00
3.0T
1.901
9.39<
2.121
0.00
0.
I.
.
3.
4.
1.
0.
1.
I.
5.
20.
1 0.
1.190
5.611
t .464
.21T
14.159
1.308
0.000
.9(1
t 1.951
t .599
.115
0.000
.0
T
2
2
T
4
0 0
T
2 0
4
1 1
0 0
724.815
15.220
.100
1.911
126.911
14.T94
0.000
4.11*
1.740
1.614
0.000
5.511
2.T
2.
t
2.
6.
9.
0.
1.
1.4
1.6
0.0
2.2
1 0.000
T.MT
.4«(
.026
111.019
4.297
367.73*
T.I5T
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.0
1.1
.2
.0
6.5
1.
100.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.000
25.551
1.4T2
.0)0
155.136
12.961
0.000
21.593
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.
3.
t
T,
3.
0.
19.
0.
0.
0.
0.
M346.5AS
T4I.U2
zee.655
"7.T4J
2031.»7T
341.OCT
14T.T10
131.0?*
191.61>
161.3«1
10.602
251.510
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.0
100.0
131
-------
APPENDIX A A
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
The following sets of appendices present the basic raw data used
to develop the resource and environmental profile analysis of the disposables
and reusables within the basic categories: towels, napkins, diapers, bedding,
drinking containers and plates*
Appendix BBdiscusses the basic fuel factors used in this study and
identifies the impacts associated with the combustion of a unit quantity of
fuel, and the impacts for generating and delivering electric energy. The
impacts associated with the various modes of transportation are also in-
cluded.
Appendix CCdiscusses the disposable systems: paper towels, paper
napkins (home and commercial), disposable diapers, nonwoven sheets, cold
drink containers (paper and thennoformed polystyrene), hot drink containers
(paper and foam polystyrene), and plates (paper and foam polystyrene).
Appendix DDdiscusses the reusable systems: cotton cloth towels,
cloth napkins (home and commercial), cotton cloth diapers, cotton and
polyester sheets, glass and polypropylene tumblers, ceramic and melamine
hot cups, and ceramic and melamine plates.
In Appendices 3>b and EE,the subsystems and processes of each sys-
tem are enumerated. Also, the environmental impacts associated with 1,000
pounds or specified unit (e.g., 1,000 sheets, 1 million drinking containers)
of each process are presented.
Appendix FFpresents computer tables showing the total impacts
of each system and process.
A-l
-------
APPENDIX BB
BASIC FUEL FACTORS
This section contains data and information used to convert raw
fuel and electric energy input values into corresponding environmental
impact parameters* The basic factors are discussed in three sections:
1* Mobile and Stationary Sources;
2. Electric Energy; and
3. Transportation*
I, Mobile and Stationary Sources
A set of atmospheric emission factors resulting from the combus-
tion of fuels has been developed by the authors of this report in coopera-
tion with staff in the Physical Sciences Division of Midwest Research
Institute (MRI). They are reported in Table B-l. These data represent both
a comprehensive literature search and data collected from a nationwide
telephone survey* The primary source was Reference 6, but numerous other
literature sources were also used* The factors represent national average
emissions after pollution controls have been applied. They are representa-
tive of projections of levels which were experienced in 1975.
The total impacts associated with using a given quantity of a
fuel are composed of: (1) precombustion impacts and (2) combustion impacts.
Precombustion impacts refer to the resource and environmental impacts as-
sociated with extracting, refining and shipping the fuel to its location
of use. Combustion impacts represent the energy content of the fuel plus
the environmental pollutants (atmospheric emissions) discharged upon com-
bustion of the fuel. The sum of the precombustion and combustion impacts
are identified as "secondary impacts," and represent the basic fuel impact
factors associated with burning fossil fuels*
Table B-l contains the basic fuel factors for 12 energy resources,
Tables B-2 and B-3 contain the precombustion impacts for natural gas and
refined fuels*
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l
FUEL FACTORS
lnergy-106 Btu
Solid V**t«* - Ib
P*rttcul*t*it
Nitrogen Oxide*
Hydrocarbon*
Sulfur O.ildei
C*rboo Honoilde
Aldehyde*
Other Organic*
Ajmonl*
Lead
Total Attucpbarlc
Uaterborne Waite* - tb
01**olv*d Solid* (oil
. - b
1 Other
fO Total Uaterborn*
Caao
Pra-
coaAuatlon
19.9
16.2
Ib
4.2
14.7
54.1
11.7
II. 1
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.001
117.5
(laid
rlna) 80. »
1.1
4.0
In. (IOUO (.
Coronation
125.0
11.0
120.0
103.0
6.0
1010.0
12.0
44.0
1.0
1454.0
(1000 gal.)
Raaldual Oil Induatrla
Pra-
tncraj - 106 8tu
Solid Vaatea - Ib
AtHoapnarlc Kailaalona '
Partlculataa
tlltrosan Oxldca
ttydrocarbona
Sulfur Oildaa
Carbon Monoxlda
llocbrdae'
Debar Organlca
jBBaonla
Load
Total ataoaplicrlc
Vaterboroe Ifaatea - Ib
Olaaolvad Sollda (oil
conbuatlon
19.9
36.2
Ib
4.2
14.7
54.1
11.7
11.1
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.001
117.5
(laid
Coabuatlon
150.0
23.0
72.0
3.0
250.0
4.0
1.0
351.0
brlna) 10.9
Acid
Hlial loo
Oihar
0.2
O.I
o.a
14.0
> Dla.ul (1000 aal)
Pra-
Total cowbuatlon
144.
16.
15.
154.
157.
17.
1041.
12.
44.
0.
1.
1466.5
0.9
3.1
4.0
Total c
169.9
36.2
27.2
106.7
97.1
2B1.7
19.1
1.4
0.9
0.4
0.001
490.9
0.9
0.2
0.1
4.0
19.9
16.2
4.2
34.7
34.1
11.7
II. 1
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.001
137.5
0.9
1.1
4.0
Coabuatlon
119.0
11.0
170.0
17.0
27.0
225.0
1.0
1.0
678.0
Total
158.9
36.2
17.2
404.7
9 .1
5 .7
21 .1
.4
.5
0.4
0.001
115.5
0.9
1.1
4.0
(1000 gal.)
o-buat.on
19.9
16.2
4.2
14.7
94.1
11.7
11.1
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.001
117.5
80.9
0.2
0.1
2. A
84.0
Pta-
Coaa>iition
146.0
8.0
105.0
2.0
254.0
1.0
1.0
171.0
Total
167.
16.
12.
119.
56.
285.
14.
1.
0.5
0.4
0.001
110.9
0.9
0.2
0.1
2.8
4.0
Pra-
coajmatlon
19.9
16.2
4.2
34.7
54.3
11.7
11.1
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.001
137.5
0.9
1.1
4.0
Coa*uatlon
150.0
21.0
105.0
5.0
102.0
130.0
10.0
575.0
Total
169.9
16.2
27.2
119.7
59.1
111.7
141.1
10.4
0.5
0.4
0.001
712.5
0.9
1.1
4.0
(1000 J.I.)
Pra-
co«buatlon
19.9
16.2
4.2
14.7
54.1
31.7
II. 1
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.001
117.5
0.9
0.2
0.1
2. a
4.0
CoaJmatlon
139.0
15.0
72.0
1.0
142.0
4.0
2.0
21*. 0
Total
151.9
M.2
19.2
106.7
57.1
173.7
15.1
2.4
0.5
0.4
0.001
175.5
0.9
0.2
O.I
2.8
84.0
(1000 it1)
Pra-
coabuatlon
0.056
0.001
0.157
1.024
O.OI2
0.104
1.9
0.19
0.19
Pra-
coafauatluo
0.2
190.0
2.0
0.9
0.5
1.5
2.5
0.01
0.02
7.0
2.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
Coabuatlon Total
1.01 1.086
0.003
6.0 6.157
0.8 1.824
0.012
1.6 1.704
8. 4 9.9
0.19
0.19
Coabuatloo Total
11.1 13.1
31.0 221.0
21.0 21.0
9.0 9.5
0.5 1.0
42.0 41.5
1.0 1.5
0.001 0.011
0.02
71.5 80.5
2.O
0.5
0.5
1.0
(1000
Pra-
coafcuatlon CoaaViatlc
0.056
0.001
0.197
1.024
0.012
0.104
1.9
0.19
0.19
Pra-
co»buatlon Ct
0.2
190.0
2.
0.
0.
1.
2.
0.01
0.02
7.0
2.0
0.9
0.5
1.0
1.01
0.018
0.214
O.O01
0.020
0.002
0.005
0.1
aabuatl
11.1
69.0
11.0
9.0
0.15
55.0
0.5
0.003
75.7
S Total
1.086
0.021
0.571
1.027
0.012
0.124
0.002
0.005
l.B
0.19
0.19
000 Ib)
>n Total
13.3
259.0
11.0
9.3
0.69
56.5
3.0
0.013
0.02
2.7
2.0
0.5
0.3
3.0
(1000 It')
PTa-
coafcuatloo
0.036
0.003
0.357
1.024
0.012
0.104
1.5
0.19
0.19
Plaaal U
Pra-
coofcjatlo.
19.9
36.2
4.2
14.7
54.3
31.7
11.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.001
117.5
0.9
0.2
0.1
2.8
84.0
Compilation Total
1.03 1.014
0.013 0.011
0.60O 0.957
0.001 1.024
0.012
0.017 0.121
0.001 0.001
0.003 0.001
0.6 2.1
0.19
0.19
»co«otl»« 11000 I.I)
Co-fau.tlon Total
119.0 131.
16.
13.0 29.
170.0 404.
94.0 HI.
57.0 18.
110.0 141.
5.5 5.
7.0 7.
0.4
0.001
68*. 5 (26.0
80.9
0.1
O.I
2.1
84.0
-------
TABLE B-l (concluded)
FUEL FACTORS
(in metric units)
*». - 10« ,
Solid Heetee - kg
AtMoepnerlc oerieetooe - kg
ertlculetee
nitrogen Oxloee
Rrdroeerbone
Sulfur Oitdee
Cerbon Hono»toe
Aldchrdee
Other Orienlee
AeMjonle
Leed
Total Araoephertc
, Ueterborne Veetee - kg
^ Dleeolveil Satlde
(oil field brine)
Other
Totel Veterborne
Inerg, - I0» J
Solid Veetee - kg
Atex>epb«rle endeetone - kg
Perttculetee
nitrogen Oxlaee
Hjdrocerbooe
Sulfur 0»ld..
Cerbon Honoeldo
Aldebrdee
Other Orgenlee
Avnonte
lead
Totel Atpnepherte
Veterborne Veetee - kg
Dleeotved Sollde
(oil field brine)
Acid
Her el lone
Other
Totel Veterbomo
Source* nidweit geteercb 1
5"
Pre-
coabuetton
3.5
4.3
0.3
4.2
6.5
3.8
1.4
0.05
O.I
0.05 '
0.000*
16. 6004
9.3
I.I
10.4
Reelduol
Pr«-
eontxietlon.
J.
4.
0.
4.
t.
3.
1.4
0.03
O.I
0.03
0.0004
1C. 6004
9.)
I.I
10.4
netlcut*.
olloe (1.000 1>
Cononetlon
34.8
1.)
14.4
12.
0.
123.
1.
3.
0.4
139.2
(1.000 <)
(HI Induet.
taHi.lra
41.9
2.8
8.1
0.4
JO.O
0.3
O.I
42.4
Totel
40.3
4.1
1.8
18.6
18.8
4.3
124.8
1.43
5.4
0.05
0.4004
175.8004
9.3
I.I
10.4
IUH I
47.3
4.3
3.
12.
i.
)).
1.
0.15
O.I
0.05
0.000*
39.0004
9.3
I.I
10.4
Dleeel (1.000 f>
Pre-
oefcuetlon
5.5
4.3
0.3
4.2
6.5
3.8
1.6
0.05
O.I
0.05
o.ono*
16.6004
9.)
I.I
10.4
Pre-
.oefcuetlOB
.3
.)
.3
.2
.3
.9
.4
0.05
O.I
0.03
O.0004
It. 4004
9.3
I.I
10.4
Coabuetlon
38.7
l.t
44.
4.
3.
27.
0.
0.
81.)
(1.000 1)
£ojJj|Uloo,
41.2
1.0
12. t
0.2
30.4
0.4
O.I
44.7
Totel ._
44.2
4.)
2.1
48.3
10.9
7.0
28.4
0.43
0.3
0.03
0.0004
97.9004
9.)
I.I
10.4
Jttsl e
44.7
4.3
1.5
16.8
6.7
34.2
1.8
0.15
O.I
0.03
0.0004
61.3004
9.3
I.I
10.4
foel Oil Nobble Source
Pro-
jection Co»buetlon
5.3 41.8
4.)
0.3 2.
4.2 12.
4.3 0.
3.8 36.
1.4 13.
0.03 1 .
O.I
0.05
O.O004
16.6004 69.0
9.3
I.I
10.4
(1.000 i)
Pre-
MaVuetloft Coabuitlon
3. 38.7
4.
0. l.t
4. 8.6
t. 0.4
3. II. 0
1. 0.3
0.03 0.2
O.I
0.03
0.0004
16.4004 28.5
9.3
I.I
10.4
i.oooh
Totel
47.
4.
1 .
4 .
1 .
.2)
O.I
0.03
O.OOO*
5.6004
9.3
I.I
IO.4
iciil
44.2
4.3
2.
12.
t.
20.
1.
0.23
O.I
0.03
0.0004
45.1004
9.3
I.I
10.4
(I.OOO cu e»
Pr.-
coehmtioo
2.1
0.03
S.I
16.6
0.2
I.I
24.03
3.0
3.0
Pre-
coabuetloo.
0.47
190.0
7.0
0.3
0.3
1.5
2.3
0.01
0.02
7.0)
2.0
0.3
0.3
3.0
Coefcuetlon Totel
38.4 40.3
0.03
96.1 101.8
12.8 29.2
0.2
25.6 27.)
134.5 159.53
).0
1.0
(1.000 t)
Cortuetlon Totel
>0.3 31.0
31.0 221.0
21.0 11.0
9.0 9.3
0.3 1.0
42.0 43.9
1.0 3.3
0.002 0.012
0.02
73.302 80.3)2
2.0
0.3
0.3
'3.0
(1.000 cu )
Netofel Gee Industrie!
Pre-
coafaiietlco
2.1
0.03
3.1
It. 4
0.2
1.7
24.03
3.0
3.0
Coel Otlll
Pre-
confcqetlon
0.49
190.0
2.0
0.3
0.3
1.3
2.9
0.01
0.02
7.03
2.0
0.3
0.3
3.0
Conbuetlon
38.6
0.)
).4
0.05
0.)
0.03
0.08
4.16
Heetlot
totel
40.3
0.35
9.1
It. 45
0.2
2.0
0.03
0.08
28.21
3.0
3.0
tv Beet (1.000 kel
Cojenetlon
30.3
t9.0
II. 0
9.0
0.2
35.0
0.)
0.002
73.702
Totel
31.0
239.0
13.0
9.5
0.7
54.5
3.0
0.012
0.02
82.7)2
2.0
0.5
0.3
3.0
Heruret
confaoetton
2.1
0.05
3.7
It. 4
0.2
I.I
24.05
3.0
).o
DUeel L
Pro-
confcttetlon
5.
4.
0.
4.
t.
).
1.
0.05
O.I
0.05
0.0004
16.6004
9.)
I.I
10.4
(1.000 cu «)
Cee Dtllltt Heetlm
Cnetoetlon
38.4
0.2
9.t
0.02
0.)
0.02
0.03
10.19
oceontln (1.
Co«huetlo|i
39.7
3.
44.
11.
t.
13.
0.
0.
82.5
Tolel
40.5
0.25
15.3
It. 42
0.2
2.0
0.02
0.03
34.24
3.0
).o
*"*'
44.2
4.3
3.
48.
II.
10.
17.
0. 3
0.9
0.03
0.0004
99.1004
9.)
1.1
10.4
-------
TABLE B-2
PRECCMBUSTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FRCM PRODUCTICN
AND PROCESSING OF 1,000 CUBIC FEET OF NATURAL GAS
Total
Impact Category Production Processing Precombustion
Energy - 10° Btu 0.021 0.035 0.056
Atmopsheric emissions - Ib
Particulates 0.002 0.001 0.003
Nitrogen oxides 0.119 0.238 0.357
Hydrocarbons 0.495 0.529 1.024
Sulfur oxides 0.010 0.002 0.012
Carbon monoxide 0.038 0.066 0.104
Total atmopsheric 0.66 0.84 1.50
Waterborne wastes - Ib
Dissolved solids
(oil field brine) 0.184 0.007 0.19
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
B-4
-------
TABLE B-3
PRECCMBUSTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FROM PRODUCTION,
REFINING AND DELIVERY OF 1,000 GALLONS OF LIQUID
HYDROCARBON FUEL
Impact Category
Energy - 106 Btu
Solid wastes - Ib
Process
Fuel combustion
Mining
Total
Atmospheric emissions - Ib
Particulate
Nitrogen oxides
Hydrocarbon
Sulfur oxide
Carbon monoxide
Aldehydes
Other organic s
Ammonia
Lead
Total atmospheric
Waterborne wastes - Ib
Dissolved solids (oil
field brine)
Suspended solids
BOD
COD
Phenol
Sulfide
Oil
Acid
Metal ion
Total waterborne
Production
1.4
4.2
2.6
3.9
10.7
0.34
3.02
10.83
2.14
1.63
0.04
0.01
__
18.0
77.33
--
--
.-
..
..
0.04
0.01
77.4
Refining
17.5
10.2
15.2
25.4
3.82
27.16
42.16
29.12
7.75
0.38
0.43
0.42
__
111.2
3.23
0.63
0.36
1.12
0.10
0.13
0.21
0.15
0.04
6.0
Transportation
1.0
--
0.06
""
0.06
0.07
4.53
1.34
0.48
1.92
0.02
0.01
0.003
8.4
0.31
--
.-
__
-.
--
..
.""
0.3
Total
19.9
4.2
12.9
19.1
36.2
4.2
34.7
54.3
31.7
11.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.0
137.6
80.9
0.6
0.4
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
84.0
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
B-5
-------
II, Electric Energy
The environmental impacts associated with use of electrical energy
are summarized in Table B-4. The impacts were calculated on the basis of a
composite kilowatt-hour (kw-hr). A composite kilowatt-hour is defined as 1
kilowatt-hour generated by the U.S. national average mix of fossil fuels
and hydroelectric power. Data were obtained from the Edison Electric Insti-
tute for 1974 (Reference 84).
Hydropower was assigned an energy equivalent of 3,413 Btu per
kilowatt-hour and nuclear energy was assigned an energy equivalent of
21,330 Btu per kilowatt-hour. The amounts of fuel required are the total
1974 U.S. fuel requirements for electric utilities, divided by the total
number of kilowatt-hours sold to customers. Impact factors from Table B-l
were combined with the fuel quantities to arrive at the impact values in
Table B-4.
III. Transportation
Environmental impacts occur when goods are transported as a
result of the consumption of fossil fuels to provide the necessary energy.
In this study, the modes of transportation included are rail, truck, pipe-
line, and barge. These impacts were calculated by determining the kinds
and amounts of fuels used by each mode on a national average basis. Impacts
were then calculated for 1,000 ton-miles by mode.
A. Rail
A complete set of fuel consumption data indicates that diesel
fuel accounted for 98 percent of the energy expended by railroads in 1968
(Reference 85). We assumed that 100 percent of the energy was supplied by
diesel fuel and that 5.63 x lO^ gtu of fuel were used. This fuel use re-
sulted in 7.68 x 10^- ton-miles of transportation (Reference 86). The cor-
responding fuel consumption was 5.25 gallons per 1,000 ton-miles. This
value was combined with information in Table B-l to yield the impacts pre-
sented in Table B-5.
B. Truck
Q
In 1967, a total of 9.29 x 10 miles were traveled by trucks
engaged in intercity highway hauling. This resulted in 1.10 x 10 ton-
miles of transportation (Reference 87). It is estimated that 35 percent
of these miles were traveled by gasoline engine trucks while 65 percent
were traveled by diesel-fueled trucks (Reference 85). National average
fuel mileage data are not available, but a reasonable assumption based on
actual experience is that this type of truck travel results in fuel con-
sumption rates of about 5 miles per gallon for either type of fuel. Thus,
B-6
-------
TABLE B-4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FROM GENERATION AND DELIVERY OF
1,000 COMPOSITE KILOWATT-HOURS OF ELECTRICITY, 1972
Impact Category
Quantity 0
Percent of Btu
Impacts
Energy - 10 6 BtuS/
Solid wastes - Ib
Mining
Fuel combustion
Atmospheric emissions - Ib
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides
Hydrocarbons
Sulfur oxides
Carbon monoxide
Other
Total atmospheric
Water borne wastes - Ib
Acid
Metal ion
Other
Total water borne
Coal
_ /
.23- ton 13
48.7
5.22
83.6
30.4
5.7
4.2
0.3
24.9
1.3
0.01
36.4
0.96
0.24
0.20
1.4
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
ill These values were derived fromi Monthly
Oil
.1 gal.
20.1
2.15
-
0.3
0.2
1.6
0.6
3.7
0.1
0.03
6.3
0.06
0.01
0.60
0.7-
Energy Review.
Natural gasa'
_ /
1,999-' cu ft
20.2
2.17
-
-
0.6
5.5
3.5
0.1
0.01
9.2
0.58
0.11
0.59
1.3
Federal Energy
Other Total
1 1 .0 100
1.18 10.72
83.6
30.7
6.5
11.3
4.4
28.7
1.4
0.05
52.0
1.6
0.4
1.4
3.4
Administration, August 1975.
-------
TABLE B-5
FUEL CONSUMPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FROM
1,000 TON-MILES OF TRANSPORTATION BY EACH MODE
Impact Category
Fuel
Gasoline - gal.
Diesel - gal.
Fuel oil - gal.
Natural gas - cu ft
Energy - 106 Btu
Solid wastes (fuel
combustion) - Ib
Atmospheric emissions - Ib
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides
Hydrocarbon
Sulfur oxides
Carbon monoxide
Aldehydes
Other organics
Ammonia
Lead
Total atmospheric
Waterborne wastes - Ib
Dissolved solids (oil
field brine)
COD
Acid
Metal ion
Other
Total waterborne
Rail
5.3
0.8
0.13
0.17
2.05
0.72
0.46
0.45
0.03
0.04
.
3.9
0.394
0.004
0.001
0.005
0.40
Truck
5.9
10.9
2.5
0.40
0.32
5.08
1.73
0.83
8.66
0.12
0.07
0.02
16.8
1.260
0.013
0.003
0.001
0.016
1.29
Barge
1.4
6.1
1.2
0.18
0.21
1.31
0.41
2.11
1.17
0.07
0.01
.
5.3
0.562
0.006
0.001
0.008
0.57
Pipeline
670
0.7
0.01
5.09
1.47
0.01
1.41
___
8.0
0.147
.
0.15
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
B-8
-------
6*5 x 10° gallons of gasoline and 1.20 x 10' gallons of diesel fuel were
used in 1967. From this, it was calculated that 5.9 gallons of gasoline
and 10*9 gallons of diesel fuel were consumed per 1,000 ton-miles. Using
data in Table B-l, impacts were calculated and reported in Table B-5.
During 1966, barge traffic resulted in 5.0 x 1011 ton-miles of
transportation (Reference 88). Fuel consumption was 6.99 x 10 gallons of
diesel fuel and 3.09 x 10^ gallons of residual. Therefore, 1.4 gallons of
diesel fuel and 6.1 gallons of residual were consumed per 1,000 ton-miles,
Impacts were calculated and are listed in Table B-5.
D. Crude Oil and Products Pipeline
Sources in the pipeline industry report that, on the average,
about 30 cubic feet of natural gas fuel are required to transport one
barrel of oil 300 miles through a pipeline. This requirement translates
to 30 cubic feet for 45 ton-miles, or 0.67 cubic feet of natural gas per
ton-mile of crude petroleum transportation. This factor, combined with
information from Table B-l, gives the data necessary to calculate the
impacts for 1,000 ton-miles of pipeline transportation. Pipeline trans-
portation impacts for moving other types of liquids of interest in this
study were assumed to be approximately the same as for crude oil.
According to the data in Table B-5, transportation by truck
has the greatest environmental impacts of the four transportation modes.
This is a result of the relative inefficiency of the gasoline engine.
Truck transportation ranks highest in every impact category. Computer
analysis comparing the four transport modes shows that the impacts for
trucks are more than double that of barge transportation, greater than
triple that of rail transportation, and nearly five times higher than
pipeline transport. Despite these rather high values for trucks, trans-
oortation per se is usually only a small percent (e.g., 10 percent) of
he total impact of a particular product system.
B-9
-------
APPENDIX C
DISPOSABLES
! Paper Towels
The processes necessary to accomplish the manufacture of paper
towels are: (1) pulpwood harvesting; (2) bleached kraft and sulfite pulp
production; (3) salt mining; (4) chlorine manufacturing; (5) caustic manu-
facturing; (6) limestone mining; (7) lime manufacturing; (8) sulfur mining;
(9) sulfuric acid manufacturing; (10) tissue papermaking; arid, (11) paper
towel conversion. A brief description of the steps in each process will
be given, along with environmental impact data. (Also, sources and assump-
tions will be enumerated when necessary.)
A. Pulpwood Harvesting
Impacts incurred during logging activities were determined from
specific company operating data (Reference 89). The primary impacts incur-
red are related to fuels required for the cutting of timber and hauling it
to a landing. The timber is then transported directly to a paper mill, or
in many cases, to a concentration point which serves as a point of origin
for shipping logs to the mill gathered from several landings.
Impacts were considered here only from roundwood consumption.
The wood delivered to mills surveyed by the American Paper Institute for
this study is 61 percent roundwood, the remainder being wood chips or
wastes obtained from other types of wood processing mills. However, in
past years, chips and other wastes were burned, rather than used, so they
are treated here as being a waste by-product from another industry. Hence,
less environmental impact is attributed to wood harvesting than if the
wood was all supplied as roundwood. The impacts of harvesting wood which
inci up as chips is allocated to the primary product for which it was
harvested. Thus, wood ending up as sawdust is allocated to lumber products
3nd is not included here. In addition, in the case of the mills studied,
these residues were generated on-site or close by so the transport of
the residues was negligible.
Table C-l summarizes the data pertaining to pulpwood harvesting.
The gasoline represents the fuel used for cutting and hauling the logs.
The atmospheric emissions were derived by estimating the effluents from
the burning of wood wastes left in the forest. The factors used were as
follows: (Reference 90)
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l
DATA FOR HARVESTING 1,000 POUNDS OF PULPWOOD
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy 89
Gasoline 0.89 gal.
Atmospheric Emissions 0.14 lb 89
1. Ten percent of the harvested roundwood is left in the woods
as a residue.
2. Seven percent of the amount left is presently burned.
3. Two percent of the amount burned is emitted into the atmos-
phere as a particulate emission.
Thus, for 1,000 pounds wood harvested, there is 100 pounds of waste, 7
pounds of which is burned. Of this 7 pounds, 2 percent, or 0.14 pound
is emitted to the atmosphere.
One item of possible significance is omitted from Table C-l.
An unknown amount of water pollution in the form of suspended solids re-
sults from run-off of harvested forests. However,, at present, it is not
possible to accurately estimate to what extent these solids actually reach
streams. Although perhaps 7 pounds of suspended solids are generated,
their final deposition is probably at other locations in the forest, and
not in streams. Therefore, this category was not included at this time
because the amount of stream pollution from this source is quite likely
very small (Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.).
B. Bleached Kraft and Sulfite Pulp (for tissue manufacture)
Tissue products (such as towels, napkins and portions of dispos-
able diapers) are manufactured from wood pulp. Most of the wood pulp uti-
lized in these products is prepared by the kraft process, with the remainder
being prepared by the sulfite process.
The raw materials required for pulp manufacture are shown in
Figure C-l.* The predominant raw material is wood, which comes from two
* These data are based on actual materials requirements for pulp used in
manufacture of towels, napkins and disposable diapers (see Reference
89).
C-2
-------
o
I
Roundwood
Harvesting
Wood Residues
Salt Mining
Limestone
Mining
Sulfur Mining
2630 3/
(1315)V
1654 3/
(827) V
91
80
10
933 ( Fiber )V
1209 (Fuel)V
Chlorine and
Caustic
Manufacture
Lime
Manufacture
Sulfur Acid
Manufacture
60 Chlorine
52 Caustic
40
29
Additives
and
Chemicals
75
Bleached Kraft
and Sulfite
Pulp
Manufacture
1000
a/ As Received, Includes Moisture
Dry Fiber Base
Source: Based on Data in (1 )
Figure C-l - Materials Flow for Pulp Manufacture
(Pounds)
-------
sources: trees and wood residues. Sixty-one percent of the wood required
for pulp manufacture comes directly from trees, while 39 percent comes
from by-products of other wood processing facilities. Typical of the wood
residues used are sawdust and trim from saw mills.
The remaining raw materials are chemicals required to carry out
the wood pulping and bleaching but which are not, for the most part, in-
tended to become part of the finished product. The impacts of manufacture
of these chemicals are discussed elsewhere in this report.
Kraft pulping hinges on the chemical digestion of wood. The
digester is a closed container which holds wood chips and digestion li-
quors. The liquor is mainly an aqueous solution of sodium sulfide. In
order for digestion to take place, heat and pressure are applied to the
mixture of wood and liquor. The digestion process delignifies the wood
and removes other chemical components which hinder paper forming. After
pulp is "blown" from the digester by the steam used in the process, it
is washed free of the chemicals, screened and refined for entry into the
paper forming section of the mill. Sulfite pulp is made in a similar fash-
ion, although the chemical composition of the digestion liquor varies, de-
pending on the particular sulfite process employed.
One of the most desirable features of the kraft (and some sul-
fite) pulping processes is that the used digestion liquor is burned. The
liquor contains a high percentage of flammable wood components and so it
burns readily. The digestion chemicals are recovered and heat is released
from the organic components. Liquor combustion, plus the use of the bark
removed from the incoming logs as a fuel results in wood providing a sig-
nificant amount of the energy required for a pulp mill. Auxiliary energy
is usually needed, and comes primarily from fuel oil, natural gas, coal,
and electricity.
A survey of operating mills was undertaken by the American Paper
Institute (API) to determine the extent to which pulp types were used in
the products studied, and to determine the environmental impacts of manu-
facture. In addition, various literature sources and other paper industry
organizations were utilized for consultation and sources of data. The re-
sults of this survey were combined with other confidential data on energy
use and environmental impacts routinely reported to API and the National
Council on Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) in order to develop data
to be used in this study. The data were combined into a wood pulp module
which includes both kraft and sulfite in the proportion actually used by
the industry. The survey was conducted for the 1975 production year and
included 27 pulp mills. The production composite was 74 percent kraft pulp,
20 percent sulfite pulp and 6 percent listed as other.
C-4
-------
Figure C-l shows the materials required for pulp manufacture
as determined by API, while Table C-2 contains the impact data for the
kraft and sulfite pulp. The unit selected is 1,000 pounds of market pulp
which is a dried and baled form of wood pulp. Market pulp is commonly used
by the tissue manufacturers* However, in many cases papermaking equipment
is located adjacent to a pulp mill, so pulp is used in the "slush" form,
avoiding the pulp drying stage. Revised energy values for slush pulp are
shown on Table C-2, reflecting the saving of 2 million Btu per 1,000 pounds .
which results from using slush pulp.
Air pollutants generated from pulp manufacture are of two types:
on-site pollutants and off-site pollutants. Table C-3 summarizes the on-
site pollutants which are actual measurements obtained from the API survey
(Reference 89). In addition to the on-site generation, pollutants (and
other impacts) result from secondary processes, such as transporting, min-
ing and refining of fuels. The impacts from these secondary off-site sources
are summarized in Table C-4 for the fuels consumed at the pulp mills. The
impacts associated with electricity generation are reported elsewhere.
C. Salt Mining
Salt (sodium chloride) is obtained primarily by the following
three methods:
. Pumping water into salt deposits and recovering the salt as
brine.
. Mining rock salt.
. Solar evaporation of seawater.
The first method uses water to dissolve the salt and bring it
to the surface. About 320 gallons of water will dissolve 1,000 pounds of
salt. The saturated solution is removed from an adjacent well or by means
of an annular pipe. The brine will contain sodium chloride, calcium chlo-
ride and magnesium chloride plus traces of hydrogen sulfide and ferrous
ions. The purification required will vary and depends on the purity of
the deposits.
Rock salt is "mined" by blasting the mineral and removing the
salt crystals. The crystals are crushed in the mine and then again at the
surface. The remaining processes consist of grinding and screening opera-
tions. The product is not as pure as salt from brine wells.
Seawater contains about 3.7 percent solids of which about 77.8
percent is sodium chloride. The water is evaporated to various degrees
in several ponds. The evaporation steps serve to precipitate most of the
C-5
-------
TABLE C-2
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS (DRY BASIS) BLEACHED
KRAFT/SULPHITE MARKET PULP
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Roundwood (Trees)
(Dry Weight)
Wood Residues (Sawdust, etc.)
(Dry Weight)
Chlorine
Caustic
Lime
Sulfuric Acid
Other Chemicals and Additives
Energy (Purchased)
Electricity
Residual^/
Distillate
LPG
Natural Gas
Coal
Energy (Self-Generated)"
Wood Wastes (Million Btu)
Water Volume
Industrial Solid Wastes
Process Air Pollutants
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
TRS (Total Reduced Sulfur)
Water Pollutants
Suspended Solids
BOD
Quantities
2,630 Ib
1,315 Ib
1,654 Ib
807 Ib
60 Ib
52 Ib
40 Ib
29 Ib
75 Ib
221 kw-hr (161)
21.5 gal. (15.7)
0.6 gal. (0.44)
0.1 gal. (0.073)
2,539 cu ft (1,853)
0.5 Ib (0.36)
8.39 Btu (8.39)
13,400 gal.
89 Ib
2.07 Ib
0.86 Ib
0.72 Ib
10.4 Ib
7.0 Ib
Sources
89,90
91
92
96
92
92
&l Values without parentheses are for dry pulp. Values in parentheses
are for slush pulp.
Jb/ Includes 13.4 pounds of purchased steam at 150,000 Btu per gallon
residual oil and 1,400 Btu per pound for steam.
_c/ See Table C-3 for more detail on the sources of air pollution.
Source: Reference 89.
C-6
-------
TABLE C-3
EMISSIONS TO THE ATMOSPHERE FROM MILL SITES FOR MANUFACTURE
OF 1,000 POUNDS BLEACHED KRAFT/SULPHITE PULP
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Nitrogen Oxides
TRS
Power .
_ a/
Sources
1.82 (1.58)
5.00 (4.35)
7.39 (6.43)
Kraft/Sulphite
Process
2.07
0.86
0.72
Total-7
3.89 (3.65)
5.86 (5.21)
7.39 (6.43)
0.72 (0.72)
_a/ The first values are for dry pulp. The second values (in parentheses)
are for slush pulp.
Source: Reference 89.
TABLE C-4
ENERGY AND SECONDARY IMPACT FACTORS FOR FUEL PURCHASED AND
CONSUMED ON-SITE FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000
POUNDS OF BLEACHED KRAFT/SULPHITE
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy 90
Fuel Oils (22.1 gal.) 3.75 gal.
Natural Gas and LPG
(2,625 cu ft) 2.85 cu ft
Coal (0.5 Ib) 0.0067 Ib
Total 6.607
Solid Wastes (Secondary) 0.91 Ib 90
Air Pollutants (Secondary)!/ ' 90
Particulates 0.10 Ib
Nitrogen Oxides 1.70 Ib
Hydrocarbons 3.89 Ib
Sulfur Oxides 0.73 Ib
Carbon Monoxide 0.52 Ib
Vater Pollutants (Secondary) 90
Dissolved Solids 2.29 Ib
£/ Energy is total energy from Table C-2. Pollutants are from secondary
sources which occur on-site in Tables C-2 and C-3.
C-7
-------
compounds other than sodium chloride. After the final evaporation step,
the salt solids are crushed and washed with salt brine to produce an in-
dustrial grade material. Additional steps can be incorporated to produce
high purity salt.
Table C-5 shows the data pertaining to mining 1,000 pounds of
salt. The values are, in most, national averages and inclv.de impacts from
each salt mining process.
TABLE C-5
DATA FOR MINING 1,000 POUNDS OF SALT
Impact Category . Quantities Sources
Raw Materials t 19
Salt Mineral 1,036.00 Ib
Additives 43.0 Ib
Energy .98
Electricity 11.7 kw-hr
Steam 270.0 Ib
Mining Solid Wastes 360.0 Ib 98
The raw materials category shows that 1,026 pounds of mineral
must be mined to ship 1,000 pounds of salt. The rock salt mining phase
of the industry experiences its losses in the form of fines. Some mines
have as much as 20 percent waste. The water-brine type of mine will ex-
perience losses from water discharge. The average purity of salt deposits
is around 98.5 percent.
D. Chlorine Manufacture
Approximately 97 percent of the chlorine produced in the United
States is manufactured by electrolytic caust-chlorine processes (Figure
C-2). The remainder comes from a nitrosyl chloride process, electrolysis
of hydrochloric acid, and as a by-product from the electrolytic production
of caustic potash, magnesium, and metallic sodium.
The electrolysis of sodium chloride is performed by two proces-
ses: (1) mercury cathode cells; and (2) diaphragm cell. The mercury cell
produces about 24.2 percent of the electrolytic chlorine while the dia-
phragm cell accounts for about 75.8 percent.
C-8
-------
Hydrogen
28
Wet
Sulfuric
Acid
Salt
1765
Water
5000
n
Chlorine
H20
Sodium
Hydroxide
1142
1000 Pounds
Chlorine
Figure C-2. Manufacture of 1,000 pounds of chlorine and by-products, diaphragm cell.
-------
!
The .mercury cathode cell process can be described as follows:
NaCl + xHg =1/2 C12 + Na (Hg)x and
Na(Hg)x +H20 = NaOH + 1/2 1^ + xHg
The salt is electrolyzed, producing chlorine gas at the graphite (or metal)
anodes; metallic sodium, released by the passage of current, reacts with
the mercury cathode to produce an amalgam* The amalgam is sent to another
compartment of the cell where it reacts with water to produce hydrogen and
very pure sodium hydroxide. The outstanding feature of the mercury cell is
the high grade and concentration of the caustic liquor, which may be used
in other industries without further purification. The disadvantages of the
mercury cell are its higher energy requirements and loss of mercury. Some
of the methods by which mercury can escape the plant are (Reference 101):
1. Carryover in the hydrogen gas stream;
2. Cell room ventilation air;
3. Washing water from cell rooms;
4. Purging of the brine loop;
5. Disposal of brine sludges; and
6. End box fumes.
Close attention to product and effluent stream is necessary to keep the
mercury loss at a minimum. The average mercury consumption from this type
of plant in 1972 was 0.183 pound per 1,000 pounds of chlorine produced
(Reference 102). This value is based on the 1972 production of chlorine
from mercury cells, which was 2,389,356 short tons, and mercury purchases
of 11,519 flasks (875, 444 pounds) .
The diaphragm cell uses graphite anodes and steel cathodes. The
brine solution is passed to the anode compartment where chlorine gas is
formed and taken off through a pipe at the top of the cell. The other ions
in solution flow through an asbestos diaphragm and react at the cathode
to form sodium hydroxide and hydrogen. The diaphragm prevents back diffu-
sion of the cathode reaction products. The caustic-brine solution contain-
ing hydrogen is removed from the cathode compartment and processed to re-
cover hydrogen and caustic. The chlorine from the anode compartment is
cooled and then dried in a sulfuric acid scrubber. The gas is compressed
and cooled to form liquid chlorine. Shipment of chlorine is generally by
rail and barge.
C-10
-------
Table C-6 shows the data pertaining to the manufacture of chlo-
rine. The manufacturing data are a combination derived by adding 24.2 per-
cent of the mercury cathode cell impacts to 75.8 percent of the diaphragm
cell impacts.
TABLE C-6
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF CHLORINE
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Salt
Process Additives
SuIfuric Acid
Quantities
786 lb
1.68 lb.
12.5 lb
Sources
98
Energy
Electric
Steam
823 kw-hr
229 lb
98
Water Volume
Process Solid Wastes
(Mercury - 0.019)
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Mercury Vapor
Chlorine
Waterborne Wastes
Mercury
Suspended Solids
Lead
237.0 gal.
80.0 lb
0.0007 lb
4.1 lb
0.000035 lb
0.32 lb
0.019 lb
98
19,99
19,99,100
19,99,100
Transp or ta t ion
Rail
Barge
400 ton-miles
400 ton-miles
19
The largest impact is the amount of electrical energy required
to operate the cells. About 21 million Btu are required for the 2,170 pounds
of products. The amount allocated to chlorine is about 9.5 million Btu.
C-ll
-------
The solids value was estimated by calculating the amount of sludge
produced during the manufacturing process. The brine sludges contain about
50 parts per million mercury.
The sodium content of the slat raw material represents part of
the by-product sodium hydroxide, and should not be counted as a raw material
for chlorine.
E, Sodium Hydroxide Manufacture
The electrolytic method for manufacture of sodium hydroxide (caus-
tic soda) accounts for more than 90 percent of the total U.S. production.
The caustic is actually a by-product of the chlorine manufacturing process
described in the previous section.
Table C-7 contains the basic impacts for the production of 1,000
pounds of caustic.
F. Limestone Mining
Limestone is used by the glass industry as a source of calcium
oxide in glass furnace operations. The limestone is heated in the furnace
so that carbon dioxide is released, leaving calcium oxide behind. Calcium
oxides act as a chemical stabilizer in the finished glass product.
Limestone is quarried primarily from open pits. The most econom-
ical method of recovering the stone has been blasting, followed by mechanical
crushing and screening. According to the Bureau of Mines, environmental
problems are greater for crushed-stone producers than for any other mineral
industry operation except sand and gravel (Reference: Mineral Facts and
Problems, U.S. Department of Interior, 1970). The reason for this is that
limestone typically is mined quite close to the ultimate consumer, which
frequently dictates that the mining operation be near, or even within,
heavily populated areas. Hence, environmental problems are accentuated
because of high visibility.
The environmental consequences of limestone mining include: noise
from heavy equipment and from blasting; dust from mining, crushing and
screening; solid residues not properly disposed of; general unsightliness;
and occasional contamination of streams. None of these problems is insur-
mountable, and many quarries are presently operated in an environmentally
acceptable fashion.
C-12
-------
TABLE C-7
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF SODIUM HYDROXIDE
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Salt
Additives
Energy
Electricity
Steam
Water Volume
Process Solid Wastes
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Mercury Vapor
Chlorine
Waterborne Wastes
Mercury
Suspended Solids
Lead
Transportation
Rail
Barge
Truck
Quantities
786 lb
1.82 lb
886.0 kw-hr
4,302.0 lb
237 gal.
80.0 lb
0.0007 lb
4.10 lb
0.000035 lb
0.32 lb
0.0019 lb
109 ton-miles
57 ton-miles
12 ton-miles
Sources
98
98
98
37,69,19,
99
37,69,71,
19,99,100
19,99,100
19
C-13
-------
Data concerning the quantifiable environmental impacts of lime-
stone mining are summarized in Table C-8. Even though the quarrying opera-
tions may be objectionable as a neighborhood problem, they produce relatively
low impacts on a tonnage basis (partly because of the inherently high density
of the stone). The major problem is dust, i.e., particulates. However, com-
pared to the other operations in the glass container system, the impacts of
limestone mining are quite small.
TABLE C-8
DATA FOR MINING OF 1,000 POUNDS OF LIMESTONE
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy 103
Coal 0.12 Ib
Distillate 0.08 gal.
Natural Gas 4.65 cu ft
Gasoline 0.02 gal.
Electricity 1.0 kw-hr
Water Volume 45 gal. 104
Process Atmospheric Emissions 105
Particulates 6.5 Ib
G. Lime Manufacture
Lime is produced by calcining limestone. Limestone (calcium car-
bonate) is heated in a kiln to a high temperature so that any water present
is driven off and the carbonate is broken up by the evolution of carbon
dioxide. The product remaining is lime (calcium oxide). Significant environ-
mental impacts occur as a result of fuel combustion and material losses.
For 1,000 pounds of lime produced, approximately 800 pounds of carbon dioxide
are released. An additional 200 pounds of material impacts on the environ-
ment in the form of solid waste and as dust (particulate emission). The
data are summarized in Table C-9. This table was derived from U.S. Census
of Manufactures data for the year 1972, with the energy values adjusted
downward to reflect energy conservation through 1980. Energy-use was as-
sumed to decline at a compound rate of 1.4 percent per year from the base
year to 1980 (Reference 10).
C-14
-------
TABLE C-9
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF LIME
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 2,000 lb 106
Energy 19
Coal 113 lb
Distillate 0.63 gal.
Residual 0.27 gal.
Natural Gas 1,186 cu ft
Electricity 19.4 kw-hr
Water Volume 135 gal. 107
Solid Wastes 182 lb 105,106
Process Atmospheric Emissions 105,106
Particulates 16 lb
H. Sulfur Mining
The Frasch process of mining sulfur is the most common type of
operation employed in the United States. In consists basically of sulfur
being forced to the surface through a well shaft by superheated water that
has been previously injected into a sulfur-bearing rock formation. The
major requirements for mining sulfur by the Frasch process are a large
supply of water and fuel, a power plant to produce steam, compressed air,
electricity and a drilling apparatus.
Environmental impacts generated from sulfur mining are due largely
to the use of fuels as an energy source for steam generation.
Sulfur is considered one of the most versatile elements. Its
consumption, along with that of sulfuric acid for which sulfur is the basic
raw material, is often used as a measure of economic activity in the U.S.
Table C-10 lists the data used in the study for the mining of 1,000 pounds
of sulfur. The significant impacts are the large quantity of natural gas
consumed, the water used, the solid wastes, and the particulate air emis-
sions.
015
-------
TABLE C-10
DATA FOR MINING OF 1,000 POUNDS OF SULFUR
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy 8,37,108,
Electricity 1.39 kw-hr 109
Gas 2,757.0
Water Volume 800.0 gal. 3,37,108,
109
Solid Wastes 205 Ib 19
Process Atmospheric Emissions 10 Ib 19
Transportation 13,14,86,
Rail 262 ton-miles 88
Water 340 ton-miles
Truck 25 ton-miles
I. Sulfuric Acid Manufacture
There are two basic methods for manufacturing sulfuric acid--
the chamber process and the contact process. Both methods utilize sulfur,
which is most often obtained from mineral sulfides, smelter gas, gypsum,
petroleum or other sulfur-bearing compounds. The sulfur is burned to yield
sulfur dioxide (S02> which is further oxidized to sulfur trioxide (803)
which is absorbed in weak sulfuric acid (H_SO,) or water to form sulfuric
acid. 2 4
In the chamber process the oxidation of sulfur dioxide to sulfur
trioxide is carried out by the catalytic action of nitrogen oxides, whereas
in the contact process the oxidation is performed by the catalytic (contact)
action of various catalysts such as platinum, palladium, iron and various
vanadium oxides.
Since more than 97 percent of the sulfuric acid produced in the
U.S. is made by the contact process and elemental sulfur is the raw material
used in most of these plants, a sulfur burning contact method of manufacture
is assumed for the study. Table C-ll presents the raw data for sulfuric
acid manufactureo
C-16
-------
TABLE C-ll
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF SULFURIC ACID
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Sulfur
Energy
Electricity
Steam (Credit)
Water Volume
Solid Wastes
Atmospheric Emissions
Particulate and Acid Mist
S02
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
Suspended Solids
Acid
Transportation
Water
Rail
Truck
Quantities
338 Ib
12.0 kw-hr
500.0 Ib (credit)
3,200.0 gal.
3.5 Ib
1.7 Ib
20.0 Ib
0.2 Ib
0.6 Ib
7.0 Ib
6.0 ton-miles
55.0 ton-miles
13.0 ton-miles
Sources
19
109
109
19
6,110
19
86,88
The major sources of pollution generated from sulfuric acid manu-
facture are sulfur oxides and waste acid contained in the absorber exit
gases. Even though elaborate control methods are employed on absorber stacks
at most plants, approximately 2 pounds of acid per 1,000 pounds of acid pro-
duced is released to the atmosphere which, along with hydrated sulfur trioxide
emissions, may form a visible plume of acid mist above the absorber stacks.
Sulfur dioxide is also contained in the absorber exit gases although the
amount that is released is somewhat dependent upon the amount of oleum (fum-
ing acid) produced by the plant. Sulfur dioxide emissions average approxi-
mately 20 pounds of SO^ per 1,000 pounds of acid produced.
C-17
-------
Waterborne acid wastes, averaging 7 pounds acid per 1,000 pounds
_acid produced, result primarily from equipment washdowns, handling losses
|nd spills, and constitute the majority of the waterborne wastes from con-
tact plants.
J. Tissue Papermaking
After wood pulp has been produced (and bleached to achieve a
specified brightness) it is either dried, or sent to a paper-making machine
in slush form. If it is dried, it is baled and transported to a paper-making
site, where it is defibered and beaten into a slush pulp by mixing with
water in a large pulping device. In any event, the input material for a
paper machine is a slush pulp.
Papermaking equipment consists of a paper machine which utilizes
an endless wire or plastic mesh screen, sets of water removal devices,
and dryers. The slush pulp is placed on the rapidly moving screen where
water drains out of the pulp and leaves a fiber mat on the screen. The
fiber mat is p.icked up on rolls, and in subsequent operations additional
water is removed. The paper is then dried on steam heated rolls until it
is dry enough to wind into large rolls. These rolls of finished paper are
the final product of the paper-making operation.
Table C-12 presents the impact data for manufacturing the paper
to be used in towels. These data were obtained from a survey of paper mills
ference 89), which represents 89 percent of the U.S. towel production.
data are complete except for values of air pollutants, which were not
available for all mills. The values given in the tables are based on the
percent of total production given in parentheses. However, these values
for air pollution were proportionately increased so as to represent all
mills by assuming that air pollutants from mills not reporting is the same
as from those reporting air pollution.
K. Conversion of Paper to Consumer Paper Towels
Rolls of paper are transported to converting sites for manufac-
ture 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.
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 1,000 square feet, two-ply consumer
towels are shown in Table C-13.
C-18
-------
TABLE C-12
DATA FOR PAPEFMAKING 1,000 POUNDS 2-PLY TOWEL STOCK
Impact Category
Virgin Pulp (Dry Basis)
Dry
Slush
Subtotal - Pulp
Waste Paper (Dry Basis)
Pulp Substitute
De inking
Broke (Mill Scrap)
Subtotal - Waste Paper
Total Fiber
Other Materials
Miscellaneous
Wet Strength
Total Other
Energy (Purchased)
Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Propane
Quantities
386 Ib
403 Ib
789 Ib
51.6 Ib
24.0 Ib
130 Ib
206 Ib
995 Ib
2.9 Ib
7.8 Ib
10.7 Ib
451 kw-hr
3,335 cu ft
19.0 gal.
0.12 gal.
Sources
89
1 89
89
89
Energy (Self-Generated)
Recovery Boiler (Wood Wastes)
Air Pollutants^ 1
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Nitrogen Oxides
Water Volume
Water Pollutants
BOD
Suspended Solids
Solid Wastes
Landfill
Incineration
Sludge
0.749 Btu (Million)
0.23 Ib (63%)
3.62 Ib (63%)
1.13 Ib (30.9%)
89
89
6,575 gal.
2.35 Ib
2.99 Ib
9.8 Ib
6.1 Ib
14.7 Ib
89
89
89
a/ The pollutants listed represent projected industry totals based on
a fraction of mills which report pollutants. The percent of pro-
duction reported by reporting -nills is in parentheses.
V See comment No. 9 Appendix J, page 39.
C-19
-------
TABLE C-13
DATA FOR CONVERTING L,000 SQUARE FEET 2-PLY CONSUMER TOWELS
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 89
PaperS/ 10.43 Ib
Core Stock 0.366 Ib
Poly Wrappers 0.179 Ib
Corrugated 0.984 Ib
Inks and Adhesives 0.169 Ib
Energy 89
Electricity 0.329 kw-hr
Natural Gas 1.37 cu ft
Scrap . 1.095 Ib 89
_a/ Includes approximately 5 percent moisture.
II* Paper Napkins
A. Home
The major processes in producing home paper napkins are: (1) pulp
wood harvesting; (2) bleached kraft and sulfite pulp production; (3) salt.
mining; (4) chlorine manufacturing; (5) caustic manufacturing; (6) limestone
mining; (7) lime manufacturing; (8) sulfur mining; (9) sulfuric acid manu-
facturing; (10) tissue papermaking; and (11) converting" to home paper napkins.
Processes 1 through 9 are discussed in the paper towel section
(Appendix C-I). A discussion of the remaining processes will follow.
! Tissue Papermaking; After wood pulp has been produced (and
bleached to achieve a specified brightness) it is either dried, or sent
to a papermaking machine in slush form. If it is dried, it is baled and
transported to a papermaking site, where it is defibered and beaten into
a slush pulp by mixing with water in a large pulping device. In any event,
the input material for a paper machine is a slush pulp.
C-20
-------
Papermaking equipment consists of a paper machine which utilizes
an endless wire or plastic mesh screen, sets of water removal devices, and
dryers. The slush pulp is placed on the rapidly moving screen where water
drains out of the pulp and leaves a fiber mat on the screen. The fiber mat
is picked up on rolls, and in subsequent operations additional water is
removed. The paper is then dried on steam heated rolls until it is dry enough
to wind into large rolls. These rolls of finished paper are the final product
of the p ape making operation.
Table C-14 presents the impact data for manufacturing the paper
to be used in napkins. These data were obtained from a survey of paper mills
(Reference 89), which represents 62 percent of napkin production. The data
are complete except for values of air pollutants, which were not available
for all mills. The values given in the tables are based on the percent of
total production given in parentheses. However, these values for air pollu-
tion were proportionately increased so as to represent all mills by assum-
ing that air pollutants from mills not reporting is the same as from those
reporting air pollution.
2." Conversion of Paper to Consumer Napkins; 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.
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 1,000 single-ply consumer napkins
are shown in Table C-15.
B. Commercial
The intermediate steps involved in manufacturing commercial napkins
are identical to those listed in'the home napkin discussions (refer to Ap-
pendix C-II), with the exception of the conversion process. A discussion
of this process shall follow.
Conversion of Paper to Commercial Napkins; 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-21
-------
DATA FOR PAPERMAKING - 1,000 NAPKINS (POUNDS)
Impact Category
Virgin Pulp (dry basis)
Dry (Ib)
Slush (Ib)
Subtotal - Pulp
Waste Paper (dry basis)
Deinking
Pulp Sub
Broke (mill scrap)
Subtotal - Waste Paper
Total Fiber
Miscellaneous Materials
Wet Strength
Energy -(purchased)
Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Propane
Energy (self-generated)
Recovery Boiler (wood wastes)
»
Air Pollutants^
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Nitrogen Oxides
Water
Water Pollutants
BOD
Suspended Solids
Solid Wastes
Landfill
Incinerator
Sludge
Quantities
266 Ib
405 Ib
671 Ib
214 Ib
43 Ib '
108 Ib
365 Ib
1,036 Ib
4.2 Ib
3.2 Ib
386 kw-hr
2,768 cu ft
19.3 gal.
0.33 gal.
1,057 million Btu
0.25 Ib
1.81 Ib
1.52 Ib
8,688 gal.
3.57 Ib
4.49 Ib
50.3 Ib
19.8 Ib
7.48 Ib
Sources
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
&l Air pollutants were reported by mills accounting for 46.8 percent
of the total production. The values listed were ratioed up so as
to represent total industry pollutants.
I/ See comment No. 10 Appendix J, page 39.
C-22
-------
TABLE C-15
DATA FOR CONVERTING - 1,000 SINGLE-PLY CONSUMER NAPKINS
Impact Category
Materials
Paper*/
Cartons
Poly Wrappers
Corrugated
Inks, etc.
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Oil
Quanti ties
5.590 Ib
0.0539 Ib
0.-154 Ib
0.975 Ib
0.099 Ib
0.18 kw-hr
1.53 cu ft
0.0009 gal.
Source-a
89
89
Scrap 0.40 Ib 89
_a/ Includes approximately 5 percent moisture.
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 1,000 two-ply industrial napkins
are shown in Table C-16.
TABLE C-16
DATA FOR CONVERTING - 1,000 TWO-PLY INDUSTRIAL NAPKINS
Impact Category Quanti ties Sources
Materials 89
Paper.1/ 14.46 Ib
Cartons 0.179 Ib
Poly Wrappers 0..0734 Ib
Paper Wrappers 0.0332 Ib
Corrugated 1.18 Ib
Energy 89
Electricity 0.649 kw-hr
Natural Gas 6.46 cu ft
Scrap 0-.753 Ib 89
a_l Includes approximately 5 percent moisture.
C-23
-------
til. Diapers
The processes needed for the manufacture of disposable diapers
are: (1) wood pulp harvest; (2) pulp manufacturing! (3) salt mining; (4)
chlorine manufacturing; (5) caustic manufacturing; (6) limestone mining;
(7) lime manufacturing; (8) sulfur mining; (9) sulfuric acid manufacturing;
(10) paper manufacturing; (11) ethylene manufacturing, including production
of .crude oil, natural gas production, natural gas processing, and ethylene
production; (12) LDPE resin manufacturing; (13) LDPE film manufacturing;
(14) acrylic resin including the same processes as ethylene production,
ammonia production, acrylonitrile manufacturing, and acrylic resin manu-
facturing; (15) rayon manufacturing including wood pulp harvesting, pulp
manufacturing, salt mining, caustic manufacturing, natural gas production
and processing, sulfur mining, carbondisulfide manufacturing, sulfuric acid
manufacturing, and rayon production; (16) PET resin manufacturing including
ethylene oxide manufacturing, metha'nol manufacturing, oxygen manufacturing,
acetaldehyde manufacturing, naphtha reforming, p-xylene extraction, tereph-
thalate manufacturing and PET resin production; and (17) the production
of diapers*
Processes 1 through 9 are discussed in Appendix C-I (Paper Towels).
The remaining processes are discussed on the following pages.
A. Tissue Papermaking
After wood pulp has been produced (and bleached to achieve a
specified brightness) it is either dried, or sent to a papermaking machine
in slush form. If it is dried, it is baled and transported to a papermaking
site, where it is defibered and beaten into a slush pulp by mixing with
water in a large pulping device. In any event, the input material for a
paper machine is a slush pulp.
Papermaking equipment consists of a paper machine wHich utilizes
an endless wire or plastic mesh screen, sets of water removal devices, and
dryers. The slush pulp is placed on the rapidly moving screen where water
drains out of the pulp and leaves a fiber mat on the screen. The fiber mat
is picked up on rolls, and in subsequent operations additional water is re-
moved. The paper is then dried on steam heated rolls until it is dry enough
to wind into large rolls. These rolls of finished paper are the final prod-
uct of the papermaking operation.
Table C-17 present the impact data for manufacturing the paper to
be used in towels, napkins and diapers. These data were obtained from a sur-
vey of paper mills (Reference 89), which represent more than 90 percent of
disposable diaper production. The data are complete except for values of
air pollutants, which were not available for all mills. The values given in
table are based on the percent of total production given in parentheses.
024
-------
However, these values for air pollution were proportionately increased so
as to represent all mills by assuming that air pollutants from mills not
reporting is the same as from those reporting air pollution. Table C-17T
contains transportation factors for tissue products.
TABLE C-17
DATA FOR PAPERMAKING - 1,000 DIAPER TISSUE (POUNDS)
Impact Category Quanti ties Sources
Materials . 89
Virgin Pulp (dry basis)
Purchased 675 Ib
Slush 178. Ib
Subtotal - Pulp 853 Ib
Waste Paper - Deinking (dry basis) 30 Ib 89
Broke (mill scrap) 125 Ib
Subtotal - Waste Paper 155 Ib
Total Fiber 1,008 Ib
Other Materials 16 Ib 89
Energy 89
Electricity 463 kw-hr
Natural Gas 5,327 cu ft
Residual Oil 4.99 gal.
Propane 0.27 gal.
Water Volume 4,621 gal. 89
Water Pollutants 89
BOD% 1.48 Ib
Suspended Solids 1.24 Ib
Solid Wastes 89
Landfill . 17.4 Ib
Sludge 22.4 Ib
C-25
-------
TABLE C-17T
TRANSPORTATION FACTORS FOR DISPOSABLE TISSUE PRODUCTS
i
N>
Material - locations
Wood to pulp mill
Pulp to towel papermaking
Waste paper to towel papermaking
Consumer towels to market
Pulp to napkin papermaking
Waste paper to napkin papermaking
Paper to napkin converting
Single-ply consumer napkins to market
2-ply industrial napkins to market
Pulp to diaper tissue papermaking
Waste paper to diaper tissue papermaking
Diaper tissue to converting
Polyethylene fiber to diaper converting
Non-woven fiber to diaper converting
Fluffing pulp to diaper converting
Diapers to market
Unit
Thou pounds pulp
Thou pounds paper
Thou pounds1paper
Thou square feet
Thou pounds paper
Thou pounds paper
Thou pounds paper
Thou napkins
Thou napkins
Thou pounds paper
Thou pounds paper
Thou pounds paper
Hundred diapers
Hundred diapers
Hundred diapers
Hundred diapers
Rail .
(ton-miles)
91
324
8
2.44
152
33
32
1.37
3.71
408
4
40
0.012
0.152
3.79
2.00
Truck
(ton-miles)
22
56
0.198
11
0.078
0.18
35
0.066
0.018
0.49
Water
(ton-mil»
14
-------
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 f.he 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
Gallons/Barrel
Gallons Per Year Crude Produced
8.7 x 107 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
i
oo
Field
Separation
Water
Separator
Flared
Returned to Producing Strata
Natural Gas
Processing
Plant
Figure C-3 - Flow diagram for crude oil and natural gas production.
-------
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 ID'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.
Several sources of pollution resulting from oil field operations
are:
a. Well blowout - resulting in surface and subsurface contamina-
tion.
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.
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
sidues from the natural gas stream are volatile hydrocarbons leaking into
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
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
Quantities
19.525 million Btu
1.88 Ib
6.18 kwhr
0.47 gal.
0.02 gal.
287.2 cu ft
72.0 gal.
0.60 tb
8.62 Ib
6.05 Ib
0.11 Ib
28.0 ton-miles
10.0 ton-miles
110.0 ton-miles
Sources
19
19,35
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 (includea 1.3 Ib for lot**
C-31
-------
TABLE C-20
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF NATURAL GASJ
Impact Category
Energy of Material Resource
Energy
Electric
Fuel Oil
Gasoline
Natural Gas Internal Combustion
Water Volume
Process Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne Wastes
Dissolved Solids
Oil and Grease
uantities
23.244 million
6.18 kw-hr
0.1 gal.
0.02 gal.
541.2 cu ft
29.0 gal.
25.88 Ib
2.0 Ib
0.037 Ib
Sources
19,36
17,18
19
17,18,19
27,28,29
Ib
a/ 1,038.1 Ib NG + 0.046 c^pft x 1,030 cu
eludes 38.1 Ib losses.
Btu _
= 23.244 million Btu (in-
TABLE C-21
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF DISTILLED AND
HYDRO TREATED CRUDE
Impact Category
Raw Materials
Additives
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Water Volume
Quantities
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
-------
Dryer
Refrigeration,
Separators
Co
U)
r~
Debutant zer
' Ethane
Propane
-Butanes
Natural
Gasoline
Figure C-4 - Flow diagram for a natural gas processing plant.
-------
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 10? 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
Quantities
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 + 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
3 - Miscellaneous -- --
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
-------
Feed
1010
Cracking,
Pyro lysis
Heat
Recovery
Acid Gas
Remova 1
Drying
Fractionation
^1000 Pounds
Ethylene
i
OJ
Figure C-5 - Flow diagram for manufacture of ethylene (in pounds).1
I/ See comment No. 1 Appendix F, page 1.
-------
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 for manufacturing ethylene and
coproducts in 1973 was 382.3 x 109 Btu. With an ethylene production in 1973
of 23 x 10' 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 naphtha 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)
Energy
Electric
Natural Gas
Wastewater volume
Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emission
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
Suspended Solids
5.0 Ib
77.23 kwhr
6,800 cubic
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
19,24
0 19,20,21,24,34
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 C-25
IDATA TOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,000 POUNDS OF LOW DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
Impact Category guanti ties Sources
Raw Materials . 11
(ethylene - 1,050 lb)
Additives 20.0 lb
Ener8y ^
Electricity 605.0 kw-hr
Natural Gas 1,090.0 cu ft
Water Volume 1,000.0 gal. 19
Process Solid Wastes 4.5 lb 19
Process Atmospheric Emissions 19
Particulates 0.87 lb
Hydrocarbons 5.0 lb
Waterborne Wastes 80
BOD 0.2 lb
COD 2.00 ib
Suspended Solids 0.55 lb
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 Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 19
LDPE Resin 1,005 Ib
Energy
Electricity 245 kw-hr 19
Water Volume 1,780 gal. 19
Process Solid Wastes 5 Ib 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:
2CH = CH-CH + 2NH + 30 »2CH =CH-CN + 6H.O
^ J J fc. fm t*
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 Quanti ties 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 REP A 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 Quanti ties Sources
Raw Materials
Process Additions (Ammonia 5.0 lb 19,10
510 lb, propylene 1,260 lb)
Energy
Electric 70.0 kw-hr 19
Water Volume 505.0 gal. 27
Solid Waste, Process 0.8 lb 53
Atmospheric Emissions 53
Hydrocarbons 107.0 lb
Nitrogen Oxides 6.7 lb
Carbon Monoxide 122.0 lb
Waterborne Wastes 27
BOD 0.88 lb
TSS 1.32 lb
Acrylonitrile 0.0005 lb
Phenol 0.02 lb
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 % Quantities Sources
Raw Materials . 11
(Aerylonitrlie 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
Waterbome 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 (1200*F to 1300°F).
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 994- 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 CS2 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
Quantities
Sources
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
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
1.00.0 ton-miles
50.0 ton-miles
25.0 ton-miles
148.0 ton-miles
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 Manufacturp.
1. Ethylene Oxide and Glycol; Ethylene oxic... r- :.- .factored by
reacting ethylene feedstock with oxygen in «:hc prese'v- . -;.. /t.-uasa
catalyst. The reaction is highly exothermic, produ.iv,, .. _.....;; ^..-...ji- jt.
as a by-product. The reactor effluent is mixed with wa ;:er to efface removal
of unreacted gases. The water rich stream of ethylene oxide is fad to a '
stripper where EO is recovered. For the production of e .1 '..= - i %-; .ol, the
ethylene oxide is conveyed directly to the glycol reacto. . e ;h^ EC re-
acts with the required amount of water to form ethylene glycol.
Table C-32 contains the process data for manure:firing ethylene
glycol including the manufacture of ethylene oxide as an intermediate step.
TABLE C-32
DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF 1,.QOO 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 Wastesi'
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.
C-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
840°C 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 260°C 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
Quantities
1.0
36.6 kw-hr
1,395 cu ft
50 gal.
0.5 Ib
Sources
19
47
19,43,47
4
19
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
TSS
5.0 Ib
0.058
0.088
19
27
C-4S
-------
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 r.c minimize 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 CH_CHO
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 cata1"st 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. Naptha Re forming; 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
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Energy
Electric 14.8 kw-hr 19
Natural Gas 502.0 scf
C-50
-------
6. Paraxylene Manufacture; Reformate 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 . . H
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
Waterborae 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*
2 C6H4+ 3°2 »C6H4(COOH)2 + 2H2°
The oxidation is carried out in an acetic acid medium in the presence of
manganese and cobalt bromides. Typical reaction conditions are 200°C 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;
C6H4(COOH)2 + 2CH3OH *. CgH^COOCH^ + 2^0
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 lb, 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
Waterbome Wastes
BOD 0.12 27
TSS 0.19 27
C-53
-------
TABLE C-39
DATA FCR 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-40.
TABIE 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 Quantities Sources
Materials
Fluffing Pulpi/ 89
Sulphate 7.92 Ib
Sulphite 0.020 Ib
Tissue3-/ 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
£/ 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 Quantities Sources
Virgin Materials 19
Tissue Paper 107.4 Ib
LDPE Film 143.2 Ib
Energy
Electricity 13.1 Iw-hr 19
Process Solid Waste 0.002 Ib 19
Packaging
Corrugated Containers 4.1 Ib 19
Transportation 19
Rail 30 Ton-miles
Truck 30 Ton-miles
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
Sulfur Mining
27302/
(1365)£/
13142/
(65;
115 ft
80
10 ft
r)b/
Chlorine
Caustic
Manufacl
1064 (fiber)^
958 (fuel)k^
and
fure
Lime
Manufacture
Sulfuric Acid
Manufacture
68 Chlorine
74 Caustic
39
29
Additives
and
Chemicals
I
Bleached Kraft innnb/
». Paperbc^"' *«- IUUU"/ ^
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
b/
Process Air Pollutants
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Nitrogen Oxides
TRS
Water Pollutants - Ib
Suspended Solids
BOD
- Ib
Sources
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
4.49
3.61
94
90
96-
90,93
93
£/ 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.
_!/ 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 Total
I
Particulates - 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
- Ib 0.72 0.72
Source: 93, except as noted.
a/ 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 STOCK3-/
Energy (total) - mil Btu
Fuel Oils (14.24 gal.) 2.418
Natural Gas and LPG (5.536 cu ft) 6.012
Coal (304 Ib) 4.043
Total 12.473
Solid Wastes (secondary) - Ib 58.8
Air Pollutants (secondary) - Ib
Particulates 0.68
Nitrogen Oxides 2.62
Hydrocarbons 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 Towel
Step 10 and 11 are covered in Appendix C-III (Diapers). Discussions of the
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 tnicrocrystalline waxes.
The impacts associated with deoiling 1,000 pounds of wax
are shown in Table C-47.
TABIE 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, Thermoformed 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 Paperboard^'
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 fcw-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
extracted. The resource inputs associated with these processes are shown in
Cables 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
JL/ Raw impacts resulting from the refining processes (crude oil dis-
tillation, hydrotreating, reforming, benzene extraction, and
purification) used in the manufacture of benzene.
Jb/ 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 denydrogenated 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 Manufacturer 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 Cupst 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
-------
Benzene
773
Ethylene
289
Alkylotion
Reactor
Water
Caustic
Wash
Ethylbenzene
Distillation
Ethylbenzene
Dehydroge nation
o
i
I
Styrene
Distillation
1000 Pounds
Styrene
Figure C-7 - Flow Diagram for Styrene Manufacture (pounds)
-------
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
Waterborne 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 Sources
Materials - Ib . . 95
Bleached Paperboard (LDPE Coated)- 19,280^
Paper Bags 390
Cartons 1,550
Other 60
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 Manufacturer 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 a
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 Quantities 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
-------
Styrene
Additions
1U1U
10 -
Reactor 1
^
Reactor II
Degassing
Extrusion
Palletizing
^ 1000 Pounds
Polystyrene
o
I
Bulk Polymerization
Styrene a»
Water +
...... 30
Additives ^
Reactor
Hold
Tank
Centrifuge,
Dryer
~*
Extrusion
Pelletizing
1000 Pounds
** Polystyrene
Suspension Polymerization
Figure C-8 - Flew Diagram For the Manufacture of
Polystyrene Resin (Pounds)
-------
b. Isopentane Production (Blowing Agents); The hydrocarbon
blowing agents (isopentane, pentane, etc.) 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 7-cunce cups.
C-73
-------
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.
TABUS C-59
DATA FOR CONVERTING ONE MILLION 9-INCH ROUND PRESSED PAPER PLATES
Impact Category
Materials
Bleached Paper boa rdi/
Poly Bags
Currugated
Quantities
28,165 Ib
120 Ib
120 Ib
945 Ib
Sources
95
Energy 95
Electricity 1,800 fcw-hr
Solid Waste 20 Ib 95
£/ 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
-------
TABLE C-60
TRANSPORTATION FACTORS FOR DISPOSABLE PAPER PLATES AND CUPS
Material - locations
Paperboard to 9-oz wax coated cup conversion
Wax to 9-oz wax coated cup conversion
Shipping containers to 9-oz wax coated
cup conversion
9-oz wax coated cups to market
Paperboard to plate conversion
Shipping containers to plate conversion
n Plates to market
i
-j
Paperboard to 7-oz LDPE coated cup
conversion
Shipping containers to 7-oz LDPE coated
cup conversion
7-oz LDPE coated cups to market
Unit
Million cups
Million cups
Million cups
Million cups
Million plates
Million plates
Million plates
Million cups
Million cups
Million cups
Rail
(ton-miles)
4,930
1,860
--
980
10,000
--
520
4,150
454
Truck
(ton-miles)
330
82.5
2,920
1,410
57
3,240
--
110
2,220
Source: (7)
-------
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. ' &.:
* : - -
' . f "
".'.^fV
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
Sources
Raw Materials 19
Fertilizer 152.5 Ib
Pesticides 8.6 Ib
Energy 59
Diesel 23.34 gal.
Gasoline 5.38 gal.
Atmospheric Emissions 19
Pesticides 2.2 Ib
Hydrocarbons 4.2 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 19
Pesticides 0.46 Ib
Hydrocarbons 0.08 Ib
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.O .
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 Ib
Nitric Acid 690.0 Ib
Ammonia 230.0 Ib
Carbon Dioxide 160.0 Ib
Energy 10
Electricity 43.5 kw-hr
Natural Gas 1,064.0 scf
Atmospheric Emissions . 10
Particulates 9.0 Ib
Nitrogen Oxide 0.4 Ib
Ammonia 0.5 Ib
Hydrogen Flouride 0.02 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 80
Ammonia 0.0375 Ib
Nitrogen 0.05 Ib
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, CaigtPOJxF,. 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 pottered 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:
4NH 4- 5D2 > HNO +
2NO + 0
3NO + HO >2HNO + NO
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 Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 108,114
Raw Ore 2,920.0 Ib.
Flotation Chemicals 5.0 Ib
Energy 103,108,
Electric 7.30 kw-hr 115
Natural Gas 25.9 cu ft
Residual Fuel Oil 0.04 gal.
Distillate Fuel Oil 0.8 gal.
Water Volume 902.0 gal. 104
Solid Wastes, Mining 1,523.0 Ib
Atmospheric Emissions 108,114
Particulate . 21.0 Ib 19,114,115
Waterborne Wastes 19,114
Suspended Solids 376.0 Ib
Transportation 86,88
Barge 15.3 ton-miles
Rail 10.2 ton-miles
Truck 9.0 ton-miles
D-5
-------
TABLE D-4
DATA FOR 1,000 POUNDS OF NITRIC ACID PRODUCED
Impact Category Quantities Sources
5!
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 lb
_a/ 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 ga.s 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 gpunds 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 Ib) 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 us-J 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 lb 61
Atmospheric Emissions 57
Particulates 1.63 lb
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 BOO, 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.
1. Sodium Sulfate Manufacture: Sodium sulfate (Na2SO,) can be
produced by several processes. It is a by-product of hydrochloric acid,
rayon, phenol, dichrornate and other manufacturing procedures. Glauber's
salt (Na«SO, . lOH.g) 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.
D-9
-------
TABLE D-7
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF COTTON CLOTH
Impact Category
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
Quantities
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
Sources
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 thennodynamic 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
-------
, , NojSC
O
10
Brine
1030
Gal.
NoCI
hjO
, I1AA t
i >
1483
Chilling
Toiling
Liquor
.Voslt
H2O
1
... .
Glauber's
Solt
Evaporation
(S.J>. Comb )
501": No2SO4
70^ No2SO4
Drying
» 1000 Lb
(99.9°:
h"1 I 11
L Toiling liqu,, ^ ^ J^
Figure D-l - Flow Diagram for Manufacture of Sodium Sulfate
-------
TABLE D-8
DATA FOR PRODUCTION OF 1,000 POUNDS OF SODIUM SULFATE (99.94%)
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 FOUNDS OF CELLULOSE SPONGES
Impact Category Qantities
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
Waterbome 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-Home 1>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.
See comment No. 6 Appendix B, page 6.
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 19
Rayon 54.7 Ib
PET Resin 54.7 Ib
Caustic 49.7 Ib
Sulfuric Acid 2.9 Ib
Additive 4.09 Ib
Energy 19
Electricity 263.67 kw-hr
Natural Gas 555.19 scf
Coal 33.4 Ib
Distillate Oil 0.36 gal.
Residual Oil 0.64 gal.
Water Volume 1,909.8 gal. 19
Process Solid Waste 46.2 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions 19
Particulates 2.01 Ib
Waterborne Effluents 80
BOD . 0.39 Ib
COD 4.52 Ib
Suspended Solids 0.94 Ib
Chromium 0.005 Ib
Phenol 0.005 Ib
Sulfides 0.01 Ib
Packaging 19
LDPE Bag 2.0 Ib
Corrugated Container 2.0 Ib
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); 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 1950fs, 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.
D-17
-------
TABLE D-ll
DATA FOR MANUFACTURING 1,000 CLOTH SHEETS
Impact Category Quantities Sources
So
Virgin Materials 19
PET Resin 818.0 Ib '
Cotton 440.0 Ib
Caustic 571.2 Ib
Sulfuric Acid 33.6 Ib
Additives 47i04 Ib
Energy 19
Electricity 3,031.0 kw-hr
Natural Gas 6,393.0 scf
Coal 384.2 Ib
Distillate Oil 4.14 gal.
Residual Oil 7.39 gal.
Water Volume 21,952.0 gal. .19
Process Solid Waste 530.9 Ib 19
Atmospheric Emissions 19
Farticulates 34.1 Ib
Waterborne Wastes 80
BOD 4.48 Ib
COD 52.0 Ib
Suspended Solids 10.75 Ib
Chromium 0.056 Ib
Phenol 0.056 Ib
Sulfides 0.112 Ib
Packaging 1.9
LDPE Bags 23.4 Ib
Corrugated Containers 23.4 Ib
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 Miningt 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
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Residual Oil
Water Volume
Process Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Sulfur Oxides
Particulates
Waterborne Wastes
Suspended Solids
Quantities
660.0 Ib
263.0 Ib
46.0 Ib
75.0 Ib
216.0 Ib
10.0 Ib
125.0 kw-hr
4,680.0 scf
1.8 gal.
125.0 gal.
13.0 Ib
0.8 Ib
1.0 Ib
0.07 Ib
Sources
124,19
124,19
19
19
19
19
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 Ib
76,534.0 Ib
13,386.0 Ib
21,825.0 Ib
62,857.0 Ib
2,910.0 Ib
36,375.6 kw-hr
1,361,903.4 scf
523.8 gal.
72,751.3 gal.
3,783.0 Ib
232.8 Ib
291.0 Ib
20.4 Ib
117,000.0 Ib
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
Impact Category Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 10
Solvents (Propylene
1,060 Ib) 41.0 Ib
Energy 10
Electric 200.0 kw-hr
Natural Gas A,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 400°F 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
Virgin Materials
Polypropylene Resin
Energy
Electricity
Water Volume
Process Solid Waste
Packaging
LDPE Bags
Corrugated Containers
Quantities
88,626 Ib
21,600 kw-hr
157,000 gal.
441 Ib
833 Ib
8,333 Ib
Sources
19
19
19
19
19
B. Hot Drink
1. Ceramics; The necessary processes for manufacturing ceramic
cups are: (1) clay miningj (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.
\J 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).
The energy use breakdowns for these two processes are shown
in Table D-19.
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); 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 Ib
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 Ib
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 Miningt 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 eihd 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 Ib
Energy 68
Coal 5.8 Ib
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 Ib
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 t,he 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 Ib 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 Ib 120
Atmsopheric Emissions 7.5 Ib 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
a/
Barge 975 ton-miles
_a/ 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.A 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
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
Quantities
1,523 Ib
70 Ib
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
Sources
19
107
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 production; (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 132.7°C. 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 waterbome 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
Bauxi te
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
Bauxi te
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 raeth-
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 proces,^ uses
6.78 x 10^ Btu. The net steam requirement when averaging the values 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 raelamine, 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. Melamine 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 molding 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
Raw Materials
Natural Gas
Carbon Dioxide
Ammonia
Urea
Methanol
Formaldehyde
Dry Pulp
Additive
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
. Residual Oil
Water Volume
Process Solid Waste
Atmospheric Emissions
Hydrocarbons
Waterborne Wastes
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Quantities
890 Ib
1,170 Ib
881 Ib
1,533 Ib
272 Ib
233 Ib
273 Ib
0.9 Ib
303 kw-hr
1,956 scf
22.7 gal.
80.8 gal.
5.5 Ib
2.53 Ib
0.031 Ib
0.152 Ib
0.02 Ib
Sources
19
19
19
19
19
19
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.
melamlne cups*
Table D-32 contains the data for manufacturing 1 million
TABLE D-32
DATA TOR 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 Ib
100,000 kw-hr
1,435,000 gal.
531 Ib
26,043 Ib
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. Melamlne 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 £
DISHWASHING AND CLOTH LAUNDERING PROCESSES
It Piswashing; 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 (140°F) and 426 gallons per hour (continuous opera-
tion) for the final rinse water. The wash tank water is heated to and
maintained at 160°F by electric immersion heaters. The final rinse water
is heated from 140°F to 180°F by booster heaters. In commercial foodservice
establishments, 94 percent of operations use natural gas to heat water
to the 140°F 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 160°F 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)
Natural Gas,
Cubic Feet
Killowatt-
hour
Heat
Wash
Water
20 gal.
55-140°F
Heat
Wash
Water
20 gal.
140-160° F
Emersion
Heaters
Heat
Rinse
Water
426 gal.
55-140°F
Heat
Rinse
Water
426 gal.
1 40-1 80° F
Booster
Heater
Power For
Dishwasher
Motor
Totals
17.25
0.26
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 75°F to 160°F requires approximately
70,000 Btu (specific heat of china plate = 0.2 cal per °C 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
Dinnerware Product
Impacts
Raw Materials
Detergent,
Thousand Pounds
Energy
Electric, Thous-
and kilowatt hour
Natural Gas, Thous-
and Cubic Feet
Water Volume, Thousand
Gallon
Glass
Polypropylene
Tumblers
1.44
6.472
83.517
79.0
China
Melamine
Cups
3.4
14.562
187.912
178.0
China
Melamine
Plates
3.02
12.944
167.030
158.0
Waterborne Dissolved
Solids, Pounds
288.0
860.0
604.0
Source: MRI calculations based on data submitted by industry sources<
E-3
-------
Energy reduction through use of chemical sanitation rather than
180°F water, would reduce the total energy to 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
Water Time,
Temperature Minutes
1.
2.
*>
_/
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Flush
Flush
Break/
Suds
Carry-
over
Carry-
over
Bleach
Rinse
Rinse .
Rinse
Rinse .
Sour
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
Few
Hot
Hot
190°F
160°F
160°F
160°F
Hot
Hot
Split
Split
100° F
2
2
15
5
5
10
2
2
2
2
5
Supplies/1,000 Pounds Towels
40 pounds detergent
5 pounds, 20 percent bleach
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. 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
-------
TABLE E-5
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR HEATING WATER-COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY
CLOTH NAPKINS (3,650 Gallons Water Per 1,000 Pounds Uapktns)
Temperatures X of
of Wash Steps Water
T.(°F)
160
145
140
120
110
100 100
160
145
140
120
110
100
at T.
26.0
9.1
18.6
18.6
18.6
9.1
100.0
26.0
9.1
18.6
18.6
18.6
9.1
100.0
Gallons Temperature
of Water Difference
Btu to Heat
Water (At
Btu to Heat Water
at T. Wash Temperature-Incoming Temperature = AT 100% Efflctency) 76% Efficiency
949
332
679
679
679
332
3,650
CLOTH
816
286
584
584
584
286
3,140
160
145
140
120
110
100
SHEETS
160
145
140
120
110
100
55
55
55
55
55
55
(3,140 Gallons Water
55
55
55
55
55
55
105
90
85
65
55
45
2,
Total Btu
Per 1,000 Pounds
105
90
85
65
555
445
2,
831,039-
291,199
481,343
368,085
311,457
124,600
407,723
Sheets)
714,571
214,672
413,998
316,586
267,880
107,336
035,043
1,093,472
383,156
633,346
484,322
409,812
163,947
3,168,055
940,225
282,463
544,734
416,560
352,474
141,232
2,677,680
160
145
140
120
110
100
Total Btu
CLOTH DIAPERS (5,500 Gallons of Water Per 1,000 Pounds Diapers)
160
145
140
120
110
100
55
55
55
55
55
55
105
90
85
65
55
45
1,253,127
375,300
752,204
554,568
469,250
187,650
3,592,009
1,648,851
493,816
989,742
729,694
617,434
241,908
4,726,445
Source: MR I calculations from industry data.
-------
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 cf 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 EPA guidelines as follows;
BOD-30 milligrams per liter, suspended solids-30 milligrams per liter,
oil and grease-10 milligrams per liter, and metals-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
-------
TABLE E-6
ENERGY USE FOR 1,000 POUNDS OF COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY-
.a/1
Cloth Product
Napkins
Sheets
Diapers
Heat Matey,
106 Btu^'
3.168
2.678
4.726
Operate Washer
kwhr
14.0
14.0
14.0
Operate
Extractor
kwhr
2.8
2.8
2.8
Operate
Dryer Motor
kwhr
7.0
7.0
7.0
Gas
Dryer
106 Btu
1.2
1.2
1.2
Iron
Linens
106 Btu
0.12
0.12
0.12
Total
Energy
106 Btu
4.48
4.00
6.05
Total,
Energy
CF NG
4,350
3,880
5,870
Type
kwhr
23.8
23.8
23.8
M Source: MRI calculation using basic data supplied by the Linen Supply Association of America.
oo a/ Using an 800 pound capacity washer and 400 pound capacity dryer.
b/ 76 percent efficient water heater.
I/ See comment No. 15 Appendix B, page 9.
-------
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
Quantities
5.6
6.9
1.2
1.0
1.2
3.8
23.8 kwhr
4, 3 SQ ft3
Source
75
75
75
75
75
75
Water 3,650 gal. . 72
Solid Waste 52.0 Ib 72
Waterborne Wastes 73
BOD 0.9
COD
Suspended Solids 0.9
Dissolved Solids
Oil and Grease 0.3
Metal Ion 0.07
£/ See comment No. 15 Appendix B, page 9.
E-9
-------
TABLE E-8
DATA FOR LAUNDERING 1,000 POUNDS OF SHEETS-COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY'
Impact Category
Quariti ties
Sources
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
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
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)
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 '
5,870 ft3 G?/
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
" i ' l ''* -
- ' '
(o -yoc"
72
72
I/ See comment No. 15 Appendix B, page 9.
E-ll
-------
TABLE E-10
DATA FOR HOME LAUNDRY OF DIAPERS (100 CHANGES)
Impact Category
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 02
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-ll. 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 FCR HOME LAUNDRY OF DIAPERS
Energy Source
Heat Water
(58% Nat. Gas
27% Electric
15% Fuel Oil)
Washer
Motor
Dryer
Motor
Dryer Heat
(33% Nat. Gas
67% Electric)
Total
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 lb
Waterborne Waste
BOD 0.126 lb
Suspended Solids 0.10 lb
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 Quantities Sources
Raw Materials 75
Detergent 15.42 Ib
Bleach 333 fl oz
Softener 83 fl oz
Energy 19, 75, 78
»
Electric 423 kwhr
Natural Gas 1,727 ft3
Fuel Oil 2.55 gal
Water 4,003 gal 78
Solid Wastes 27.3 Ib 19, 72.
Waterborne Wastes 19, 78
BOD 2.15 Ib
SS 1.56 Ib
Oil 0.3 Ib
Metal Ion 0.07 Ib
E-15
-------
Table E-14 compares the total REPA summary data for Cloth Towels
(U100, L5) and Cloth Napkins Home Use (U100) 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
-------
TABLE E-14
IMPACT SUMMARIES FOR THE CLOTH AND PAPER TOWEL AND CLOTH AND PAPER NAPKIN
SYSTEMS USING 8 AND 12 POUND WASH LOADS FOR THE REUSABLE
(Basis; Towels 1,000 Spills, Napkins 1,000 Meals)
Cloth Towel System
(U100. L5)
i
i
-»j
Impact Category
Raw Materials (Ib)
Energy (million Btu)
Water (thousand gallons)
Industrial Solid Waste (cu ft)
Atmospheric Emission (Ib)
Waterborne Wastes (Ib)
Postconsumer Solid Waste (cu ft)
8 Pound
3.23
0.36
0.20
0.06
1.49
0.40
0.03
12 Pound
2.91
0.27
0.14
0.05
1.13
0.31
0.03
Paper
Towel
2-Plv
14.22
0.50
0.28
0.05
1.79
0.48
0.26
Home Cloth Napkin System
(U100)
8 Pound
5.25
1.16
0.65
0.18
4.57
1.11
0.20
12 Pound
4.03
0.82
0.45
0.13
3.23
0.80
0.20
Paper
Napkin
1-PJ.y
4.66
0.17
0.10
0.01
0.65
0.18
0.09
Notes The effect on other scenarios can be estimated by refering to Volume I-A, Tables 2 and 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 AND INVIRONXEMUL PROFILE AHALYSIS
ONt THOU SPILLS EACH SYSTEM
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL (iLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASM
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL 8AUIITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENEROY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENER»V SOURCE NAT OA$
ENER9Y SOURCE COAL
ENER6Y SOURCE MISC
ENERBY SOURCE HOOD FIDE*
ENERGY SOURCI UVOROPOWER
MATERIAL F07JSM
MATERUL PHOSPHATE ROCK
NATEPIAL CLAY
MATERIAL OrPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRA«S»OBT
ENEROY OF KATL «SOURCE
WATER VOLU*'.
OUTPUTS FRON SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID WASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID WASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICIPATES
ATNOS NITROGEN 01IDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATKOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMQS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORSANICS
ATKOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIOE
ATMOS IEAO
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
ATERBORNE DIS SOLIDS
WATERBMNE FLUORIDES
VATCRBORNE DISS SOLIDS
MAKRBORNE BOD
WATERBORNE PHENOL
WATEaBORNE SULFIDES
HATER80RNE OIL
WATERBORNE COO
VATER8OHNE SUSP SOLIDS
WA1CRSORNE ACID
KtTERBORNE METAL ION
VATERBOKNE CHEMICALS
WATER80RNE CYANIDE
WATERBORNE ALKALINITY
WATERBORNE CHROMIUM
UATERaORNE IRON
HATCRBORSE ALUMINUM
ATCRBORNE NICKEL
VATERBGRNE MERCURY
KATERBORNE LEAD
ATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
ATER80RNE ZINC
HATERBORNC AMMONIA
BATERBORNE N1TROKN
JIATERBORNE PESTICIDE
SUNN3&Y Of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
HILL BTU
MILL BTU
HILL >TU
MILL BTU
MILL «TU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND!
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU «AL
UNITS
POUNO
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
UNITS
RAk MATERIALS POUNDS
ENta&r MIL BTU
HATER THOU ML
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES CUBIC FT
ATM [MM1SS10NS POUNOS
WATtRBORNE WASTES POUNOS
i*OST-CONSUMER SOL WASTE CUIIC FT
ENCaOY SOURCE PCTICOLEUM MIL BTU
ENERBY SOURCE NAT 3A1 MIL BTU
ENEROY SOURCE COAL MIL ITU
EhtflAY SOURCE MUCL HYPWR NIL BTU
ENERiY SOURCE VOOO uiSTf MIL ITU
CLOTH
TOWEL
U 31. L 1
M SPILLS
*.*!)
.Mi
.063
.«*»
0.0*0
2.*8I
.3*4
.34*
«.*«
*.*«»
.US
.IS*
.AST
.a**
.ou
.«!
.000
oo«
.001
.0*0
.0*0
.*
.**s
1.164
.OOT
.011
.449
T.l*0
2.231
*.I8(
.0*1
.911
.631
1.0*0
.»T1
(.230
.(34
.00*
.00*
.002
.002
.000
.000
.000
.019
.OOT
*.*00
.COS
.30*
.000
.001
.0*0
.Z01
.31*
.11*
.03*
.000
0.0«*
.0*1
.00*
*.«
0.000
t.oo*
.0*0
.00
.0*0
ft. 00*
.000
.002
.002
10.310
1.1**
.**«
.212
*,*tl
1.30S
.0*1
.29*
.49?
,J*»
.Ml
.0*1
CLOTM
TOWEL
U 31 L »
M SPILL!
4.913
.1*0
.043
0.0*0
0.001
l.*39
.07*
.OTO
».»*
o.o««
.0*2
.10T
.UT
.181
.02*
.0*1
.*««
.00*
.0*1
.**
.**
.00
.3*0
.»2l
.OOT
.00*
.101
4.103
.23
t.3*T
.0*1
.011
.31*
.4(4
.191
.*3T
.US
.002
.00*
.000
.001
.000
.000
.too
.011
.001
o.»oo
.06*
.OT6
.0*0
.too
.00*
.193
.20*
.»»*
.013
.000
0.0*0
.00
.000
o.*oo
0.000
0.000
.000
.»»
.*
1.001
.***
.*»0
.002
7.6*7
.439
.101
.0*9
!.**
.»1S
.0*1
.ItT
.1«T
1S1
.M*
.Ml
CLOTH
TOWEL
U100 L 1
M SPILLS
1.ST1
.900
.020
0.000
0.000
1.6B*
.394
.34S
0.000
0.00*
.11*
.211
.410
.32T
.OT2
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.»«0
1.010
.003
.00*
.8*4
4.9IS
1.911
S.31Z
.0*6
.003
.467
.903
.S72
i.a*s
.IS9
.003
.004
.002
.002
.000
.000
.000
.013
.OOT
0.000
.181
.29*
.000
.000
.040
.071
.270
.101
.034
.00*
«.
.001
.too
0.000
0.000
0.0*0
.000
.too
.000
0.000
.000
.002
.001
9.829
1.020
,s»»
.1*4
4.0(7
1.004
.02*
.(11
.410
.127
.071
.00*
CLOTM
TDWCL
U130 L S
M SPILLS
l.STI
.1*0
.020
0.***
o.*o*
.774
.079
.07*
0.000
0.000
.034
.060
.100
.0**
.01*
.000
0.000
o.ooo
.000
0.000
0.00*
0.00*
.175
.2*2
.002
.003
.140
1.838
.S03
1.428
.026
.003
.139
.Z4T
.1S2
.SOS
.060
.001
.002
.too
.001
.000
.tot
.000
.DOS
.001
0.100
.048
.064
.000
.oto
.001
.0*3
.0*6
.027
.00*
.00
».*«t
.400
.tot
t.tot
t.oot
0.000
.000
.too
.000
t.oto
.000
.000
.ttl
2.90*
.167
.140
.081
1.131
.314
.026
.**
.100
.010
.Olt
.*
CLTM TWL
COLO WSH
U100 L 1
M SPILLS
1.S71
.900
.02*
0.000
o.too
1.689
.3*4
.348
0.000
0.000
.116
.110
.1ST
.2(2
.04*
.000
.too
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.490
.927
.003
.flt
.974
4. 929
1.281
3.631
.026
.0*3
.323
.930
.266
1.224
.101
.001
.003
.002
.001
.too
.000
.000
.013
.007
o.ott
.106
.29*
.000
.000
.04*
.071
.26*
.06*
.026
.0**
0.0*0
.ttl
.00
o.oto
o.oto
0.000
.ttt
.001
.000
o.ttt
.000
.02
.01
9.5*9
.93*
.974
.133
(.469
,**T
.«2*
U*
.19T
.(U
.041
.tot
CE1LULO
SPON8E
UltO L 1
M SPILLS
t.tlt
.649
.489
.83*
t.ooo
.»97
.176
.196
ft. 000
0.000
.091
.099
.204
.146
.033
.ots
.000
.too
.000
.000
.000
.too
.231
.477
.001
.t04
.3(9
1.949
.869
2.392
.009
0.000
.200
.414
.273
.861
.066
.001
.003
.132
.001
0.000
.too
.000
.006
.003
0.000
.09*
. .149
.000
.000
.018
.03$
.109
.046
.019
.000
o.ttt
.tot
.000
t.ooo
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.ttt
t.ott
.000
.001
.000
2.489
.482
.329
.070
1.996
.479
.009
.099
.2*4
.14*
.0»
.009
CELLULO
SPONQE-
U100 U 9
M SPILLS
0.000
.3(7
.4*9
.039
0.000
.288
.039
.031
8.000
0.000
.014
.027
.069
.039
.009
.009
.000
.000
.0.00
.000
.000
.000
.090
.142
.001
.002
.130
.962
.234
.692
.t09
0.000
.060
.m
.0*4
.237
.021
.000
.002
.131
.000
o.tto
.000
.000
.002
.001
0.000
.03*
.049
.000
.000
.004
.032
.031
.012
.0*4
.000
o.tto
.000
.000
0.0*0
0.00*
0.000
.000
.000
.000
o.oot
.000
.000
.ttt
1.310
.144
.130
.02ft
.0*9
.167
.009
.0(7
.069
.03*
.00*
.009
PAPER
TOWEL
1830 TWL
M SPILLS
ft. 800
0.000
10.794
942
0.000
1.133
0.000
0.000
0.000
t.ooo
.121
.1ST
-.137
.067
.014
.122
0.000
o.too
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.2SO
.490
.032
.014
.27*
1.085
.459
1.058
.266
t.ooo
.221
.396
.240
.6S8
.230
.003
.029
.009
.000
0.000
.000
.000
.006
0.000
0.000
.093
.159
.000
.000
.000
.002
.197
.022
.005
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.oto
.000
.000
o.too
t.ttt
t.too
o.ooo
t.ttt
14.219
.496
.27t
.046
1.787
.478
.2*6
.197
.137
.067
.014
.lit
F-2
-------
TABLE F-2
MCSOUACI ANO ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
OMC THOU NAPKINS HOME USE
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON OSE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SANO
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE N*T GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NISC
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HYOROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS AOO
ENEROY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COM8
SOLID HASTES MININS
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUN
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OIIOES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMQS CARRON MONOIIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATWOS OTHER OROANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIOE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ITMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
BATER80RNE OIS SOLIDS
HATER30RNE FLUORIDES
HATER80RNE DISS SOLIDS
HATERBORNE BOO
HATERBQRNE PHENOL
HATER80RNE SULFIOES
(ATER80RNE OIL
HATERBORNC COO
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNC ACID
ATERBORNE METAL IOH
HATER80RNE CHEMICALS
CTANIOC
ALKALINITY
HATER80RNC CHROMIUM
HATER80RNE IRON
HATER80RNE ALUMINUM
HATE380RNE NICKEL
HATERBORNE MERCURY
HATER60HNE LEAD
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNE ZINC
HATERSORNC AMMONIA
HATER80RNC NITROGEN
HATER80RNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
UNITS
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
MILL ITU
MILL 8TU
MILL 8TU
MILL 8TU
MILL 8TU
MILL BTU
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNDS
MIL 8TU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU 8AL
UNITS
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
CU8IC FT
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
UHITS
RAH MATERIALS POUNDS
ENEROY MIL 8TU
HATER THOU 8AL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUOIC FT
ATM EMMISSIONS POUMOS
HATERBORNE HASTES POUNOS
POST-CONSUMES SOL HASTE CUBIC FT
ENEROY SOUPCE PETROLEUM MIL BTU
ENERSY SOURCE NAT GAS MIL 3TU
ENERGY SOURCE COAL «lL ST'J
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HVPHR MIL 3TU
ENERSY SOURCE HOOD HASTE »IL 9TU
CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH PAPES
NAPKIN NAPKIN NAPKIN NAPKIN NAP HOWE NAP HOME NAPKIN
HOME HOME HOME HOME CLD HASH CLD BASH HCMf
USC1 LI USE27 LI USES* LI UK100L1 USE 3*Ll USE10UL1
9.000
.465
48.848
4.70*
o.ooo
75.805
.291
.297
«.«o«
0.000
20.14*
J.S6i
3.38)
4.503
.521
.SOS
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
13.611
11.366
.299
.16
4.31T
74.338
19.221
68.3T8
1.913
0.000
9.911
9.7S9
T.B42
24.38*
4.163
.945
.123
.3TT
.005
0.000
.003
.000
.384
.005
4.080
1.860
1.3T7
.006
.011
.034
8.486
2.323
1.456
.267
.002
0.100
.000
.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.019
.009
.oei
.004
I»4,JE*
11.484
4,31?
I»21J
ST.fOl
15.843
1.913
3.56»
3.383
4.383
.521
.sot
0.000
.665
1.78T
.172
0.000
3.601
.291
.257
0.000
0.000
.10
.265
.400
.377
.047
.019
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.780
1.082
.011
.034
.553
5.554
1.959
5.968
.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
.03!)
.319
.240
.120
.033
.Ooe
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.008
.000
.001
.000
.001
:ooo
8. 36J
1.128
.553
.132
4.670
J.1W
.071
.265
,400
.17?
.847
,»!
-------
TABLE F-3
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
ONI TKOU NAPKINS COMMERCIAL USE
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL *000 FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SANO
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASM
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERST SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENEROY SOURCE NAT OAS
ENEROY SOURCE COAL
ENERBY SOURCE MISC
ENEROY SOURCE HOOD FIBER
ENEROY SOURCE HYDROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADD
ENEROY PROCESS
ENERSY TRANSPORT
ENERSY OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MIMING
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PADTICULATES
ATMOS NITROOEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORSAMICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
.HATERBORNE DIS SOLIDS
HATERBORNE FLUORIDES
VATERBORNE DtSS SOLIDS
HATERBORNE BOO
HATERBORNE PHENOL
HATERBORNE SULFIDES
HATERBORNE OIL
HATERBORNE COO
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
HATERBORNE METAL ION
HATER80RNE CHEMICALS
HATERBORNE CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
HATERBORNE CHROMIUM
HATERBORNE IRON
HATERBORNE ALUMINUM
MATERBORNE NICKEL
HATERBORNE MERCURY
HATERBORNE LEAD
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNE ZINC
ATERBORNE AMMONIA
HATER«0«NE NITROOEN
HATERBORNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAM:
RAH MATERIALS
ENEROY
HATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES
ATM EMMISSIONS
HATERBORNE HASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE
ENEROY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERSY SOURCE NAT OAS
ENERSY SOURCE COAL
EKEROY SOURCE NUCL HYPHR
ENEROY SOURCE HOOD HASTE
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL ITU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU OAL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUNO
CUI1C FT
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL BTU
THOU 8AL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH
NAPKIN NAPKIN NAPKIN NAP COMM
COMMER COMNER CONNER CLO HASH
USC1 LI USEZT LI USES4 LI USE ZTLl
119.03*
.305
1.39*
0.0*0
o.ooe
42.5*2
.162
.1*3 .
1.000
0.000
l.OSO
1.021
2.19*
Z.2*l
.384
.012
0.000
0.000
.023
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.623
6.219
.zee
.1**
z.sa*
06.30*
11.585
36.9B1
1.9*2
.Z6Z
5.871
6.TZ3
*.1T9
12.001
3.699
.0*7
.1ST
.00*
.02*
.000
.0*6
.000
.218
.006
0.000
l.OZ*
.590
.006
.011
.031
*.69S
4.045
.6*5
.IS*
.Oil
».*»*
.00*
.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
.00*
.000
.(01
*.**0
.*01
.(11
.0(5
ITl.ZTT
6.652
Z.SB*
1.T95
33.201
11.23T
1.96Z
1.021
Z.19*
2.2*1
.3«*
.012
*.*!!
.305
.052
0.000
0.000
2.550
.162
.1*3
0.000
0.000
.OT3
.080
.553
.100
.018
.000
0.000
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.5T3
.732
.013
.007
.+63
B.S52
.526
1.603
.073
.010
.251
.533
.612
.5*9
.210
.003
.009
.00*
.0*7
.000
.0*0
.000
.017 '
.006
0.000
.1*3
.123
.000
.000
.030
.216
.253
.029
.014.
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.0(0
0.000
0.000
.000
.00*
.001
0.000
.000
.010
.002
8.270
.752
.663
.1**
Z.20B
.829
.073
.080
.553
.100
.01*
.0**
2.Z06
.305
.026
0.000
0.000
1.782
.162
.1*3
0.000
0.000
.05*
.0*7
.521
.059
.011
.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
o.coo
.«38
.627
.007
.005
.*Z2
7.056
.316
.962
.036
.005
.1*3
.*!*
.5**
.329
.1*3
.002
.006
.008
.006
.000
.000
.000
.013
.006
0.000
.127
.115
.000
.000
.030
.130
.1*0
.01*
.011
.000
o.oo*
.0*0
.0(0
0.0*0
0.000
o.too
.000
.000
.001
0.0*0
.000
.(10
.001
5.116
.63*
.*zz
.113
1.612
.62B
.036
.0*7
.521
.059
.011
.000
*.*!!
.305
.052
0.000
0.000
2.550
.162
.1*3
0.000
0.000
.073
.080
.218
.1*0
.01*
.000
0.000
0.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.573
.398
.013
.007
.457
8.552
.528
1.603
.073
.010
.2*4
.357
.296
.545
.172
.002
.007
.000
.007
.000
.00*
.000
.017
.006
0.000
.0*5
.123
.000
.0*0
.030
.216
.253
.029
.01*
.000
0.00*
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.001
0.00*
.000
.010
.002
8.270
.*1T
.457
.1*4
1.665
.TT*
.073
.08*
.21*
.100
.018
.000
PAPER ZP
NAPKIN
CONNER
USE1
o.too
.000
(.3*0
.752
0.000
.912
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00*
.095
.11*
.09*
.051
.010
.101
0.0*0
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
.49Z
.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
.00*
.too
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
11.072
.374
.251
.041
1.269
.40*
.221
.114
.09*
.051
.010
.101
F-4
-------
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
TABLE F-4
RESOURCE AND ENVJHONIMWTAL 'so,-at ANALYSIS
OMC TMOU SHMTS I*CM 3YSTEN
UNITS
CLDTH CLOTH
SHEETS SHEETS
INST INST
USE 1 LI USE50 LI
CLOTH
Jl.'KTS
CLOTH OISSOSBL
SHEETS SHEETS
INST i:isr
USE3J01.1 USE!
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE SRtNE
MATERIAL »OOB FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL 8LASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASM
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORC
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENEROY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENEROY SOURCE NAT 345
ENEMY SOURCE COAL
ENES8Y SOURCE MISC
ENERO.Y SOURCE «000 FIBER
ENER3Y SCUPCE MYOROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL 5YPSUN
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS AOO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERSr OF Mitt. RESOURCE
HATE" VOLUME
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MIuL 8TU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
NIL BTU
MIL 8TU
MIL BTU
THOU SAL
577.6*8
3.0T3
16.310
4.00*
0.400
469.768
1.638
1.4*5
6.004
4.404
11.706
34.634
12.3*3
26.338
4.582
.138
.009
.494
.111
.006
.444
.444
S .766
80.638
3.875
13.822
29.32*
11.5*2
3.073
.326
0.004
O.OCO
13.942
1.635
1.4*5
0.004
9.404
.579
.820
5.451
.699
.128
.003
4.040
0.000
.002
4.000
0.444
0.009
4.361
6.714
.091
.297
4.190
3.777
3,073
.16.1
0.000
0,000
9.2»1
1.638
1.448
0.009
0.000
.465
.478
5.17T
.438
.£83
.002
0.000
0.000
.001
0.000
0.900
0.000
3.543
5.960
.055
.159
3.933
l.«?6
3.073
.054
0.000
o.juo
6.188
1.635
1.445
0.000
0.000
.389
.248
4.994
.263
.052
.001
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.004
0.000
2.996
5.487
.032
.067
3.762
O.B90
.:jo
76.749
7.J29
0.394
a. 637
0.099
0.000
0.000
0.400
.921
2.025
8.768
1.207
.267
.793
.000
.000
.000
.009
.000
.044
13.004
5.907
.492
3.689
2.328
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
UNITS
SOL 10 HA STE S PRQCE SS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID WASTES MININO
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICULATES
TH05 NITROGEN OXIUES
ATMOS WYDRCC»R80NS
ATMOS SULFUR OKIOES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER OROANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS NYOROGSN FLOURIOE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCUR*
ATKCSPHERK CHLORINE
HATER80RNE OIS S3LIDS
"ATER80HNE FLUORIDES
ATERSOSNE 01SS SOLIDS
ATERBORNE 800
HATERBORNE PHENOL
HATER80RNE SULFCOE3
HATEREORNE OIL
HATEHBORNE CUD
ATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
ATER80RNE ACID
7ER80RNE KET/IL ION
HATSRBORNE CHEMICAL!)
HATERBOANE CYANIDE
HATERBOHNE ALKALINITY
HATER80RNE CHROHtUM
HATERBOP.NE IRON
ATERBORNE ALUMINUM
HATERBOHNE MICHEL
resacHNE MERCURY
HATESBCRNE LEAD
ATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
(ArERSORNE ZIMC
ATEBBOPIIE AM30NIA
HATERBOBNE N1TSCSEM
HATEP90BN* PSJT'CIDE
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUHO
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
POUHO
PWNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
806
138
411
21
1
65
79
94
156
53
1
2
a
IT
6
52
2T
7
1
«
0
0
0
0
.258
.223
.644
.990
.2T1
.850
.439
.473
.092
.879
.805
.581
.084
.198
.002
.050
.003
.382
.026
.000
.43*
.792
.066
.123
.3*7
.630
.018
.189
.8S4
.064
.004
.002
.056
.«»«
.00*
.004
.000
.001
.009
.00*
.012
.105
.m
72
3
11
1
4
6
4
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
.013
.753
.299
.440
.025
.647
.473
.850
.156
.820
.021
.060
.084
.061
.000
.001
.000
.087
.026
.000
.423
.180
.001
.003
.296
.488
.589
.206
.116
.001
.000
.002
.001
.000
.090
.000
.000
.000
.005
.000
.000
.101
.006
64
2
7
3
5
i
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
.503
.331
.214
.220
.013
.994
.708
.653
.607
.289
.016
.045
.034
.059
.000
.001
.000
.063
.026
.030
.260
.123
.00)
.001
.295
.966
.330
.133
.090
.001
.00*
.002
.001
.000
.008
.000
.900
.000
.005
.000
.000
.101
.003
59.443 It
1.466 1
4.489 19
.073 ]
.004 (
.558 !
3.198 e
5.054 t
1.573 t
.934 <
.013
.035
.084
.058
.000 0
.001
.000
.048
.026 (
0.900 C
1.151 1
1.085
.000
.000
.294
.618
1.157 I
.084
.086
.000
0.000
.002
.000
0.004
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.005
0.000
.too
.101
.001
.803
.335
.275
.737
.000
.375
.325
.41!
.071
.168
.022
.ISO
.066
.001
.000
.002
.000
.042
.000
.000
.428
.923
.000
.000
.009
.291
.224
.386
.092
.003
.040
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.040
.000
.000
.400
.444
.044
.444
lUNHAftY OF
UNITS
AAV MATERIALS
ENER9Y
HATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID PASTES
ATM EMM I SCIONS
KATE^eORNE HA-'TES
POST-CSNSIJMER SOL HASTE
ENEROY SO'JBCE PETPOUtUM
ENEROY SOUI'CE XAT 3AS
ENER9Y SCURCE COAL
EWPC-Y ?C'J?Ci IHlOtl HASTC
POUNDS
MIL »TU
TNOU SAL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUilC FT
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL HTU
NIL BTU
MIL BTU
11*6.479
98,034
29.329
18.338
43S.409
114.214
11.990
34,63*
32.34.1
26.358
4.588
.1M
36.908
7il02
4.140
1.175
18.986
6.44S
.440
.820
5.451
.699
.138
.003
25.394
6.174
3.933
l.oco
14.532
5.3*6
.220
.475
5.177
.436
.083
.002
17.70*
5.5S5
3.762
.884
11.560
4.613
.073
.24$
4.99*
.263
.052
.001
1 46.684
10.089
2.325
.613
28.637
4.35*
1.73T
2.028
5.768
1.207
.267
.793
F-5
-------
TABLE F-5
RESOURCE AW ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
1«( CMNW1 EACX OIAPZRIN* ITS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
IMHC
MATERIAL CPTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINC
MATERIAL tlOOO 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
ENEROY SOURCE NAT OAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENEROY SOURCE MISC
ENER8Y SOURCE HOOO FIKR
ENERGY SOURCE HVOROPOVER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE HOCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
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-CONSUN
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OIIOCS
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATHOS SULFUB OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORGANIC5
' ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATNOS~AMNONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATERBORNE OIS SOLIDS
HAVIRBORNE FLUORIDES
HATERBORNE DISS SOLIDS
HATERBORNE BOO
H1TERBORNE PHENOL
HATERBORNE SULFIOES
HATERBORNE OIL
HATERBORNE COD
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
HATERBORNE METAL ION
HATERBORNE CHEMICALS
HATERBORNE CYANIDE
HATERBOPNE ALKALINITY
HATERBORNE CHROMIUM
HATERBORNE IRON
HATERBORNE ALUMINUM
HATERBORNC NICKEL
HATERBORNE MERCURY
ATERBORNE LEAD
ATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNE ZINC
HATERBORNE AMMONIA
HATERBORNC NITR08EN
HATCnORNE 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
ENEROY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPVR
ENERGY SOURCE HOOO HASTC
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
HILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
NIL 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
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
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
CLOTH
DI«P SY
N LAUN
use i»o
.23*
.3*5
.906
0.00*
0.000
.28«
.148
.149
0.09*
C.OOG
.0*6
.0*4
.I6t
.131
.029
.000
.000
.009
.000
.900
.000
.060
.16*
.010
.001
.003
.S10
1.B10
.TT1
2.131
.004
.001
.1T«
.3*2
.231'
.766
.OS*
.001
.002
.001
.01
.000
.000
.001
.0*2
.001
0.00*
.on
.249-
.000
.000
.010
.013
.!»«
.0*1
.012
.000
0.000
.000
.0*0
o.oo*
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.too
.001
.0*6
1.44S
.413
.910
.0*4
1.602
.401
.004
.0*4
.10*
.131
.019
.BIO
CLSTH
01 AP SY
H LAUN
USE 96
,*T»
.SOS
.011
0.009
o.eoo
.372
.16*
.144
0.000
0.0*0
.04*
.OB*
.172
.139
.030
.000
0.000
o.coo
.000
o.ouii
0.009
0.000
.lei
.422
.001
.003
.514
1.9T3
.795
z.zoi
.088
.001
.190
.J«
.23B
.790
.0*3
.001
.002
.001
.001
.000
.0*0
.000
.003
.001
0.000
.OT6
.2SO
.000
.000
.010
.023
.206
.042
.012
.0*0
0.000
.000
.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
.000
.000
.000
OvOOO
.000
.001
.000
1.792
.42*
.514
.0«T
l.««4
.623
.00*
.0**
.1T2
.139
«M»
.««*
CLCTH
DJAP sr
K LAUN
USE n
.*ST
.MS
.023
0.000
0.000
.539
.16*
.14*
0.000
0.000
.052
.095
.IT*
.144
.032
.0*0
0.000
o.oon
.090
0.000
0.000
0.000
.211
.445
.002
..004
.523
2.2«*
.«4|
Z.34Z
.016
.002
.213
.401
.253
.B3B
.OT4
.001
.002
.001
.001
.000
.000
.000
.003
.001
0.000
.080
.292
.000
.000
.010
.041
.222
.04S
.013
.00*
0.0*0
.0*0
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
0.00*
.000
.001
.000
2.4*3
.490
.523
.OT4
i.;*«
.6M
.016
.099
.179
.144
.32
.000
CLCTM
D1AP SY
C LAUN
use 100
.233
.09*
.006
0.00*
0.000
.224
.052
.046
0.000
0.000
.013
.007
.136
.00*
.001
.00*
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.00*
.101
.150
.001
.001
.125
l.«25
.044
.137
.004
.001
.020
.090
.135
.046
.026
.000
.001
.403
..002
.000
.00*
.000
.02
.1
0.000
.032
.037
.000
.000
.009
.023
.043
.003
.003
.00*
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.00*
.000
.000
' 0.000
.00
.003
.000
.773
.191
.125
.027
.326
.155
.04
.07
.136
.00*
.01
.001
CLOTH
DIAP SY
C LAUN
US( 50
.4TS
.09*
.011
0.000
0.000
.307
.052
.046
0.000
0.000
.019
.010
.139
.013
.002
.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.116
.162
.001
.001
.129
1.960
.067
.Z07
.OB
.001
.032
.103
.142
.070
.032
.000
.001
.003
.002
.000
.000
.000
.002
.001
0.000
.034
.03B'
.000
.000
.009
.033
.051
.04
.03
.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
0.000
.000
.0*3
.000
1.124
.164
.12*
.031
.30
.177
.OB
.010
.13*
.013
.01
.000
CLOTH
OIAP SY
C LAUN
USE 1
24.100
.«**
.564
0.000
0.000
B.4*4
.052
.046
0.000
0.000
.215
.347
.471
.450
.077
.005
0.000
0.000
.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.569
1.291
.034
.024
.562
11.147
2.335
7.033
.3BB
.055
1.I9T
1.361
.846
2.423
.572
.008
.02T
.003
.006
.00
.001
.000
.043
.001
0.000
-.205
.133
.001
.002
.010
.946
.854
.126
.032
.003
.000
.000
.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.03
.011
35.932
1.350
.562
.371
6.543
2.331
.3B*
.34T
.471
.450
.077
.005
OISPOI
OIAPCR
SYSTEM
0.000
0.000
9.219
.173 '
0.000
1.49*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.265
.092.
.109
.061
.00*
.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.033
.322
.013
.035
.16*
1.5B1
.394
.654
.190
0.000
.191
.261
.1B4
.437
.090
.001
.015
.010
.000
0.000
.000
.000
.006
0.000
.000
.058
.103
.000
.000
.000
.040
.12*
.02*
.004
.001
0.00*
0.000
.000
0.004
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
o.ooo
0.000
12. BM
.371
.16*
.03*
1.1*6
.356
.190
.092
.109
.061
.000
.10*
F-6
-------
TABLE F-6
RESOURCE ANO WVISONWENTAL PRCFILZ ANALYSIS
ONE MILLION 4TLOZ COLO ORINK SYI
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE SNIME
MATERIAL HOOO FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SANO
MATERIAL NAT SOOA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENER6Y SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENER8Y SOURCE NAT SAS
ENEROr SOURCE COAL
ENERSY SOURCE MISC
ENER6T SOURCE MOOD FIBER
ENER8Y SOURCE MYOROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL OYPSUN
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS 400
ENERGY PROCESS
ENEROr 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 HYOROCAR80NS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CAH80N MONOnIOE
ATMOS ALOENYOES
ATMOS OTHER OH9ANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AHMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIOE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATER80RNE OIS SOLIDS
H»TER80RNE FLUORIDES
ATER30RME DISS SOLIDS
ATERBORNE 600
1UTERBORNE PHENOL
HATERBORNE SULMOES
ATERBOHNE OIL
ATERBOPNE COO
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
ATERBORNE ACID
ATERBORNE METAL ION
HATCRBORNE CHEMICALS
HATERBORNE CTANIOE
ATERBORNE ALKALINITY
ATER80RNE CHROMIUM
MATER80RNE IRON
ATER80BNE ALUMINUM
ATERBORNE NICKEL
ATERSORNE MERCURY
ATERBORNE LEAD
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERSOANC ZINC
HATERBOflNE AMMONIA
HATERBORNE NITR08EN
HATEABOHNE PESTICIOE
SUHHAAT 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
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNDS
MIL 8TU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU DAL
UNITS
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUMO
POUNO
OQUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
UNITS
RAH MATERIALS fOUNOS
ENEMY NIL BTU
HATES THOU SAL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMNISSIONS POUMOS
HATERBORNE HASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE CUBIC FT
ENEMY SOURCE PETROLEUM MIL BTU
ENER8Y SOURCE NAT 6AS MIL BTU
ENERGY SOURCE COAL MIL BTU
EMIR9Y SOURCE NUCL HYPVH MtL BTU
EMfROY SOURCE HOOO HASTE MIL BTU
6LASS
TUMBLED
9FLOZ
use loa
0.000
63T.OS6
819.440
267.720
0.900
27*1*4*
£46.150
£13.706
0.000
71.937
19.879
126.872
16.96*
£.930
6.962
0.000
0.000
0.00*
0.000
0.000
0.000
344.548
167.46*
1.62D
4.£*1
8*. 601
£39.565
132.935
669.617
18.333
0.008
84.149
115.399
139.930
152.035
33.295
.482
10.310
1.18*
.843
0.008
.015
.002
.323
0.000
0.0*0
73.S87
26.061
.006
.006
.079
6.»04
Z0.29*
6.077
1.147
.«»
0.000
1910.380
.000
0.008
0.000
0.000
.0«0
.9*0
.or*
».98«
.035
1. 4*7
.041
£»»«.34l
173.607
89.601
16*769
537. 9«£
16*8.714
18.333
19. *T*
126.871
' 16.964
£.939
6. Ml
S'.ASS
"JFLOz"
USE 1900
0.099
637.096
81.549
£6.772
0.000
278.418
246.150
22.371
.000
71.937
11.249
107.405
11.917
2.519
.798
0.000
0 ,000
O.POO
O.COO
0.000
0.000
2*4.6*6
129.097
.497
4.291
aS.7£2
113.041
73.061
308.656
1.833.
0.000
26.182
62.074
111.649
77.338
21.4*9
.282
1 .579
1.18*
.824
0.000
.007
.001
.323
0.000
0.000
63.683
6.464
.002
.003
.074
6.362
9.169
5.027
.884
.096
0.008
1510.360
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.074
0.000
.005
1.437
.006
1673.21*
133). 84*
85.72£
6.679-
32£.893
1603.660
1.833
11.2*5
107.405
11.917
£.519
.79«
PSLYPHOP
9FJ.O*
UfE K'V
0.000
637.036
53.C31
0.090
O.f'3
fTU.488
246.150
0.000
0.000
71.9?7
&S.757
141.830
14.098
3,1*2
.601
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
280.624
142..705
50.750
26.872
93.112
132.291
97.194
289.844
14.127
0.000
31.517
152.069
230.392
103.0*4
376.499
».*71
16.564
1.184
.957
0.000
1.013
.001
.323
G.OOO
0.000
93.618
6.270
.026
.033
.144
a. sio
10.017
5.767
1.06*
.072
0.000
1510.380
.000
0.000
0.000
0.800
.000
.000
.074
o.ioo
.885
1.427
.0*8
1636.962
220.327
93. U2
7.911
918.0*4
1*37.421
14.127
60.797
141.830
14.0*8
3.042
.401
POLfOROP
Jf *.'"- 2
USi 1000
AT, .056
5.. 306
9.000
0.003
Z4&.150
0.000
0.200
71.937
IS. 333
ICS.908
11.630
2.531
.162
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
238.255
126.619
5.389
6.549
66.073
102.314
69.487
290.679
1.413
0.000
20.920
85.743
120.696
72.439
55.774
.681
2.204
1.1B4
.635
0.000
.106
.001
.323
0.000
0.000
65.657
«.285
.004
.005
.060
6.573
8.1*6
4.996
.877
.015
0.000
1510.380
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.074
0.000
.009
1.427
.008
15*1.940
138.996
66.073
5.703
360.907
1602.530
1.413
15.333
108.900
11.630
2.931
.162
HAI COAT
9"^nZ
i : i
0.000
0.009
"ioo.oi a
943.7^0
O.COO
i Alt? I AA
1 + 'if » I Oo
:.ooo
0.000
o.coo
0.000
121.901
213.085
1:8.586
97.619
9. 789
119.345
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1161.983
420.288
11.290
112.347
145.461
2280.102
1031.031
775.091
2*1.357
0.000
191. «l*
293. »70
260. «6*
568.344
261.969
2.231
20.364
8.593
.152
0.000
.314
.006
7.0*2
0.000
0.000
103.746
70.317
.032
.041
.713
1.593
68.699
16.901
3.592
.969
0.088
0.000
.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.003
0.000
0.040
.091
0.800
0.000
13229.863
963.925
1*5. *Bl
55.164
1614.363
266.696
241.397
216.085
118.566
97.61*
9.78*
119.845
PLASTIC
"*'
O.'OO
C. '1C
' 1 J.->49
).COO
O.t )
o.n a
0.000
0.900
0.000
0.000
37!. 310
2*3.11*
59.160
12.735
5.970
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
773.275
309.442
*3.*01
3*3.926
50.908
920.298
396.239
942.584
186.750
0.000
129.110
36S.459
£73.2*6
480.240
39*. 869
2.557
17.466
0.000
.218
0.000
.228
.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
16*. 863
29.539
.0*6
.054
1.807
21.*92
2*. 406
17.789
*.»*7
.77S
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
1*84.219
696.789
50.908
30.*98
1963.398
265.98*
186.750
375.610
243.114
59.160
12.739
9.970
F-7
-------
TABLE F-7
RESOURCE AND CNViaONNENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
ONE MILLION TFLOZ MOT DRINK SYS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NANC
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL CLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENEROY SOURCE NAT GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENEROY SOURCE MISC
ENERGY SOURCE MOO FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HVOROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS AOO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENEROY TRANSPORT
ENEROY OF NATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID (ASTES PHOCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID WASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICIPATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER OROANICS
ATMOS OOOHOU& SULFUR
ATHOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYOMOGEN FLOURIDE
ATMOS LEAD
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
MATERBORNE U1S SOLIDS
HATERBORNE FLUORIDES
HATERSORNE DISS SOLIDS
MATERBORNE BOO
1TERBORNE PHENOL
ATERBORNE SULFIOES
ATERBORNE OIL
ATERBORNE COO
ATERBOHNE SUSF SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
ATERBORNE METAL ION
ATERBORNE CHEMICALS
HATERBORNE CYANIDE
ATERBORNE ALKALINITY
ATERBORNE CHROMIUM
ATERSORNE IRON
ATERBORNE ALUMINUM
ATERBORNE NICKEL
ATERBORNE MERCURY
ATERBORNE LEAD
ATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
MATERBORNE ZINC
hATERBORNE AMMONIA
kATERBORNE NITROGEN
ATERBORNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
HILL BTU
MILL BTU
HILL BTU
MILL STU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
TNOU GAL
UNITS
POUNO
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
UNITS
RAM MATERIALS POUNDS
ENERGY MIL BTU
ATER THOU 6AL
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES CUBIC FT
ATM EMMISSIONS POUNDS
ATERBORNE HASTES POUNDS
POST-CONSUMES 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 HOOD HASTE MIL BTU
CHINA
CUP
TFLOZ
USE 100
o.ooo
ISO*. 140
TS2.T60
o.ooo
0.000
131.691
687.541
ati.iBT
14*0.000
3194.633
1*9.652
1SB.63T
1*6. 922
45.965
9.030
».5B9
0.000
0.000
0.000
30*9. 100
MI. m
Z512.339
497.009
4*1.306
115. TOT
10.131
247.4*7
(106.069
323.991
82BO.A11
32.640
0.000
3T6.149
425.955
4B7.Z43
Ml. 000
635.766
10.291
43.16T
2.T96
2.2GB
0.000
2. IBS
.004
.763
0.000
.2*5
233.930
40.479
.DBS
.086
.297
SO. 979
243.599
16.BU
79. BOO
6.639
0.000
3*00. B9B
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.174
0.000
.012
3.36B
.010
1SE33.645
547.14*
247.467
144.S91
2537.M4
4079.421
32.440
190.437
144.922
45.965
9.030
6.5*9
CHINA
CUP
7FLOZ
USE 1000
0.000
1504.160
75.276
0.000
0.000
151.691
657.541
5B1.1B7
164.000
319.483
169.852
37.361
249.054
27.BS4
5.962
.900
0.000
0.000
8.000
304.920
33.327
35 1.234
565.969
298.688
12.312
10.131
198.140
420.949
168.374
1337. 4B3
3.264
0.000
78.305
202.556
270.136
176.902
125.119
1.563
5. £65
2.796
1.974
0.000
.231
.003
.763
0.000
.024
154.8*8
12.684
.012
.013
.IBS
18.606
41.226
11.647
9.730
.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
27.654
5.942
.900
NELAMINE
CUP
7FLOZ
USE' 100
0.000
1504.160
769.640
5B.303
0.000
220.398
657.541
361.187
0.000
0.000
177.180
49.770
331.6*9
39.870
B.604
7.907
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
66*. 186
362.872
10.38C
64.549
2S4.280
355. 9S2
245.069
789. 21Z
35.169
0.000
79.920
270.861
409.329
276.303
114.693
1.066
S.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
15.636
2.992
.218
0.000
3400.898
.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.001
.174
0.000
2.602
3.366
.011
4*32.594
437. B01
254.260
18.769
1177.494
3659.375
35.169
49.770
331.649
39.870
6.604
7.907
MEL AM I NE
CUP
7FLOZ
USE 1000
0.000
1504.160
76.964
5.830
0.000
156.562
657.541
581.187
0.000
0.000
170.585
26.474
247.526
27.244
5.920
1.032
0.000
o.eoo
0.000
0.000
o.ooe
0.000
962.707
290.645
1,779
15.572
198.821
245.936
160.482
5(8.363
3.517
0.000
48.683
167.048
262.344
169.432
53.010
.640
1.767
2. 848
3.310
0.000
.017
.003
.796
0.000
0.000
146.090
10.659
.005
.007
.182
15.060
19.774
11.729
2.049
.040
0.000
3400.69*
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.174
0.000
.271
3.368
.018
3717.536
308.196
196.621
13.430
729.698
3612.326
3. 517
26.474
247.526
27.244
5.920
1.032
PAPER
LOPE CTD
TFLOZ
USE 1
0.000
0.000
13*16.085
1357.720
0.000
2091. ?72
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
175.563
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
16.804
23.375
191.647
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
.063
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
566.510
191.667
75.028
1619.060
301.104
236.913
93.9*9
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
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
297.713
225.706
30.917
5.832
10.826
0.000
0.000
o-.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
365.573
40S.391
42.343
123.263
29.639
436.991
279.156
486.300
761.200
0.000
133.002
366.499
571.082
446.026
306.660
4.«22
24.559
0.000
.902
0.000
.435
.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
166.982
41.033
.091
.117
.724
8.326
23.291
6.674
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
297.711
225.706
30.917
5.832
10.828
F-8
-------
TABLE F-8
ftZSOUftCI AND E(«t*ONM«NTAL PROFILE «NALYSIS
CMC MILLION 9!<«H Pt.*7E 3TS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINC
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SOOA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITt ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENEROT SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS
ENCR3Y SOURCE COAL
ENEROY SOURCE MISC
ENERSY SOURCE "000
ENERSY SOURCE HYOROPMER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS 400
ENERSY PROCESS
ENERBY TRANSPORT
ENER9Y OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL COM8
SOLID HASTES MININfl
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OIIOES
ATMOS HYOROCAR60NS
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATNOS OTHER OROANICS
ATxOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIOE
ATMOS LEAD
ATHOS' MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
ATERBORNE OIS SOLIDS
HATE-iBORNE FLUORIDES
kATERBORNE 01SS SOLIDS
»«TERBOHN« BOD
HATERBORNE PHENOL
HATERBORNE SULFIDES
MArERBORNE OIL
HATERBORNE COO
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
HATCR80RNE METAL ION
HATERBORNE CHEMICALS
ATCRBORNC CTANIOC
ATER80RNE ALKALINITY
HATERBORNE CHROMIUM
HATERBORNE I ROM
HATERBORNE ALUMINUM
HATERBORNC NICKEL
HATER80RNE MERCURY
HATERBORNC LCAO
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNC ZINC
HATERBORNE AMMONIA
HATERBORNE NITOOSEN
HATCRRORNC PESTICIDE
SUMMARY Of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
RAH MATERIALS
ENSRBY
HATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES
ATM ENM1SSIONS
HATERBORNC HASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENEROY SOURCE NAT GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENEMY SOURCE NUCL MYPHR
ENCR8V SOURCE HOOO HASTE
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL 8TU
MILL STU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MU BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU OAL
UNITS
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
CUBIC FT
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
PCUNO
POUNO
PSUNO
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL OTU
THOU SAL
cue ic FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBiC FT
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
OIL ITU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
CHIN*
PLATES
9 INCH
USE 100
0.009
1336,0*6
882.750
a. ooo
0.000
13*. Tie
584. Oil
514.211
3793.939
T448.ll*
150.666
329.943
485.311
64.309
12.805
4.626
0.000
0.000
0.0*0
T9I4.S62
861.923
3726.791
703.282
586.533
271.513
0.946
2*».4*3
4697.828
494.172
18229.246
77.010
0.000
TT0.331
TOT. 680
762.263
464.939
18*2.341
23.230
85.210
2.483
2.524
0.000
5.138
.006
.6TT
0.000
.363
333.638
45.923
.189
.190
.439
93.908
518. ATS
21.960
160.634
13. m
0.000
3010.798
.000
o.ooo
0.000
«.JOO
.900
.000
.194
0.000
.010
1.4*8
.01*
2,*3*S.1M
8*7.044
298.423
31S.093
4741.822
4230.412
7T.010
329.993
495.311
44.308
U.fOS
4.626
CHINA
PLATES
* INCH
U£» iOOO
0.000
1336.048
92.279
0.000
o.soo
134.736
384.031
916.231
3T9.394
744.812
190.843
52.056
236.091
26.998
9.79*
.677
0.000
0.000
0.000
791.486
86.192
972.875
911.149
284.767
27.809
8.*48
183.761
692.613
165.659
2273.969
7.701
0.000
113.066
212.755
272.999
174.441}
226.129
2.797
9.610
2.483
1.603
0.000
.923
.003
.677
0.090
.094
149.671
12.223
.02!
.023
.182
21.344
66.869
11.1*6
19.611
1.409
O.OSC
3020.796
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.144
0.000
.010
2.942
.016
9620. 6T9
321.379
183.761
41.740
1017.319
3306. W4
1.701
32.096
236.091
26.»98
s.rt>4
.677
CHIHA
PLATES
9 INCH
USJ 6?C3
0.000
1336.948
7.S60
9.040
C.SO»
134,738
SiU.OSl
916.231
99.019
138. 022
150. 868
25.693
219.266
23.493
5.084
.302
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.990
12.301
83.086
492.897
236.101
4,658
6.946
172.869
272.132
138.291
796.218
1. 117
0,000
50.628
16S.739
226.521
144, »7T
67.845
.696
2.450
2.483
1.734
0.000
.086
.002
.677
9.000
,S3fi
113, .31
9.0*0
.006
.007
.i4T
14.444
23.930
10,17%
4.314
.220
0.0(10
3020.798
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.oca
.134
0.000
.010
2.442
.016
39*0.031
S44.7S7
172.864
15.7T6
663.49*
3216.829
1.11T
25.693
215.266
23.433
5.064
.302
MELANIN!
PLATES
« MC«
USH 100
O.OOt
1336.0"!)
1194.704
99,457
0.0:0
251. '343
964.041
916.231
0.900
0.000
163.370
57.707
3T1.130
47.717
10.345
12.143
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.COO
0.000
0.000
664.278
387. 77b
9.495
101.830
279.618
403.527
292.350
897.679
59.9-34
0.000
92.951
300.012
490.630
J36.635
136.161
1.317
5.496
3.JT6
25.078
0.000
.038
.005
1.248
0.900
9.000
UJ.434
22.877
.016
.020
.319
14.1S6
32.495
17.764
3.599
.216
0.000
3020.796
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.031
.194
0.000
4.429
2.942
.016
4609.168
>99.1QI
275.616
21.513
1392.890
3283,282
39.994
57. TOT
371.100
1T.717
10.389
12.193
K2LOMJNE
PU4TSS
9 »MCM
us; ;coo
O.JC3
1.136. 0^8
1 18. 479
9.44ft
0.000
144.453
584. C31
516.2.11
3.04C
9.300
132. 116
£4.827
227.670
25.334
5.512
l.»34
0.000
0.300
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
507.749
264.842
1.604
18.281
181.481
227.163
144.477
540.812
5.999
O.COO
45.328
171.468
245.836
1S4.137
50.511
.576
1.659
2.573
4.096
0.000
.019
.903
.735
0.000
9.000
132. 952
9.939
.005
.006
.169
13.414
18.231
10.778
1.407
.036
0.000
3020.796
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.000
.194
0.000
.482
2.942
.016
33T1.980
264.T81
181.481
12.386
642.4U
3211.873
9.99*
24.62T
2Z7.670
25.339
5.512
1.434
PJOM
IJMT P'ES
5 JNCH
u;e i
0,000
0.090
r»tT.7Z5
zo«;.oso
1.000
:<-,Sl.231
;.oo
0.000
O.CO-3
0.0:1
-6'. 114
131.026
191.632
151.351
10.60,?
251. 510
O.OOJ
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2192.474
706.688
33.522
3.112
286. 655
4502.651
1883.405
857.020
367.730
0.000
272.221
391.424
273.740
782.303
253.422
2.418
20.984
19.062
.122
0.000
.360
.006
15.414
0.000
0-000
92.537
' 1!S.213
.026
.034
.045
.546
129.794
21.080
3.887
.718
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.000
.007
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
27346. SS5
746.122
286.659
97.782
2031.477
363.887
367.730
131.026
143.632
161.391
10.602
291.910
PLASTIC
FCAM »
'> INC*
JSJ 1
0.000
C.OJ1
2SJ9.200
0.000
0.900
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.300
0.000
0.000
785.794
502.370
140.091
24.*|7
21.071
C.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.900
0.000
1578.018
660.427
142.908
475.946
101.547
1951.801
977.773
2226.373
4582.520
0.000
345.244
893.661
1480.313
1152.517
987.784
7.886
54,933
0.000
.585
0.000
.930
.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
355.741
90.189
.119
.152
3.499
41.133
63.14*
41.637
10.410
2.736
9.000
0.000
.043
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.442
0.000
0.000
4087.218
1474.233
101.547
64. 60S
4923.864
609.305
4562.520
785.784
902.870
140.091
29.417
21.071
F-9
-------
TABLE F-9
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
OISP »AP »ROO THOU LB EA "/IX PI
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL «OOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAW
MATERIAL 8AUMTE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT OAS
ENERGY SOURCE CO*L
ENERGY SOURCE MJSC
ENERGY SOUHCE HOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE MYOROPOBEB
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL P«OSPM«TE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL 6YPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS AOO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TKlNSPOHT
ENERSY OF HATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID
SOLID
SOCI9
SOLID
ASTES POQCESS
«STES FUEL COMB
ASTES "ININfi
ASTE POST-CONSUM
ATHOSP EH1C PESTICIuE
ATXOS PAHTICULATES
AT»OS N1T90GEN OXIOES
ATI-OS HYDROCARBONS
ATHOS SULFUrf OXIDES
«T*OS CARBON "ONOJIDE
ATMQS ALDEHYOES
ATHOS OTHER OKGANICS
ATMOS OnOHOUS SULFUR
ATMOS AM»OM*
ATMQS MYONOGEN FLOUHIOE
ATMOS LEA0
AIHOS MERCUHY
ATMOSPHERIC CiLORINE
ATEBSOHNt 015 SOLIDS
iTEBSiOfNE- FLUORIDES
*ATE»BO»Ne DI4S SOLIDS
HATERBOH'JE BOO
aTERBOPNt PHENOL
ATEHSORNi SULFIDFS
HATERHOBNE OIL
HATERBOWNE COU
HATFBBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBOHNi ACID
H«TE«80RNE "ETAL ION
HATEHBOSNE CHEMICALS
HATERBOSNE CYANIDE
HATEBBOKNE ALKALINITY
HATFBRO*N|.. CADMIUM
ATERHOPNE IiJON
HATEPBOBNE ALUMINUM
HATERBOKNt NICKEL
HATERROMNE MEHCURY
ATEPSOBNt LEAD
HATERBOHNE PnOSPHATES
ATFBBCWNE ZINC
HATERBOHNt AMMONIA
ATEBSOHNE NITROGEN
HATEHHOPNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
B«« MATERIALS
ENF.HSY
ATF.w
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES
AT- EMISSIONS
HATERBOHNS HASTES
POST-CONSUME" SOL HASTE
ENERGY SOUHCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS
ENEBGv SOUHCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYPKR
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD HASTE
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 SAL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUMf)
POUND
POUND
POUNO
DQU'ID
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POU'IO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL 3TU
THOU GAL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNPS
CUBIC FT
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
PULPMOOO
HARVEST
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
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.ooooo
0.09000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.12896
o.ooooo
.00801
0.00000
.0322?
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.15253
.13TI-.8
.1*000
.03355
.93676
.0110*
.03960
0.00000
.00036
0.00000
.00267
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000 .
0.00000
.06880
.00018
.00006
.00008
.00009
.00071
.0004*
.0001*
.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
.0080!
.000*3
1.4*519
.07053
0.00000
.12896
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TRANSPOR
HOOO
0.00000
o.oaooa
o.ooooo
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
a. ooooo
.OOT15
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00467
.07238
.02638
.01*30
.06050
.00122
.00238
0.00000
.00008
0.00000
.00009
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.01527
.0000*
.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/S DRY
PULP
MANUF
0.00000
0.00000
807.00000
0.03000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.4T515
4T9S7
1.15362
.26076
8.39000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
'S. OOOOO
10.75912
0.00000
0.00000
U.43T5T
89,00000
6.78470
18.47560
0.00000
0.00000
3.50650
2.49730
.97240
7.202TO
.309*0
.00420
.00553
.72000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00011
0.00000
0.09000
0.00000
.13667
7.00035
.00012
.0001*
.00018
.COI*1
10.400KB
.35387
.06847
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
PULP
SYSM
0.00000
0.00000
807.00000
80.00000
0.00000
94.27600
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0,00000
10.05550
4.72530
3.79462
1.61753
.37612
8.39000
0.00000
0.09000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
79.1084*
IB. 93370
.16987
0.00000
13.*9327
110.72209
11.10721
28.7*680
0.00000
0.00000
7.85576
13.18995
5.769*5
17.06733
2.26883
.02227
.06189
.72000
.00076
0.00000
.00352
.00025
.«5920
0.00000
0.00000
2.67908
7.00684
.00031
.OOO'O
.00045
.00357
10.45592
.74102
.13320
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00071
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
S/S SLSH
PULP
SYSM
0.00000
0.00000
807.00000
80.00000
0.00000
94.?7600
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
10.05550
3.SB51S
2.89492
1.S02S2
.30532
8.39000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
79.10844
16.50805
.16987
0.00000
13.48307
110.72209
9.01951
23.73080
0.00000
0.00000
7.20218
11.09225
4. .5515
14.49769
2.04362
.02113
.06039
.72000
.00076
0.00000
.00352
.00022
.45920
0.00000
0.00000
2.023*7
7.00675
.00028
.00036
.000*0
.00318
10.45568
.6*495
.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
882.009001070.4399*1070.4399*
10.75912
13.»3757
1.5*251
15.21813
17.98211
0.00000
.47515
.47957
1.1S362
.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
1.93668
40.55612
20.24*66
0.00000
3.58515
2.89*92
1.50252
.30532
8.39000
S/S DRY
PULP
SYSM
TRANSPOR
0.00000
0.00000
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
.0*46*
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.0279J
.*2267
.153*5
.10788
.»0*23
.00802
.01*83
0.00000
.00049
0.00000
.00064
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.09533
.00025
.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
1.1*013
.0977*
0.00000
.19397
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
DIAPER
TISSUE
PAPER-
MAKING
0.00000
0.00000
688.37100
68.2*000
0.00000
80.41743
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
8.57734
5. 67099
9.89368
3.91114
.85457
7.15667
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
O'.OOOOO
0.00000
83.47950
27.34215
.14490
0.00000
16.34890
134.24594
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
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
.00018
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
929.08527
27.4H704
16.3*890
2.97106
75.3*038
23.1**61
0.00000
5.67099
9.89368
3.9111*
.85*57
7.1SA67
DIAPER
CONVERT
(HUNDRED
DIAPERS)
O.OCOOO
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00282
".0028*
.0068*
.00155
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00001
.01*0*
0.00000
0.00000
.00022
.02000
.0*022
.10952
0.00000
0.00000
.00851
.01*80
.00576
.037*0
.00183
.00002
.00003
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00081
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00001
.00001
.00210
.OOOS2
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00010
o.ooono
0.00000
0.00000
.00001
.01*0*
.00022
.00229
.06857
.003*5
0.00000
.00282
.0028*
.00614
.00155
0.00000
F-10
-------
TABLE F-10
KtJOURCl AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
OISP PAP PROD THO'J LB C< »/tX P2
INPUTS TO SYSTE-S
N»«F
MATERIAL COTTON
HATEWIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATE=IAL »ooo FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL dLASS SANO
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELOSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUU
ENERGY SOUKCt PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT 6AS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOUPCE MISC
ENERGY SOUHCE "000 FIBER
ENERGY SOUHCE nYOROPOHER
MATERIAL ROTAS*
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL IjYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PMOCESS AOO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FHO* SYSTEMS
NAME'
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID K4STES FUEL COMB
SOLID »ASTES MINING
SOLID .AST? POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PAMICULATES
ATMOS NITHOGEN OXIDES
ATMOS SULFUR OXIDES
ATMOS CAPBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALOE"YOES
»T"05 OTMErt ORGANICS
ATMOS ODOWOUS SULFUH
ATMOS AMMONIn
ATMOS HY.O<
0.00000
O."0000
0. 00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.oocoo
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.00140
.001342
.00339
.00077
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
.01397
0.00000
0.00000
.00023
0.00000
.01992
.05426
0.00000
0.00000
.00435
.01102
.00949
.01B70
.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
.00104
.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
.94535
.00294
0.00000
.00140
.00842
.00339
.00077
0.00000
PAP90
FOR CUPS
ANO PLAT
M.NUF
i . .; c. c i o
). 00000
71(3. 00000
30300
o . o o i o
o.ocooo
0. O'.'CCO
0.00000
0.00000
0.00030
o.ocooo
2.72*45
6.32231
4,78946
.16674
9.29100
0.000.00
C. 00000
0.00000
0.00030
0.00000
0.00000
75.00000
23.29696
0.30000
0.00000
10.72431
1«2. 00000
62.69010
11.95480
0.00000
0.00000
5.59950
8.84S90
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.M023
.00008
.00010
.00011
.00092
4.49057
.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
PAPBD
FO? CUPS
«NO fL'.T
V TPM
0. 303HO
' . CCOCO
'13. J0300
7 3 , n 0 J 0 0
O.CIKOO
119. l»i )0
0.00! :o
0.03000
o.cocoo
-.00 :oo
U.3bv30
3.34219
ft.'JISO
i. 61835
.31516
9. 20100
0.00000
0.30000
0.30000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
80.1°392
25.30392
.17631
0.00000
10.78851
166.81137
67.002X2
2«. 91637
0.00003
0.00000
P. 24741
10.84417
8.33324
24.96942
3.241113
.02240
.06309
.72000
.00090
0.00000
. 003*5
.00025
.SU220
0.00000
0.00000
2.594*9
3.616H5
.00031
.00039
,00044
.003SO
4.55554
.6*419
.1I3HI
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00300
0.00000
.00000
.00077
0.00000
0. 000(10
0.00000
0.00000
0.00300
793.000001005.42322
23.79696
10.72431
2.92471
43.97526
10.67666
0.00000
2.72545
6.32231
4.7B946
.16874
9.29100
2S. 48013
10.78851
3.49246
57.0?774
11.55000
0.00000
3.34219
6.91343
5.61831s
.31516
9.29100
F-ll
-------
TABLE F-ll
RESOURCE AND ENVlROWttHTtl. PROFILE ANALYSIS
OIS» PAP PRCU THCO L8 (A N/CX PI
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
HAKE
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BP1NE
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SUL'UR
ENERGY SOUHCE PETROLEUM
ENER8T SOURCE NAT GAS
ENEROT SOUHCE COAL
ENERGY SOUMCE MISC
ENER6Y SOURCE HOOD FI4ER
ENERGY SOURCE HYOROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PnOSPHATC ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS ADO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
ATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID HASTES FUEL CUM*
SOLID HASTES -4ININI5
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
THOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUK OK IDES
ATMOS CARBON MONOlIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORSANICS
ATMOS 000»OUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYOfOGEN FLOUMtnE
ATMOS LEAD
1 ATMOS MERCUPr
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATERRORNE 015 SOLIDS
HATERao»NE FLUORIDES
kATEPROMNE OISS SOLIDS
ATERBOHNE BOO
HATER80HNE PHENOL
HATERBORNE SULFIOES
HATERBOWNE OIL
ATERBORNE CUO
HATERSORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATER80RNE ACID
HATERBORNE METAL ION
HATERBOHNE CHEMICALS
MATfRBORNE CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
HATERBORNE CHROMIUM
HATERRORNE IHON
HATERBORNE ALUMINUM
HATERBOWNE NICKEL
HATEPBORNE MEMCURY
HATERSORNE LEAO
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNE ZINC
HATERBORNE AMMONIA
ATERKORNE NITROGEN
HATERBORNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME
RAH MATERIALS
ENERGY
HATER
INDUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES
ATM EMMISSIONS
HATERBORNE HASTES
POST-CONSUMER SOL HASTE
ENERSY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENEROY SOURCE NAT GAS
ENER6Y SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL MYPHR
ENEOflT SOURCE HOOD HASTE
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL STU
MILL BTU
MILL RTU
POUND
BOUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
BOUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUNO
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
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
90Z PAP-
VAX CO
CONV
-------
INPUTS ro SYSTEMS
NAME
TABLE F-12
RESOURCE ANO ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
ANCILLARY SYSTEMS THOU L8 EACH
UNITS
UN8LEACH BLEACHED
KRAFT KRAFT
PROD CARTON
SYSTEM SYSTEM
CORRUfiAT RECYCLE
CONTAIN PAP80
SYSTEM SYSTEM
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULF4TE BRINE
MATERIAL «000 FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS S«NO
MATERIAL NAT SOOA ASM
MATERIAL FEL'.'SPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE OPE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOUWCE PETROLEUM
ENERBY SOURCE MAT GAS
ENERGY SOUWCE COAL
ENERGY SOUhCE MISC
ENERGY SOUBCE 1.000 FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HYONOPOwE"
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL P»OSPMATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS »00
ENERGY PAUCESS
ENERGY TRANSPOIJT
ENERGY OF M«TL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
"ILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MR BTU
THOU SAL
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
TO. 000
19.631
.089
0.000
.31*
0.000
0.000
530.000
80.000
0.000
238.471
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
10.09*
6.982
4.006
S.210
.397
9.530
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
86. ISO
35.8*6
.278
O.OOt)
10.808
0.000
0.000
697.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.5HT
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
0.003
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.S2B
.432
.827
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
28.120
10.560
0.000
0.000
11.891
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NOME
UNITS
SOLID HASTES PROCESS POUND
SOLID HASTES FUEL COMB POUND
SOLID HASTES «ININfi POUND
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUM CUBIC FT
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE POUND
ATMOS PAHTICULATES POUND
IT-OS NITHOGEN OXIDES POUND
ATMOS HYUrtOC««f»ONS POUND
iTMOS SULKUX OXIDES POUNO
ATMOS CARBON «ONOItJ£ POUNO
ATMOS ALDEHYDES POUND
ATMOS OTH.IP ORGANKS POUND
ATMOS 000-OUS SULFUK POUNO
ATMOS AMMONT* POUNO
ATMOS HYOHOBEN FLOU"lnE POUND
ATMOS LEAU POUND
' iTMOS MEHCUHY POUND
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE POUNO
HATERRORNC DIS SOLIDS POUND
HATEHRORNE FLUORIDES POUND
ATERPOflNi DISS SOLIDS POUND
HATER80KNE BOO POUNO
MATER104NE PHENOL POU'JO
(ATER30RNE. SULFIOES POUND
HATERHORNt OIL POUNO
HATERBOSNE COO POUND
HATERBOaM: SUSP SOLIDS POUNO
HATER80RN6 ACID POUND
ATERBORNb METAL ION POUNO
HATERBOi»N£ CHEMICALS POUND
HATERBOUNt C-:NIOE POUNO
HATER80*NE ALKALINITY POUND
ATERBORNE CHROMIU.I POUNO
HATF.BRORNE HON POUND
HATERBORNi ALUMINUM POUND
HATERBORNE NICKEL POUND
ATERBORNt MERCURY POUND
ATER80RNE LEAD POUNO
HATERBORNE PHOSPHITES POUNO
HATERBORNt ZINC POUNO
KATFRRORNE A««ONIA POUND
ATERBOHNE NITROGEN POUND
HATERRORNE PESTICIDE POUND
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NAME UNITS
67.000
57.3S7
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
.SOS
.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
148.260
58.685
30.889
0.000
0.000
9.562
H.S97
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
.001
.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
0.040
0.000
0.000
67.000
45.355
39.520
0.000
0.000
39.03*
16.226
9.749
55.481
5.618
.084
8.089
0.000
.012
0.000
.002
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.4*3
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
65.380
20.956
53.70?
0.000
0.000
6.2PO
7.714
4.454
19.387
1.367
.0*9
.027
0.000
.003
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.S32
12.973
.001
.001
.001
.012
19.117
.831
.208
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
«A* MATERIALS
ENERGY
kATER
INUUSTRIAL SOLID HASTES
ATM EMMISSIONS
HATERBORNE HASTES
POST-CONSUME* SOL »ASTE
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENERGY SOURCE NAT GAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL HYP«R
ENErCY SOURCE HOOD HASTE
POUND;:
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
799.000
19.T19
.374
2.320
131.994
43.S24
0.000
5.333
3.629
3.3r:5
0.000
7.432
944,714
26.124
10.808
3.211
54.964
17.9«3
0.000
6.982
4.006
5.210
.397
9.S30
767.000
16.106
.317
2.050
134.300
36.819
0.000
4.5BT
2.900
2.766
0.000
5. 853
28.120
10.560
11.891
1.891
39.254
34.677
0.000
2.829
2.944
3.528
.432
.827
F-13
-------
TABLE F-13
RESOURCE *NO MVIHONHENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
THOU LB CACH PROCESS
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL MOOD 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 HAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NISC
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE HVOROPOHER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAT
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS AOO
ENERGY PROCESS
ENERGY TRANSPORT
ENERGY OF MATL RESOURCE
HATER VOLUME
OUTPUTS FROM SYSTEMS
NAME
SOLID HASTES PROCESS
SOLID CASTES FUEL COMB
SOLID HASTES MINING
SOLID HASTE POST-CONSUN
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICIPATES
ATMOS NITROGEN OKIDES
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 D1S SOLIDS
HATERBOPNE FLUORIDES
VATERBORNE OISS SOLIDS
HATERBORNE BOO
ATERBORNE PHENOL
ATERBORNE SULFIDES
ATERBORNE OIL
HATERBORNE COO
HATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACIO
HATERBORNE METAL ION
HATERBORNE CHEMICALS
HATERBORNE CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
HATERBORNE CHROHIUH
HATERBORNE IROK
HATERBORNC ALUMINUM
HATERBORNE NICKEL
HATERBORNE MERCURY
HATERBORNE LEAD
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNE ZINC
HATERBORNC AMMONIA
HATERBORNE NITROGEN
HATERBORNE PESTICIDE
SUMMARY 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
NIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
THOU OAL
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
ENERBY 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
CRUOt NATURAL
OIL MOD (AS PROD
1000 LB 1000 LB
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
19.621
.319
.012
.DOT
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.8BO
.129
.332
19.925
.083
.400
.20T
.SIT
0.000
0.000
.OS*
1.952
9.201
.319
.339
.002 '
.001
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.1*6
.000
.000
.000
.110
.000
.000
.010
.002
0.000
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
l.BBO
19.986
.083
.018
12.069
6.2TO
0.000
19.621
.329
.032
.OOT
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.033
23.84}
.032
.OOT
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.066
.608
23.2**
.0*1
0.000
.19*
.517
0.000
0.000
.0*1
3.S2T
26.903
.218
.966
.001
.001
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.116
.000
.000
.000
.03T
.000
.000
.010
.002
0.000
0.000
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
23.918
.0*1
.010
31.662
2.166
o.ooo
.033
23.8*9
.032
.OOT
0.110
BENKNC CTHYLENC AMMONIA
SYS SYS MFO
1000 LB 1000 LB 1000 LB
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
21.T32
J.S10
.29*
.066
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.0»7
9.2*8
.3*0
20.013
.*33-
1.T95
2.08T
«.TOT
0.000
0.000
.893
9.2*2
16.862
*.02Z
12.916
.030
.021
0.000
.00*
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
' 0.000
T.99S
.031
.001
.001
.123
.ITT
.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
9. OAT
29.602
.*33
.119
39.991
8.083
0.000
21.732
3.910
.2*4
.066
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.*99
2T.B9T
.*99
.10*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
S.TT6
8.502
1.2*1
2*. 216
.839
18.162
2.708
T.391
0.000
0.000
.T3T
12.139
41.70*
*.860
2.9*8
.017
.038
0.000
.000
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*.B69
.098
.000
.000
.060
.001
.0(8
.1*1
.039
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
S.TT6
33.960
.839
.381
62.463
9.292
0.000
9.499
2T.89T
.»99
.10*
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*0
2.604
.09T
.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.550
2.T69
0.000
0.000
5.0*6
.200
.968
1.94T
0.000
0.000
.1TO
1.998
3.908
.999
.319
.009
.012
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.460
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.030
.OOT
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
4.990
2.T69
9.0*6
.031
T.13E
.960
0.000
.0*0
2.606
.09T
.022
0.000
ACRYkON 9TYRENI POLL FAC
MFG MFG PETRO
CMEM REF
1000 LB 1000 LB 1000 LB
0.000
0.000
0.00"
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.190
.192
.369
.083
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.000
.750
0.000
0.000
.917
.800
2.1*9
5.892
0.000
o.ooo
.*95
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
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.000
.750
.917
.119
239.36*
2.*09
0.000
.ISO
.192
.369
.063
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.69*
2.798
.229
.092
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.qoo
0.000
0.000
0.000
20.000
S.7T2
0.000
0.000
1.923
2T.OOO
1.899
3.662
0.000
0.000
.763
3.969
4.346
9.997
.60*
.027
.021
0.000
.006
0.000
.000
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.663
.*23
.001
.001
.002
.013
.6*6
.072
.018
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
20.000
5.TT2
1.923
.**0
14.933
2.861
0.000
t.69*
2.T96
.229
.052
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.019
.«15
.039
.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.100
.073
0.000
0.000
.001
1.380
.209
.968
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
.019
.019
.035
.001
0.000
F-14
-------
TABLE F-14
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE ANALYSIS
1000 LS EACH PROCESS OR SYSTEM
INPUTS TO SYSTEMS
NAME
MATERIAL COTTON
MATERIAL SULFATE BRINE
MATERIAL HOOD FIBER
MATERIAL LIMESTONE
MATERIAL IRON ORE
MATERIAL SALT
MATERIAL GLASS SAND
MATERIAL NAT SODA ASH
MATERIAL FELDSPAR
MATERIAL BAUXITE ORE
MATERIAL SULFUR
ENERGY SOURCE PETROLEUM
ENEROT SOURCE NAT SAS
ENERGY SOURCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE HISC
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD FIBER
ENERGY SOURCE MYDROPOWER
MATERIAL POTASH
MATERIAL PHOSPHATE ROCK
MATERIAL CLAY
MATERIAL GYPSUM
MATERIAL SILICA
MATERIAL PROCESS AOO
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-CONSUN
ATMOSPHERIC PESTICIDE
ATMOS PARTICULATES
ATMOS NITHOOEN OXIDES
ATMOS HYDROCARBONS
ATMOS SULFUR 0>IOES
ATMOS CARBON MONOXIDE
ATMOS ALDEHYDES
ATMOS OTHER ORGANICS
ATMOS ODOROUS SULFUR
ATMOS AMMONIA
ATMOS HYDROGEN FLOURIOE
ATMOS LEAH
ATMOS MERCURY
ATMOSPHERIC CHLORINE
HATER80RNE OtS SOLIDS
ATERRORNE FLUORIDES
HATE180RNE DISS SOLIDS
H4TER80SNE BOO
ATERBORNE PHENOL
ATERBORNE SULFIDES
ATESSORNE OIL
ATERBORNE COO
ATERBORNE SUSP SOLIDS
HATERBORNE ACID
HATERBORNE METAL ION
HATERBORNE CHEMICALS
VATER60RNE CYANIDE
HATERBORNE ALKALINITY
ATERBORNE CHROMIUM
HATERBORNE IRON
HATERBORNE ALUMINUM
HATERBORNE NICKEL
HATERBORNE MERCURY
HATERBORNE LEAD
HATERBORNE PHOSPHATES
HATERBORNE ZINC
HATERBORNE AMMONIA
HATERBORNE NITROGEN
ATERBORNE 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 SOUHCE NAT SAS
ENERGY SOUHCE COAL
ENERGY SOURCE NUCL MYPHR
ENERGY SOURCE HOOD HASTE
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL BTU
MILL 8TU
MILL BTU
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNDS
MIL BTU
MIL 8TU
MIL BTU
THOU GAL
UNITS
POUND
POUND
POUND
CUBIC FT
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUND
POUND
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
PO'JNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUNO
POUND
UNITS
POUNDS
MIL 8TU
THOU SAL
CUBIC FT
POUNDS
POUNDS
CUBIC FT
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
MIL BTU
POLYSTY POLYPROP MELAMINE PET HOPE LOPE LAS *CR»L!C,
RESIN RESiN MOLDING RESIN RESIN SESSN SYS RESIN
JYS SYS COMPOUND SYS SYS SYS SYS
SYS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
22.63
15.35
.86
.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
49.48
14.25
.65
24.1*
3.31
46.67
5.84
13. T9
0.00
0.00
2.13
12.19
3».7T
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
1.96
.27
.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
.02
0.00
0.90
49.49
39.0*
3.31
.39
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
40.1*
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
a. 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
4.86
.48
.00
.00
.04
2.10
1.25
.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
e.*o
0.00
0.00
220.31
21.84
0.00
Z5.74
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.SS
1.98
.00
.00
.04
.17
2.93
.98
.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
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.M
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.01
IS. 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
1.59
.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
.57
0.00
c.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
a. 69
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
5.54
.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
0.09
0 C 0
0.00
o.oc
o.co
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
7. OS
31.7*
3.64
.82
O.OC
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..0
1. 0
0, .1
f. to
o jo
191. '.-6
0. 10
o.c :
0.00
0.30
249.78
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.»6
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
O.'--
0 f
O.G5
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.3".
0.00
0.00
0.01)
0.00
s.a-
35. 7i
.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.
3.5J
ol
.05
0.00
.42
0.00
.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
S.44
a. si
.01
.00
.07
13.80
1.19
.28
.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
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
*li
.24
o.ol
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 the 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.
44Q/l-74-009-a, April 1974.
5. Atmospheric Emissions from the Petroleum Refining 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.
I/ See comment No. 3 Appendix B, pages 3-4.
R-l
-------
14. "Ethane and LPG 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. Sassier, and L. P. Haller, "How Feedstocks
Offset Ethylene," Hydrocarbon Processing. 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 Recovery and 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. *
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 Materials. 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 Petrochemical 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. Schmid, "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-
cessing, 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. L., 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. 483, 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. l
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).
I/ 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.
Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
November 1974.
74. Personal Communi cation, 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. Shreve, 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 Waybill Statistics. 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., Gorham, 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 Industriess Ltc., Montreal (1973).
100. Olotka, Fred T., Formal Discussion on "Canadian Experience with ':he
Reduction of Mercury at Chlor-Alkali-Plants," International Conference
on Heavy Metals in the Aquatic Environment, December 6, L97J.
101. Cabass, R., and T. W. Chapman, "Losses of Mercury fro:? Ohlorfne Fants:
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-Othmer 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, Industrial 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 WellsPotential Pollutants of the Environ-
ment, Journal WPCF, December 1971.
112. Maryonowski,
112. Maryonowski, Chester W., Disposal of Polymer Solid 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, Chemical Process Industries. 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 studytowels, napkins, sheets,
diapers and foodservice wareare 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, MSI 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-i
_!/ See comments, Appendix B , pages 11-12.
"i_l See comments, Appendix J, pages 37-38.
_3/ See comments, Appendix J, page 21.
S-l
-------
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 cloththeir 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. Contactt 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
-------
A series of studies performed by Sidwell, Dixon and McNeil (10,
67, 68 and 69) examined the persistence of vaccinia virus and poliomyelitis
virus on cotton and wool fabrics* Two types of wool material and three types
of cotton, including cotton sheeting, were exposed to the virus strains
i
by direct contact, aerosol, and dustj and then held in two varying condi-
tions of humidity--at 35 percent and 78 percent. Vaccinia was found to sur-
vive up to 14 weeks in the wool fabrics at low humidity. In cotton, the
virus was recovered only up to 6 to 8 weeks at the low humidity, and for
less than 6 weeks at the 78 percent humidity. Again, persistence of vac-
cinia virus on all fabrics was concluded to be of sufficient duration to
be of epidemiological significance. The poliomyelitis virus persisted for
1 to 4 weeks on cotton fabrics at 35 percent humidity. In higher humidity,
the period of viral persistence was shorter, although the decrease in virus
titer was less rapid. The authors note that "since the major source of polio-
virus in the human environment is feces of infected individuals (cases or
carriers), the persistence of the virus on fabrics commonly used In cloth-
ing and bedding is of major importance in considering possible virus dissemi-
nation by fomites," (10, Page 183).
Two studies done by Wilkoff, Westbrjok and Dixon (83 and 84),
demonstrate that Staphylococcua aureus and Salmonella typhimurium also
remain on fabrics for significant periods of time. Staph aureus was found
to survive on all fabrics, including cotton sheeting and cotton wash-and-
wear (exact composition not indicated) for sufficient periods to be of epi-
demioiogicai significance* Salmonella persisted on cotton sheeting for 24
S--4
-------
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
ontc 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 n 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
II 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 products 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, via fabric, is dependent on a variety 9? 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
does 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
commenti
"The phenomena of commmicability 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 laundering 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 becomes highly sig-
nificant in producing products which meet acceptable public health standards.
The laundering process provides three basic mechanisms by which
bacteria can b$ destroyedi
. The mechanical action of water and detergent solutions;
. The action of heat; and
. The bactericidal action of reagents used for cleansing.
1. Mechanical Actiont The first step Involves the physical removal
of bacteria-harboring soil from the fabric. The agitation of the washer,
coupled with detergent, lifts Che 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 milliliter of water in the average load.
As the contaminated water is flushed away and replaced by clean water, the
bacterial count is deerementally 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 is approximately the same as that of
the 100 temperature--a 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
-------
107
10
£
o
<§
103
102
101
1
Detergency &
Dilution Only
« Bleach Added
1
.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 ro 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
-------
TABLE 1
CO
4
EFFECT OF LAUNDERING AT DIFFERENT
TEMPERATURES ON CONTAMINATED COTTON SHEETING
Water Temperature
Hot C130-140°F)
Barm (100-108* P)
Cold (70-80° F)
Detergent
Anlonic
Monlonlc
None
Anlonic
Nonionlc
Rone
Anionic
Nonionlc
None
Hean Virus Tlters (CCID5Q/ml)
Direct Contact Exposure
Virus /
Control"
Test
"
io
IS
o
4'0
"
lO5'
106.4
105-9
10
io
10
5'6
5-9
6'3
io
to2-1
Test
io
°-5
0°
'5
io
,0.4
0.4
« *
io°-6
101-2
Aerosol Exposure
Virus
Control
Test.
w
4-3
4-5
to3-9
Source: Sidwell et al. "Quantitative Studies on Fabrics as Disseminators of Viruses: V. Effect of Launder
ing on Pollovlrus - Contaminated Fabrics," (67).
a/ Swatches which were exposed to virus, held 16 hours at 97°F In 35 percent relative tramidity and tesi:ed.
bj Sane as a/, plus swatches were laundered.
£/ Same as a/, plus swatches were laundered and allowed to dry for,20 hours.
-------
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 160° 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 Staph aureus at 140 ,
130° and 120°; obviously, the 120° 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
-------
en
i
1000
£ loo
c
I 10
^ 5
1
1000
^ 100
c
I 10
>- 5
1
I I II
6 7 8 9 1011 12 13
PH
60 80 100 120 140
Temperature (° F )
140
120
IMOO
+-
.1 80
~ 60
ai
| 40
20
0
10 25 50 100 500 1000 ppm
Concentration cf
Available Chlorine
Source: Marmo, Anthony, "Bacteria Control in the Laundry," (34).
Figure J - Time to Produce 99?<, Kill of Bacillus Metiens Spores Using Chlorine Ulsach
-------
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;
iture
£H
11.2-11.4
11.0
10.8
10.5-10.6
Operation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Suds.
Suds
Suds
Bleach Suds
Rinse
Rinse
Rinse
Rinse
Sour
Starch
Time
(Min)
5-7
5-7
5-7
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
(°F)
180
160
160
155
160
140
120
100
90
90
5.0-5.5
S-17
-------
2. Wash Procedure for Polyester/Cotton Linens;
Operation Time
Number (Min)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
_a/ Spin.
Break
Flush
Suds
Rinse
Bleach
Extract^/
Rinse
Extract
Rinse
Sour
3. Colored Loads
10
3
10
3
10
1
3
1
3
5
Level Temperature
(Inch) (°F)
6
8
6
12
6
12
12
6
(cotton) :
140 1
0
140
140 1
140
140 2
125
110
95 p
Same as standard
Per 100 lb. load
1.5 Ib 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 140°, 120°, 100°, and 100°, 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*
5t Commercial Flatwork (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 160° or higher) for standard white work. Although
S-18
-------
these time and temperature recommendations do not match those presented in
the literature (160° 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
flush
1st Suds
2d Suds
jd Suds
4th Suds
1st Rinse
2d Rinse
3d Rinse
ith Rinse
Sour and
blue
Supplies Used
Soap and alkali
Soap and alkali
Soap and alkali
Soap and alkali plus
Sodium hypochlorite
--
--
Sodium acid fluoride'
(°F)
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 cai
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
(°F)
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 140°F 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 91°F to 118°F at the beginning of the wash cycle, and from 88°F to
108 F at the end of the wash cycle.
S-22
-------
Bacterial counts were made of treated and untreated wash 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
Number of Families
Total Number From Whose Laundry
of Strains Species were Isolated
Species Identified (Total of 9)
Staphylococcus aureus 41 7
Staphylococcus epidermidis 58 8
Micrococcus aurantiacus 8 4
Micrococcus candidus 6 5
Micrococcus caseolyticus 5 3
Micrococcus conglomeratus 5 4
Micrococcus flavus 5 4
Micrococcus freudenreichii 1 1
Micrococcus luteus 5 2
Micrococcus varians . 3 3
Sarcina sp 16 8
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 21 7
Escherichia coll 4 2
Escherlchia intermedia 1 1
Paracolbactrum aerogenoides 20 8
Paracolbactrum intermedium 15 7
Paracolbactrum coliforme 7 7
Aerobacter aerogenes 3 2
Aerobacter cloacae 2 2
Proteus- vulgaris 2 2
Flavobacterium sp 5 4'
Achromobacter sp 1 1
Alcaligenes fecalis 55 9
Alcaligenes bookerl 5 3
Alcaligenes marshallii 1 1 .
Alcaligenes recti 6 2
Alcaligenes viscolactis 1 1
Brevibacterium sp 29 7
Bacillus subtilis group 27 8
Bacillus megatherium-cereus group 43 9
Source: McNeil, Ethel, "Studies of Bacteria Isolated From Home Laundering,"
(36).
S-24
-------
significant bacteria from a household hygiene standpoint were Staphylococcus
aureus, Pseudomonas acruginosa and Parac.olbactrum« In evaluating the health
status of families whose launtjerecl 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| five of the eight with Paracolbactrum aerogenoides reported
intestinal disorders} and three of the seven with Pseudomonas reported ear
or genitourinary infections* In each cage, 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
-------
(00 percent of the organisms) however, as water temperatures and detergent
concentrations increased, bacterial survival decreased on the contaminated
fabrics, on the sterile fabrics following redepositipn of bacteria from
contaminated fabrics, and in the wash water* Figures 4 and 5 illustrate
these results for the fabrics and wash waters*
o>
o
o
eg
c
After Wash
'Redeposition
60 100 140
Water Temperature (°F)
Figure 4 - Count After Washing with
Various Water Temperatures
.1 .2 .3 .4
Detergent Concentration (%)
Figure 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 water; and
4. A low detergent concentration.
S-26
-------
Home laundries often exhibit all of these factors, with lower water tem-
peratures, overfilling of washers resulting in a low water-to-fabric ratio,
and misuse of- detergent's* Another problem emphasized in this study is the
removal of clothes from automatic dryers before they are completely dry.
This practice, often followed for no-iron fabrics, provides a warm, moist
environment which encourages bacterial growth*
Tables VI and VII in Appendix A to this report provide complete
results of Vitt and Warden's experiments on two types of fabric.
A fourth study which investigated noncommercial laundering was
performed by the Applied Biological Science Lab, Inc., for the Linen Supply
Association of America (LSAA) 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 100°F 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 aeruginosa. 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
-------
i ^ Control^/
£ 8 All
"" Enstaph HD
*g u- Control^/
AS All
[ - Enstaph HD
§ ^ Controls/
£ § All
1 -
J u- Control S/
1 k. A"
c*> *~ Enstaph HD
k
9
*
T«
_J
^^T
T
«
T
T
0 100 300 500 700
Bacteria Count per Swatch
' £/ No Detergent Added
v 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
-------
TABLE 5
MICROBIOLOGICAL TEST RESULTS IN NUMBER OF COLONIES PER SQUARE INCH
en
I
U)
o
Run 2
No iron
sheets
No sani-
tizer
Run 1
Type Sheets and
Washing Method
50% cotton
50% polyester
sheets washed at 100°F
with one 5-min suds
and two 3-mln rinses.
Dried at 160°-165°F
using no bleach, no
sour or sanitizer
Same as A, except 1 pt
Run 2 of 1% sodium hypochlorite
No iron sheets bleach per 100 Ib added
Sodium Hypo- for wash cycle
chlorite.
Run 1
Ironed
Run 2 100% cotton sheets
washed by the usual
Not ironed commercial method at
cotton 160°F, using bleach,
sheets sour and ironed on an
Sodium Hypo- eight-roll ironer
chlorite
Contact Plates
Before After
Washing Washing
19 0.47
2 0.08
71 1.34
3.0 0.11
148 0.24
5.0 0.03
Homogenize tlon Direct Plate Count
Before
Washing
1/100
1/1000
1/100
1/1000
1/100 6
1/1000 15
1/100
1/1000
1/100 2
1/1000 16
1/100 4
1/1000 5
479
667
133
500
,150
,500
846
917
,888
,500
,800
,750
After Before
Washing Washing
46 98
42
71 60
83
6.0 276
0
12.5 28
0
13 1,626
42
4.0 270
Con-
taminated
After
Washing
1.42
0.125
1
0.08
80
2.0
Source: Bradley, L. A., The No-Iron Laundry Manual, (2).
NOTE: Variation in bacteria counts on soiled sheets before washing, probably reflects the physical con-
dition of different patients*
-------
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
-------
103
^D
*C
9>
t5
J!
102
101
^
\
i
/
/
/
r
/
1
1
^
/
x^
A-
-
C-
D2-
n .
D4~
D6-
-
F-
G -
H-
ABC D2D4D6D10D14D16E 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
-------
TABLE 6
THE NUMBER OF ORGANISMS ISOLATED FROM DIFFERENT SOUCES IN LAUNDRY B DURING MAXIMUM SORTING
CO
1
Ul
CO
ACTIVITY. 2:30 P.M.
Air
Location
Sorting Table
Near Washer
Near Extractor, 2 in.
Near Extractor, 6 in.
Near Extractor, 10 in.
Near Extractor, 14 in.
Near Extractor (off)
, THE FDLIN-BUBBLER WAS EMPLOYED FOR SAMPLING THE AIR
Organisms/
ft2
350
135
300
500
1040
2150
150
Water
Source
Before Washing
Final rinse
Extractor, 2 in.
Extractor, 6 in.
Extractor, 10 in.
Extractor, 14 in.
End of extraction,
16 in.
Organisms/
ml
200
250
12,200
45,400
601,000
1,080,000
1,940,000
AND LINEN
Linen
Organisms/
Step ml
Before washing 38,000
After rinse 350
After Extrac-
Near Ironer
Folding Table
140
300
tion
After Ironing
After Folding
165,000
250
1,140
Source: Church and Loosli, "The Role of the Laundry in the Recontamination of Washed Bedding," (6).
-------
In summaryi 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
literaturet
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);
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.
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 napkima ar« even more sparse. In the absence of definitive
information, attention will be directed in this section to specific concerns
raised regarding the prescribed product applications, and, where possible,
to tfce IntarpolatfcM Of otter relevant data to these concerns.
The chief concern in the use of towels or sponges for wiping up
kitchen spills is 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 sponge is used to wipe up a spill containing bacteria (e.g.,
juices from raw meat), 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 sponge 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 discuasioa that the public health threat posed by reuse of cloth towels
_!/ 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 Che 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.
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.
2
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 moist, warm environment of the diaper
region) is much more susceptible to ammonia1 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.
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.A 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 Launderingr 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.
S40
-------
TABLE 7
DIAPER RASH INCIDENCE IN DISPOSABLES COMPARED TO CLOTH
Type of Diaper
Plastic-backed
disposable #1
Plastic-backed
disposable #2
Paper-backed
disposable
Cloth
Number Number of
of Diaper
Babies Changes
Newborn Nursery
225 2,752 (3 weeks)£'
225 3,364 (4 weeks)
225 1,668 (7 weeks)
173 2,092 (4 weeks)
Premature Nursery
/
Percent of Babies
Developing Rash
4.57o
1.07.^
2.57.
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)
10.27,
5.87o
2.67«
0.97o
Source: Silverberg, Alvin and David Glaser, "Disposable Versus Reusable Linen
in the Nursery--Results 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 testingo
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 hondisease-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
con'trol 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 courae, 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 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 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 quaternpry ammonium compounds used in commercial diaper services are
See comment Appendix D, page 44.
S-44
-------
TABLE 8
INCIDENCE OF DIAPER RASH ACCORDING TO METHOD OF DIAPER LAUNDRY
Diaper Service Disposable Diaper Home Washed
Total
Diaper Rash (2 Days or Less)
Diaper Rash (Over 2 Days)
O1
Diaper Rash Total
Number % Number
74 236
11 14.9 37
7 9.5 24
18 24.4 61
% Number %
887
15.7 201 22.6
10.0 114 12.9
25.0 315 35.6
Source: Grant et al. "Diaper Rashes In Infancy: Studies on the Effects of Various Methods of
Laundering," (19).
-------
cited as inhibitors of rash. Even with multiple rinses, the hone-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 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 INCIDENCE OF DIAPER RASH
Total
Diaper Rash
2 Days or Less
Diaper Rash
Over 2 Days
Diaper Rash Total
1 to
No.
692
162
86
248
3 Rinses
X
.»
23.5
12.4
35.9
Over
No.
195
35
28
67
3 Rinses
3
__
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, 4.
subtilis
I- colif nonhemolytic
streptococci, J3.
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,
±
which has a pH of 5.5*1.5, 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
Average Bacterial Counts Per
Cu Cm Wash Water
Cold Soak
1st Suds
1st Rinse
2nd Rinse
3rd Rinse
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 FORMULA-
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
65° F
65° F
110° F
125° F
145°F
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
165°F
175°F
175°F
175°F
140°F
120° F
100°F
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 110°F (the lower range of house-
hild 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 wastes 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
-------
TABLE 13
cn
ui
to
Virus Group
Poliovirus
Nonpoliovlrus
Hepatitis
Type A
Type B
Adenovirus
PREVALENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF VIRUSES SHED IN FECES
Occurrence Severity of Population Immunity Assumed
(Percent of Diapers) Associated Disease Level (Percent) Health Threat
20
1 to 20
1 X 10
-4
a/
Minor to severe
Moderate
Severe
Minor
790 Small
13 to 75 Small to Moderate
"High" Small
"Low" Small
50 Small
Source: Fox, John P., "Viral Infection Hazard of Disposable DiapersOpinion Statement,"
Professor of Epidemiology, University of Washington
a/ While the potential for reversion of vaccine strains to wild types may exist to some
limited extent on passage through man, normal disease potential of vaccine strains is
very low.
-------
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-
murium was added to whole leachate at two different temperatures (22 C and
55°C) 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 55°C at both pH values
was: S.. typhimurium > Fecal streptococci » 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 discemable 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 37°C.
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.
iadlca^-e^pha t
fecal material in soiled disposable diapers may represent as CT
f=jg;gnanig^ nn ^ 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,
fffeJVBJjHag^j^^ ,fy£ . f e r.a I
cen t by we-ight-T:Kave'.--b'cc Q ..... uneuc c cs s f u 1 .
^ con-
fi.i.ther.iibaslSCi.a.' °* viruses
l-ejcha±e~wh£ch ean~b& detected -over - and -.-above - the^backgrouadlevel .
^^rnun^^ of
oad frpnL^alld^^s:t^:.-have-.;cen.tere.d.._around occurrence of viable or-
in. Jjeacha.T.fl . ; ln.-gene.ral, the_physical., characteristics, of the land-
,£i-U environment-are inhospitable to- survivaL and gr.owth_of_micr.oorganisms.
In ' ad*3lrtieftr.« the leaeha^fi^emana-tinggrora-a- ^lahdf i,LL. app.ear,s._.t.o_.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
re sul ts nnf*"*jwf"n"1lBrg'n "las ""»- ° v>1 ° -to dejtect viru ses f r_om -^jrap-t-dly *-"""^'>ffi
^^ '""IT
i!B*se8--6o solid waste components does occur.
.6
^ niro c f -i
iar'"l'^iiilf ifl 'leBa7StS^--Andetf- one
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. ^saa5*:g%^Jtr3C^f jjtg:V;.g r****
fe^^
into."">th«"sul'id"'vas Luj s> Lt ttt
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 N1IS 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 handlingmaking 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 Litskys' 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-making; (2) during
bed-making; and (3) during bed-stripping, in an actual patient room housing
four ambulatory patients. 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-
i
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
EJ-62
-------
TABLE 14
COUNTS OF VIABLE AIRBORNE MICROORGANISMS DURING BED-MAKING WITH
DISPOSABLE AND REUSABLE LINENS
Number of Microorganisms Per Ft3 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
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
Number of
Minutes After
Shaking
4
5
6
7
8
10
Pillow Case
Reusable
148
130
369
60
101
69
Disposable
61
37
21
23
45
8
SOILED LINENS
Microorganisms Per Fi:J
Bottom
Reusable
4,790
4,700
3,070
1,780
1,060
456
Sheet
Disposable
262
127
173
137
109
49
o £ A 1 r
Flat
Reusable
2,630
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
-------
TABLE 17
NUMBER OF NONVIABLE AIRBORNE PARTICLES DISPERSED INTO THE AIR BY SHAKING OF LINENS FOR 1
MINUTE IN LABORATORY CHAMBER
Time in
Seconds After
Shaking
0
200
800
1,300
Average Particle Count x 103 Per 100 Seconds^'
Pillow Case
Bottom Sheet
Flat Sheet
Disposable
Reusable
Disposable
Reusable
Disposable
Reusable
Clean Soiled Clean Soiled Clean Soiled Clean Soiled Clean Soiled Clean Soiled
59
54
22
10
77
56
16
38
60
51
25
17
87
57
49
38
62
65
60
50
185
180
164
74
175
179
157
101
100
210
201
167
78
61
52
47
126
90
81
62
187
180
166
89
209
230
189
130
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).
£/ Expressed as counts x 10-* above the base line count of the chamber prior to installation of linen.
-------
recontamination. The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH)
requires that hospitals launder their linens at a temperature of 160° 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
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
Q
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 tabl'.. As noted in the earlier reference to Church and Leosli's
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 Che 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
i
of proper sterilization."
As a result of these and other similar findings, the U.S. Public
I
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.S. 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 75 F; 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 180°F 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 states--Nebraska, 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 Standards; 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, temperature's and detergents resulted in
sanitation problems* By the late 1940's, surveys of dishwashing practices in
I
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 (32) 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 sanination.
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
Annbruster (63) compared the cleanability of china to that of plastic (type
not specified). They found char. 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 cleanability
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 itthe 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:
(1) 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 (170 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
_!/ 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 GAQ'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*
I
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.
JL/ 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 GAO, 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
and disease is poorly understood and little documented.
See comments Appendix J. pages 27-30,
2
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 fron
the standpoint of bacteriological and aesthetic standards. The bacteriological
standard of 100 organisms per glass was exceeded in over SO 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
-------
TABLE 20
BACTERIAL CONTENT OF BEVERAGE GLASSES HASHED AND SANITIZED IN HOTEL/MOTEL ROOMS
OT
oo
a\
Location
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Frankfort, KY
Lexington, KY
Minneapolis
New Orleans
Newark
Nashville
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington, D.C.
(Maryland-Virginia)
Hotel/Motels
Surveyed
5
5
2
2
2
A
3
3
2
5
2
5
Number of
Glasses
Examined
25
25
10
10
10
20
15
15
10
25
10
25
Standard Plate Count (Per Class)
Arithmetic
Mean
3. A
A.I
6.0
3.6
5.3
A.3
9.1
3.3
6.0
8.3
1.0
5.0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I06
105
106
106
106
107
106
105
106
10?
103
106
2. A
1.0
A.O
2.5
3.1
2.3
5.6
2.0
2.0
A.O
1.0
3.0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
106
105
106
106
10°
107
106
105
106
107
103
106
- 6.1
- 5.1
- 7.0
- 5.0
- 6.5
- 7.0
- 9.7
- 5.1
- 9.1
-10.0
- 2.0
- 7.0
Staphylococcus
Range
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
106
105
106
106
106
107
106
105
10°
107
103
106
AureusS'
10/25
5/25
5/10
2/10
10/10
5/20
15/15
8/15
««
18/25
3/10
20/25
Streptococctg/
5/25
5/25
2/10
A/10
7/10
5/15
11/15
10/10
20/25
10/10
8/25
Source: Walker, Bailus, Jr., "Bacterial Content of Beverage Glasses in Hotels," (78).
_a/ Number of glasses positive/number of glasses examined.
-------
and strepcococci 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
-------
TABLE 21
BACTERIAL CONTENT OF BEVERAGE GLASSES WASHED IN CENTRAL COMMISSARY
en
oo
oo
Location
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Frankfort, KY
Lexington, KY
Minneaspolis
Newark
New Orleans
Nashville
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Washington, D.C.
(Maryland-Virginia)
Hotel /Mote Is
Surveyed
2
3
3
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
Number of
Glasses
Examined
10
15
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
15
Standard Plate Count (Per Glass)
Arithmetic
Mean
1,000
900
600
750
800
900
700
550
670
1,000
1,200
1,000
Col i form (Per Glass)
Arithmetic
500
200
400
500
650
500
500
450
539
500
1,000
900
Range
- 1,500
- 1,000
- 1,000
- 1,200
- 1,700
- 1,270
- 1,460
- 1,060
- 1,560
-18,000
- 1,400
- 1,600
Mean
100
100
200
110
80
200
400
300
294
500
700
90
100
100
100
100
50
150
300
200
105
400
300
50
- 450
- 500
- 300
- 500
- 100
- 540
- 900
-1,000
- 550
-1,100
- 900
- 700
Source: Walker, Bailus, Jr., "Bacterial Content of Beverage Glasses in Hotels," (78),
-------
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
Coliforas
Staphylococci
Fseudomonas
EnterococciJy
Molds
Total Count
Aerobic Spores
Anaerobic Spores
Coliforms
Staphylococci
Pseudomonas
Enterococciii'
Molds
Institution
A B C D E F
Average Number Organisms per Millimeter of Water Samples^'
59
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
130
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,250
190
35
0
250
0
280
2
230
180
1
0
20
0
0
0
Wash
230
1
10
0
0
0
0
0.
Rinse
35
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Water
155
138
0
0
0
0
0
Water
14
7
0
0
0
0
__
3
0
v
0
10
0
0
--
0
0
--
0
0
0
0
-_
45'
114
0
10
0
16
--
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 PRETREATSD AND WASHED AND
RINSED EATING UTENSILS COLLECTED FROM SELECTED INSTITUTIONS
Institution
A
B
C
D
E
F
Average Number
From Duplicate
PretreatedS'
30
110
TNTC£'
180
TNTC
TNTC
Bacteria Recovered .
Samples of Dishwaref
Washed/Rinsed
20
45
45
120
20
20
Source: Lloyd et al. "Bacteriological Observations of Hospital Commissary
Environments," (30).
_a/ 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 140° to 160°F, wash cycle of 160°F, and
a flow rinse at 180°F. 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.
1 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
Type of . Number of (Average)
Percentage Distribution of
Microbial Counts 00
Tableware~
Plates
Trays
Cups
Glasses
Spoons
Forks
Knives
Samoles
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 Factors: 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
Table war eJ/
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 (7.)
5.5
10.4
15.2
15.8
30.3
35.4
42.4
64
60
34
38
59
57
55
1-50
34
35
59
55
31
32
36
12
2
5
7
7
10
11
9
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.
TABLE 26
MICROBIAL CONTAMINATION ON HOSPITAL TABLEWARE BEFORE USE
Number of
Samples
628
629
315
313
105
105
105
Mean
(Average)
Counts
Percentage Distribution of
Microbial Counts (%)_
Type ofa/
Tableware""
Plates
Trays
Cups
Glasses
Spoons
Forks
Knives
Source: Jopke et al. "Microbial Contamination on Hospital Tableware," (24).
_a/ Expressed as colonies/utensils for the flatware and colonies/rodac place
for the other types of tableware.
3.4
11.2
14.6
10.3
109.5
72.6
34.1
77
54
24
36
53
55
49
0
77
54
24
36
53
55
49
1-50
22
42
71
60
27
30
39
50
' 1
4
5
4
20
15
12
S-93
-------
TABLE 27
MICROBIAL AIRBORNE CONTAMINATION WITH AND WITHOUT AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS IN HOSPITAL DISHWASHING FACILITIES
1st Visit
Type of
Ventilation
With Air
Conditioning
Without Air
Conditioning
Number of
Hospitals
14
7
Number of
Samples
1,075
555
Mean
(Average)
10.8
40.1
2nd Visit
Number of
Samples
1,109
553
Mean
(Average)
10.9
27.3
3rd Visit
Number of
Samples
277
138
Mean
(Average)
10.3
28.0
Total
Number of
Samples
2,461
1,246
Mean
(Average)
10.8
33.1
W
vo Sources Jopke et al. "Air Conditioning Reduces Microbiologic Levels in Hospital Dishwashing Facilities," (23)
-------
A final consideration in the handling of permanent foodservice
ware is breakage. Of the three types of products being considered in this
studyraelamine, 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
-------
TABLE 28
BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLING OF DISPOSABLE FOODSERVICE WARE AT ELMHURST HOSPITAL
I
VO
Sample
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Area Tested in
Square Centimeters
185
131
108
169
132
44
138
75
200
314
47
99
133
934
140
169
133
185
Number of
Items Tested
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Top
or
End
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
Bacterial
Number
Count Bottom of Items
Per Item
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
.4
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*&
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4m
0
0
00
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10m
0
0
0
0
0
or
End
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Exceeding
Standard
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Col i form
Test
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Controls
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Agar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: "Hospital Study of Patient Feeding on Single Service," Single.Service Institute, (21).
a/ Mold.
-------
TABLE 29
RESULTS OF THE "EIGHT HOSPITAL STUDY" (20 COLONIES PER 16 CM
MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVEL) COLONIES PER 16 CM2 (RODAC PLATE)
Sample
(All Paper)
4 ounce cup ,
9 ounce cup ,
Hot drink cupj
9 inch plate-
6-3/4 inch plate
Soup bowl
Vegetable bowl
Additional
Items Tested
Foam cups-
Individual
sugar packets
Individual salt
packets
0
0
0
0 1
7
0
TNTC
9
0
0
27
0
0
0
57
TNTC
TNTC
0
0
0
7
15
9
0
Facility
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
TNTC
0
0
2
0
TNTC
31
TNTC
TNTC
0
31
54
5
0
0
0
0
TNTC
0
0
0
0
0
0
TNTC
11
9
0
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.
_U 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 0 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
Sources "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 GAD 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
and the membership of public and environmental health organizations. These
See comments Appendix J, pages 33-35
2
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,
I
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 Re-spon dents-*
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).
£/ 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 . i
Total 2,760 100
Source: Walker and Price, "The Health Profession's Attitude Toward Single-Use
Food and Beverage Containers," (79).
£/ 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. .
a/ 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.
b/ Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer.
S-104
-------
TABLE 3A
CONTRIBUTION OF PAPER AND PLASTIC CUPS AND PLATES TO SANITATION LEVELS IN POOD SERVICE FACILITIES
Public Health Professional
Public/Environmental Health
Administrators
Officials of Professional
Public/Environmental
Health Organizations
Sanitarians
^ Public/Environmental Health
£ Academicians
Environmental Health Scientists
Public Health Officials in
Federal Agencies
Total
Contribute
Very Much
Contribute
Somewhat
Contribute
Slightly
Do Not
Contribute
At All
Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
876
70
207
17
153
12
1,245
45
10
978
38
112
29
2,043
56
85
57
47
64
74
6
129
14
69
7
432
33
11
21
29
16
16
30
9
50
7
249
__
3
13
21
16
9
2
8
6
9
2
36
11
1
9
4
4
I
18
1,145
67
240
45
2,760
1
41
100
Source: Walker and Price, "The Health Profession's Attitude Toward Single-Use Food and Beverage Containers," (79).
Number: Number of respondents.
Percent: Percent of respondents (percentages are founded to the nearest integer).
-------
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-
i
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 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.
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 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 dishwashing. And yet I know of no evidence of this char-
acter.' ...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 Milliliter
Wash
Water
80
640
90
40
40
1,400
1,130
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
<.io
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
Participant Ingredients
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)
(pom)
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
Number Bacteria
per Milliliter
Wash
Vfatejr
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
-------
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 0^
0
0
0
0
200
200
200
25 <£/
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
<10
100
<10
Rinse
Water
180
6,400
4,600
610
340
170
350
10
20
280
70
140
30
30
<10
1,670
2,800
1,660
20,300
<10
520
160
30
380
550
60
80
210
32,000
800
20
1,390
640
No. Bacteria per
Square Inch
of Swatch
*
925
3,500
550
--
25
--
50
<25
0
100
0
--
1,500
710(M)
25,600
750(M)
300
50
<25
100
1,900
75 (M)
850
2,500
--
1,600
50
150
<25
Detergent
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Source: "Disinfectants in Hone Laundering," Paper presented May 16, 1962,
during 48th midyear meeting, Chemical Specialties Manufacturers
Association, Chicago, by Ethel McNeil and Eva A. Choper.
aj Disinfectant used at concentration of 160 ppm in wash and 90 ppm in rinse.
S-lll
-------
TABLE III
EFFECTS OF THE USE OF DISINFECTANTS IN RINSE WATER AT THE WARM WATER SETTING
No. Bacteria per
en
i
Participant
Number
I
2
3
4
5
Treatment
None
None
None
None
None
None
Quaternary
Quaternary
Phenolic (D)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
None
Quaternary
None
Quaternary
Phenolic (D)
Phenolic (E)
None
. Quaternary '
Quaternary
Phenolic (E)
None
Quaternary
Phenolic (E)
Active
Ingredients
(ppm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
200
125
125
85
250
250
250
0
' 200
0
200
75
250
0
200
200
250
0
200
250
Milliliter
Wash
Water
12 , 300
8,400
20,500
2,810
14,000
2,120
5,700
64,000
12,000
4,200
6,300
8,300
6,100
7,800
117,000
83,000
340,000
324,000
1,250,000
33,000
340,000
141,000
417,000
270,000
72,000
11,500
6,500
Rinse
Water
1,900
7,000
3,300
1,130
1,200
870
0
<10
<10
70
370
50
80
100
2,800
<10
41,000
<10
35,700
170
38,000
30
<10
3,600
19,000
0
30
No. Bacteria per
Square Inch
of Swatch
_
1,800
200
'
50(M)
50
<25
850
25
<25
25
650
0
3,750
75
850
<25
650
500
700
700
<25
275
*
Detergent
Anionic
Anionic
Anionir
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
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.
-------
TABLE TV
en
i
EFFECTS OF THE USE OF DISINFECTANTS IN WASH WATRR AT THE WARM WATER SETTING
No. Bacteria per
Participant
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Active
Ingredients
Treatment
None
None
None
None
None
None
Quaternary
Quaternary
Phenolic (B)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (C)
Phenolic (D)
Phenolic (F)
Phenolic (F)
Phenolic (F)
None
QUjffternary
None
Phenolic (E)
None
Quaternary
Quaternary
Phenolic (D)
Phenolic (E)
Phenolic (E)
None
Quaternary
Phenolic (E)
(ppm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
200
250
125
125
100
95
95
165
0
200
0
250
0
200
200
100
250
250
0
200
250
Milliliter No. Bacteria per
Wash
Water
12,300
8,400
20,500
2,810
14,000
2,120
20
120
<100
310
330
40
190
1,300
90
117,000
20
340,000
12,800
340,000
70
690
10,300
16,500
480
72,000
20
4,700
Rinse
Water
1,900
7,000
3,300
1,130
1,200
870
170
680
150
520
170
<10
60
1,000
20
35,000
10
41,000
3,700
38,000
2,000
2,400
2,900
13,300
4,700
19,000
40
580
Square Inch
of Swatch
»
1,800
--
200
125 (M)
1,300
25 (M)
675 (M)
25 (M)
l.QOO(M)
<25(M)
25
22,250
100
3,750
75
650
25
1,100
525
1,175
200
700
40
25
Detergent
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Nonionic
Nonionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Anionic
Nonionic
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.
-------
TABLE V
EFFECT OF THE USE OF CHLORINE BLEACH IN WASH WATER
Participant
Number
3
8
i
i
9
Available
Chlorine (ppm)
Beginning of
Wash Cycle
None
320
None
None
320
320.
320
320
320
160
None
320
320
320
320
160
Number
Bacteria
per Milliliter
Wash
Water
210
10
160
5,500
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
36,000
100
< 10
< 10
10
10
Rinse
Water
620
10
650
3,900
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
41,000
60
10
< 10
< 10
30
Number Bacteria
per Square Inch
of Swatch
125
75
150
4,400
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
875
50
25
50
25
< 50
Available Chlorine
End of
6 Minutes
<.
93
49
13.5
15
9
End of
(ppm)
End of
Wash Cycle Rinse Water
~
--
78
40
10.6
11
8
*
3.5
18
0.1
0.1
0.07
Detergent
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic Anionic
Soap
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic Anionic
Synthetic 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.
-------
TABLE VI
140°<
Water
Temperature
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
100°<
60° <
Warm
Warm
Warm
Worm
Warm
Warm
Warn
Warn
Warm
Warm
Warm
.Warm
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
COUNT OF STAPIIYI.OCOCCUS AUREUS AT VARIOUS WATER
Detergent
Concentration
(percent)
' none
none
none
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
none
none
none
O.t
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2 ~
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
none
none
none
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
, "Can Home Laundries
-
(Numbers Are
Wash 0-Inoc.
Ho. x 106
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
I
2
3
I
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Stop
850
2500
235
4900
252
236
4900
1300
168
4900
1400
41
1450
2500
236
6800
1500
168
6800
1500
168
6800
252
41
2500
2.36
41
252
168
90
252
41
90
1400
4100
895
the Spread of Bucter^
TEMPERATUIIES AND DETERGENT CONCENTRATIONS ON NYLONS AND COTTON FABRICS
Counts per Square Inch of Fabric)
Survival
Initial After
Count
x 10*
28
191
375
101
1231
2558
142
705
745
143
705
749
133
191
375
97
521
745
97
521
745
150
1232
749
22
2557
372
931
488
160
123
934
160
705
934
160
v In Clothing?" (85).
Wash
x 106
V
0
0.005000
0
0.000048
0.000001
0
0.000014
0
0.000003
0.000005
0.000001
0.000001
13.000000
29.770000
1 . 100000
0.193000
2.030000
0.540000
0,240000
1.610000
0.070800
0.000225
0.131900
0.000301
10.400000
73.000000
34.320000
1.900000
1.840000
0.045600
31.500000
21.180000
3.870000
0.446900
12.200000
28.340000
Survival
After
Dryg RedepoHltlon
x 10 x 106
0
0.001000
0
0.000025
0.000001
0
0.000008
0.000001
0
' 0.000007
0.000001
0.00000 I
0.006560
0.102000
0.001320
0.007775
0.001597
0.004527
Q.,002915
0.001195
0.000524
0.000067
0.000842
0.000001
0.023266
0.478000
0.254000
0.000503
0.000502
0.011000
0.013337
0.011494
0.115000
0.000091
0.001526
0.000705
0.000001
0.003000
0.000001
0.000054
0.000002
0
0.000014
0.000001
0
0.000005
0
0
0.270000
0.235600
0.033000
0.055000
0.100500
0.041500
0.001200
0.030500
0.013900
0.000146
0.016800
0.000042
1.400000
5.600000
29.790000
0.061000
0.081400
0.006300
0.113700
30.230000
5.460000
0.008400
0.046500
0.039400
-------
TABLE VII
ORIGINAL INOCULUM COUNT. IHITIAL OOUKT BEFORE WASH. SURVIVAL AFTER WASH. SURVIVAL AFTER DRTING AND RKDEPOS1TIOH
Water
Temperature
140',
CO
1
H"
<7»
100*.
60*
"Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
_n»t
~Wana
Wane
Wara
Wana
Wara
Wara
Wara
Wara
Wara
Wara
Wara
Jrtra
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
COUNT OF STAFHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS AT VARIOUS HATER TEMPERATURES AND DETERGENT CONCENTRATIONS ON WOOL. NTLOH AND COTTON FABRIC
(Nuaber*
-
Detergent
Concentration Naah 0-Inoc.
(percent) . Jlo. x 106
none
none
none
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.2
O.Z
0.4
0.4
0.4
none
none
none
0.1'
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
none
none
none
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
9900
202
41
9900
202
33
9900
161
34
9900
161
41
1450
202
41
1430
202
33
aso
161
41
830
161
41
202
41
41
702
33
41
161
41
41
161
41
10
Are Count* per Square Inch of Fabric)
Initial
Count
x 10*
16
658
341
16
1293
1560
1600
1073
16
16
2337
104
159
6586
341
159
1293
1560
32
1073
310
164
2337
104
66
1700
10
1293
1560
104
1073-
310
104
2337
310
217
Survival
After
Uaali
xip6
0
0.050000
0.069700
0.000001
0.028957
0
0
0
0.015000
0
0
0.000148
0.252200
0.669200
53.150000
0.333700
0.033700
13.440000
0.014228
0.039000
0.003771
0.627770
1.200000
0.357600
48.450000
48.400000
57.860000
37.840000
21.880000
31.260000
7.770000
3.433000
11.830000
26.040000
3.510000
0.183800
Survival
After
.5.
0
0.003040
0.007483
0.000001
0.001037
0.000008
0
0
0.004339
0
0.000003
0.000001
0.016200
0.093000
0.030000
0.009213
0.017000
0.025240
0.000016
0.002919
0.000016
0.000188
0.000002
0.000163
4.700000
0.090000
0.803000
0.100000
0.002870
0.015187
0.001336
0.001219
0.205192
0.007615
0.004171
0.035000
edepoeltlon
x 10*
0
0.209500
0.075000
0
0.023540
0
0
0
0.003240
0
0.000370
0.000402
0.003000
0.050800
1.500000
0.053700
0.023600
2.574000
0.001128
0.071000
0.000337
0.130810
0.212000
0.049300
.960000
.260000
.430000
.490000
.140000
.880000
0.930000
0.060600
2.040000
2.700000
0.710000
0.038000
Source, Witt and Warden, "Can «o»e Uundrle. Stop the Spread of Bacteria In Clothing?" (85).
-------
APPENDIX:! IB
't
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND G&NTACT LIST1
""""""'i'ir """"""""""*~
See comments Appendix B, pages 11-|12.
S-117
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Blarmon, Janet C., and Mirdza Peterson, "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. 7, 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 a,l., "Virus Survival in Solid Waste Leachates,"
Water Research. Vol. 9, pp. 733-739, August 1975.
8. Davis, J. G., "A Bacteriological Investigation of Tovels," 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. IBS-
IBS, 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 'Kleenex1 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 Summary. 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 Mlcrobiologic 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. Jonea, 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." Health Laboratory 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 vith 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 Nevs. 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
Institv.te.
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.
51. Personal Communication, Jack 3. 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 Co 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 K. Revell, Food Products Control Division,
Iowa Department of Agriculture, to Mary L. Sinister, 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,
Ho. 2, pp. 138-149, February 1953.
64. 'The Sanitary Aspects of Commercial Laundering," Special Report No. 224,
American Institute of Laundering, Jollet, 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 U.
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. :
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 Hospita;!, 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, B.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.
t
i
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 Staphylocoecus 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. Niles, 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)
Barnhardt Manufacturing Company
1100 Hawthorne Lane
Charlotte, North Carolina 28233
(T. M. Barnhardt, III, Executive Vice
President, Sales)
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
BeIton, 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 Drags
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
-------
Fieldcrest 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 R 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) 68:6-9170
(Margo A. Rpsenfeld)
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 i
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)
Hanmade 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 Etcinger, General Manager)
Singla 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 Philbia)
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. Janaen, Secretary-Treasurer)
Thatcher Glass Company
2 Corporate Park Drive
White Plains, New York 10604
(Or. 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. Jonas)
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Kansas City Regional Offica
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)
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-1
-------
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTED
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 iaccuracy of the data. Under-
standably, the comments of some of the respondjents 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
ROW:qa
T-TL.
-------
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-J
-------
APPENDIX A
American Paper Institute, inc.
26O Madison Avenue. New York. N.Y. 10016/1212) 883-sooo
cable address: AMPAPiNsr 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:
RE: 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 this 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,
?/ //. /./>/.
Stuart J. McCampbell
Manager
SJMrv
Seruing itie pulp, paper and paperboard industry
-------
APPENDIX B
American Paper Institute, inc
260 Madison Avenue, New York.N.Y.iOOi6/(2i2) 883-8OOO
cable address: AMPAPINST New York TlSSUC 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
error's. 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
4
way, many key positive observations or values related to the cited'sanitary paper pro-
ducts for instance:
Serving the put p. paper ana poperboo/d industry
-------
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
and 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.
^>
submitted,
Attachment
Manager
American Paper Institute
Tlssue ^vision
(I l -
-------
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 04010-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 sanitary 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 cointract 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 rjelated to encouraging or discouragir
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-
I
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 findings 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 studiedj
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
Our review of the Draft Report indicates the following mechanical or data-gathering
Mjrors. (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
I
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 11 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
7-5
-------
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 efflutent 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, net 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 fl-5. If the higher temperatures are
used in the calculation, the energy requirements are increased by 60Z!
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 consume^ 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.
so-3
-------
SHORTCOMINGS IN HEALTH AND SANITATION REVIEW
The Draft Report does not present a well-rounded discussion or evaluation of the health
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*foavoid
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
/z-3
-------
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.
kis 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."
I
. 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.
-------
Mixed 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 acknovrledge 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."
;
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
onsumer 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 Ob 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 3c for cloth napkins after all
costs including laundry are factored in.
/7-B
-------
Paper napkins also offer the spill and grease ahsorbency 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 ena&les them to keep
babies' skin drier, eliminating need to "double diaper" and requiring fewer
changes. They present clean, fresh, surfaces each, ciiae with no risk of carry-rover
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 OS 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. 4010**D has not furnished any comparative data
I" '
on subject disposable and reusable projects of an economic nature. Clearly no attempts
to xcross-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 these:
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
.hat penalize disposables in the Draft Report, it still shows the majority of lower
(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 sisply 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
Use Uses Laundered
As Draft Report Stands:
Disposable lower impact 5 1* 6
Reusable lower impact 26 1
Allowing for Corrections:
Disposable lower impact 5 5" 5
Reusable lower impact 22 2
Commercially Home Commercially
Laundered Laundered Laundered Toti
5 5
2 2
6 5
1 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:
I
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.), 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
i
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 napk'ins 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
fo
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 10Z of the total diapering
market, meaning that 90X 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
s. 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 2Z 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 ratios at this time, in the use of recovered materials in all United
States industry.
-------
REFERENCES
Most facts used in this commentary are supported by the following research'special 1)
conducted by the American Paper Institute on the disposables/reusables questions posed
by EPA Project No. 4010-D:
Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Selected Disposable Vs.
Reusable Diapers, Napkins and Towels, A. 0. Little, Inc., March 1977.
Comparative Analysis of Sel-ected 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
"Products, 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 Towels and 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, 250
Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10016.
6/23/77
-------
APPENDIX
Some Additional Literature References on Microorganisms
and Viruses in Relationship to Solid Waste
1. Croawell, D. L. , " Identification, of Kicroflora Present in Sanitary Landfills,"
M. S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Korgantown (1965).
2. Cook, E. A», et al., "Microorganisms in Household Refuse and Seepage Water from
Sanitary Landfills," Proc. West Virginia Acad. Sci., 39, 10? (1967).
3, Peterson, 11. L., and Stutzenberger, F. J., "Microbiological Evaluation of
Incinerator Operations," Applied Kicrobiol. , 18 8 (1969).
4. Qasin, S. R., and Burchinal, J,, C. , "Leaching from Simulated Landfills," Jour,
Hater Poll. Control Fed., 42, 371 (1970).
5. Peterson M. L», and KLee, A. J., "Studies on the Detection of Saluanella is
Municipal Solid VJaste ana Incinerator Residue," Intern. Jour. Environ. Studies,
2, 125 (1971).
6, Peterson, !!. L., "The Occurrence and Survival of Viruses in Municipal Solid
Wastes," Doctoral Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1971).
7. Gaby, U. L., "Evaluation of Health Hazards Associated vath Solid Vlaste Sevage
Sludge Mixtures," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Reoort, Contract
Ho. 6S-03-0128 (1972).
8. Smith, L., "A Brief Evaluation, of Two Methods for Total and Fecal Coliforns in
Municipal Solid VJaste ana Related Materials," U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Open File Report (1972).
9. Engelbrecht, R. S., et al., "Biological Properties of Sanitary Landfill Leachate,"
in Virus Survival in Water and V.'astsvrater Systecs, J. ?. I-Ialina and B. P. Sagik
(eds»), Water Res. Syrap. Ho. 7j 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 Colums of Bacterial Indicators of Fecal Pollution," !! S. Thesis,
University. of Cincinnati, Cincir^iati (1974)*
11. Sobsey, M. D., Personal Corjauiication, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
0974).
12. Sobsey, !!. D., et al., "Development of Methods for Detecting Viruses in Solid
Haste Landfill Leachates," Applied Microbiol. , 28, 232 (1974).
13. Novello, A. L., "Poliovirus Survival in Landfill Leachate and Migration Through '
Soil Columns," II. S. Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio (1974).
14* Engelbrecht, R. S. , and Anirhor, P., "Biological Impact of Sanit&ry Landfill
Leachate on the Environment, " Presented at Second Hat. Conf. on Complete Water
Reuse, Amer. Inst. Chen. 3ng., Chicago (1975)*
15» Sobsey, K. D., et al. , Studies on the Survival and Fate of Enteroviruces in an
Experimental I.'odel of a Llunicipal Solid Waste Landfill and Leachate." Applied
Kicrobiol., 30, 555 (t"975). ' '
16. Gaby, W. L., "Evaluation of Health Hazards Associated with Solid Wacte/Sevase
Sl'.i-j^c Uixturer," U. S. Er.viror.T.er.tpi "' tcction A-on-y, Report 3PA-670/' ^-323
-------
APPENDIX C
AMERICAN RESTAURANT CHINA COUNCIL, INC.
328 N. PITT STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA. 22314
PHONE (7O3) 548 2588
June 24, 197?
Mr. Charles Peterson
Project Officer
Disposables Reusables Contract (AW-463)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Peterson:
V/e appreciate the opportunity to c^axent on the
draft report comparing selected disposable and
reusable products as submitted to you by the
Midwest Research Institute.
It is our hope that cur 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 /\. Mills
''Executive ''Director
Encl.
AMERICAN MANUFACTURES OF VITRIFIED CHINA FOR T;HE FOOD SERVICE INDUSTRY
MEMBER:
BUFFALO CHINA. INC.. BUFFALO. N.Y.
CARIBE CHINA CORP.. VEGA 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 CORP., SYRACUSE. N.Y.
WALKER CHINA CO.. BEDFORD, OHIO.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF
DISPOSABLES VERSUS REUSABLES
Irving J. Mills
Executive Director
AMERICAN RESTAURANT CHINA COUNCIL, INC,
528 N. Pitt Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-
(703) 54-8-2588
June 24, 1977
fire-
-------
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."
I. 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. V/e do not claim
authorship nor are we a sdurc'e 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. Fitt 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 rep'ort 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 applied assumption has been
made which is invalid when the economic aspects
of the .work done by KRI are not presented "due
to lack of data".
No study of disposables versus reusables will
ever 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
v/ell 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 reusaoles 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.
J-C.
-------
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 0? DIS-
POSING OF DISPOSABLES WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL
PRICE TAG, THE ATTITUDE 0? THIS NATION TOWARDS
DISPOSABLES V/OULD, V/E SUBMIT, CHANGS PERCEPTIBLY.
Further, the Environmental Protection Agency, under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, of 1975,
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 fivin^ 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 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 modi-
fied with the result that emphasis was shifted, distorted,
and aborted from the original purpose. How 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 availabilityt and a study of
the social and economic price the nation is really
for a "throw away" society.
-------
iL*
DIAPER SERVICE ACCREDITATION COUNCIL V *"
TJ"*"
Ruth P. Livwey
Extcuthn Dinetor . ,, -.nti
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 skin. 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.
2O17 WALNUT STREET PHILADELPHIA. PENNA. 191O3 AREA CODE 215 LO 9-365O
l-b
-------
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 absorbenoy, 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 160° 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
Mrs. Ruth P. Livesey
Executive Director
Enc:
CC: Dr. Coursin
Dr. Spahr
Fred Wilson
T. J. Skillman, Jr.
-------
Oper at ion
Supplies Used
Teraperature
Time in Minutes
Flush
Flush
Flush
Break
Suds
Suds
Strip
Bleach
Rinse
Rinse
Sour
15" water level
Same level
15" water level
15" Soap
15" Soap
15" Soap
15" Ortho Phosphate
15" Sodipm hvpochlorite
15" Water
15" Water
7" Zinc Silico
100°
110°
140°
160°
174°
176°
172°
150°
140°
120°
2
2
2
4
5
5
5
2%
2
2
fluorite
Quaternary
110
compound
Fabric softener
in
-------
Rtprinttd from thi Amtrion Journal uf Public Health
Vol. 64. Number 9. Scpterarwr :9"*
Pnntrd in U S.A.
Soiled Disposable Diapers:
A Potential Source df
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/
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,
che 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 1:5 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.
Poiiovirus 3 was recovered from disposable diapers in
both sampling areas and echovirus 2 was found in two
912 AJPH SEPTEMBER, 1974, Vol. 54. No 3
-------
TABLE 1Amount of Soiled* Diapers in Municipal Solid Waste,
1971
Sampling
Amount of Diapers
Area
Date
Total waste
Separated Soiled Feces-contaminated
A
A
B
B
February
April
July
July
Ibt
800
9,200
2,800
3.600
% total waste $
25
09
0.6 §
OJB§
IX)
03
02§
OJ§
Includes diapers contaminated with urine or feces.
f Pounds (wet weight).
$ Percentage (wet basis).
§ 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
Area
A
A
B
Date
.February
April
July
No. of Samples
Tested
20
34
30
Viruses
No.
3
1
5
%
15.0
23
16.7
TABLE 3-Isolation of Viruses from Fecally Contaminated Dispos-
able Diapers from Areas A and B, 19711
Area Month Sample No. Total PFU/Gm Virus Types
A February
B April
B July
29
31
39
53
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
pn, 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.10 The results indicated that six of the isolates
had clearly defined d+ marker characteristics, and one was
doubtful (d±); six strains showed T+ markers, and one was
T± (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.'' 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 polioviruses.
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, Virus Titer
Strain
Bicarbonate
overlay, 37"C Markers
High bicarbonate
High Low over lay. 40" C d T
February isolates
(area A)
April isolate
(area A)
July isolates
(area B)
5.8
5.9
6.0
5.3
5.3
5.7
5.6
5.8
5.8
5£
45
4.0
49
5.0
5.7
5J8
5.7
4.3
53
5.3
53
« «.
f +
+ +
f »
.! +
+ +
+ ' +
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.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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.
Milford 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 S4.5 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 Sewage and River
Wiater in a Metropolitan Area. Am. J. Hyg. 30:320
327, 1964.
7. Sabin, A. 3. Behavior of Chimpa;..~£ea Virulent
Poliomyelitis Virus in Experimentally .-.tr'-rted Human
Volunteers-. Am. J. Med. Sci. 230:3. ]"? V'
8. Ramos-Alvarez, M., and Sablii, A. 3. Intestinal Viral
Flora of 'Healthy Children Demonstrable 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. Cc.ntrol Ferler.
32:1269-4273, 1960.
10. Benyesh-M'elnick, J. L. In Live Poliovirvis Vaccines.
First International Conference of Li%e Poliovirus
Vaccines, 1959, pp. 179202. Pan American Sanitary
Bureau, Washington, DC, 1959.
11. Melnick, J. L. Problems associated with the use of live
poliovirus vaccine. Am. J. Public Health 50:1013
1031, 1960.
This study was made at the Solid Waste Research
Laboratory, t|.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Na-
tional Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dr. Peterson is a Senior Research Microbiologist with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clinical Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514. These data were
presented, in part, at the Seventy-Second Annual Meeting
of the American Society for Microbiology in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, in April, 1972.
AJPH SEPTEMBER. 1974, Vol.64, No. 9
-------
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
t
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 lias 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 fcowels versus sponges, or paper versus cloth napkins.
-------
IV. DIAPERS
The disposable diaper has become an increasingly popular produce
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, utilisa-
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 significancs 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; and (2) Anmonial 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.
"fa*** ?£"*&**
Brown anfi "Syam ( 3 ), in studying diaper dermatitis, found that
a 2-stage process exists in the development of dermatitis. In the first
stage, bacteria act on ehe urtia 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 moist, warm environment of the diaper
region) is much more susceptible to ammonial dermatitis.
The second stage of the process involves the secondary invasion
Sh~f .
of already-irritated skin by pathogenic bacteria. Brown isolated Staphy-
loeoecus aureus and Beta hemolytie streptococci (both known pathogens) in
babies with rash, but only one incident of Stap h 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
-------
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 Diaoers; A 1963 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. Tvo 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 disposable's; in the premature unit, 7.3 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 Dia-per 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 comaercial Establishment, in many cases a diaper service.
-------
TABLE 7
DIAPER RASH INCIDENCE IN DISPOSABLES COMPARED TO CLOTH
Type of Diaper
Plastic-backed
disposable #
Plastic-backed
Plastic-backed
disposable #1
Plastic-backed
disposable #2
Paper-backed
disposable
Cloth
Number Number of
of Diaper
Babies Changes
Newborn Nursery
225
2,752 (3 weeks)±'
a/
67 2,648 (3 weeks)
67 4,135.(4 weeks)
67 3,864 (7 weeks)
64 3,711 (4 weeks)
Percent of Babies
Developing Rash
4.57.
disposable #2
Paper-backed
disposable
Cloth
225
225
173
3,364 (4 weeks)
1,668 (7 weeks)
2,092 (4 weeks)
Premature Nursery
1.0&
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).
£/ 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- t
tory). The laboratory established the TOiaseptic Process]" a specific method
for laundering diapers so they will meet certain standards of sanitation,
vfctfn&^v05'^& ^ /** 1*^*9** *'* 0*1
aesthetic quality, pH balance,^softness, anc ablorbency. 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.
1^1 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
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, £he 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 carbanflflide (TCC)a 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
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 NTIS 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 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 3.
.The authors attribute' their findings to the fact that commercially
I* *& . laundered diapers are virtually sterile and are thoroughly rins«d of all
p
chemical contaminants. Additionally, bacteriostatic agents such as bleach
and quaternary ammonium compounds used in commercial diaper, services are
-------
tx
TABLE 8
INCIDENCE OF DIAPER RASH ACCORDING TO METHOD OF DIAPER LAUNDRY
Total
(2 Days or Less)
(Over 2 Days)
Total
Diaper
Number
74
11
7
18
Service
2s
14.9
9.5
24.4
Disposable
Number
236
37
24
61
Diaper
°A
15.7
10.0
25.0
Home
Number
887
201
114
315
Washed
"Is.
22.6
12.9
35.6
Source: Grant et al. "Diaper Rashes In Infancy: Studies on the Effects of Various Methods of
Laundering." (19).
-------
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
*
Total
Diaper Rash
2 Days or Less
Diaper Rash
Over 2 Days
Diaper Rash Total
1 to
No.
692
162
86
248
3 Rinses
2a
_.»
23.5
12.4
35.9
Over
No.
195
35
28
67
3 Rinses
%
__
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.
-------
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_.
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
inhib ition
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-
r»«/te>S\*e«>^u
ment, notably ffreoliency tf changing. The bacteria present in home-laundered'
should therefore be viewed as one potential cause of "rash.
-------
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,
~h / 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 168,388; 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. -. i ..
As in -&MMC5fer^stjadyX no direct correlation between diaper rash
incidence and bacterial count is made; again, it 'can only be assumed that
(is less likely to produce conditions favorable for diaper
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/
-ifr-b
-------
TABLE 11
BACTERICIDAL EFFICIENCY OF HOME DIAPER WASHING
Average Bacterial Counts Per
Cu Cm Wash Water
2,248,033
1,983,000
1,171,033
719,940
168,388
Operation ___
Cold Soak
1st Suds
1st Rinse
2nd Rinse
3rd Rinse
Source: "The Sanitary Aspects of Commercial Laundering,"
Special Report for the American Institute of
Laundering, (64).
TABLE 12
BACTERICIDAL EFFICIENCY OF A COMMERCIAL DIAPER FORMULA-
a/
^Operation
1st Cold Rinse
2nd Cold Rinse
1st Suds
2nd Suds
3rd Suds
Suoolies Used
Soap and Alkali
Soap and Alkali
Soap and Alkali
plus 2 quarts
1% soldium hypo-
chlorite per
300 Ib load
Temperature
65° F
65° F
110°F
125° F
145°F
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
165° F
175°F
175°F
175°F
140°F
120° F
100° F
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).
-------
Jl'f
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 110°F (the lower range of house-
hild 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 be«n shown to
contain densities of fecal coliforas 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
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
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 ths 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
-------
TABLE 13.
Virus Group
Pollovlrua
Nonpoliov.lrus
Adenovirus
PREVALENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF VIRUSES SHED IN FECES
Occurrence . Severity of Population Immunity Assumed
(Percent of Diapers) Associated Disease Level'(Percent) Health Threat
20
1 to 20
a/
Minor to severe
790 Small
13 to 75 Small to Moderate
Hepatitis
Type A
Type B
9
2
1 X 10 ~4
Moderate
Severe
"High"
"Low"
Small
Small
Minor
50
Small
Source: .Fox, John P., "Viral Infection Hazard of Disposable DiapersOpinion Statement,"
Professor of Epidemiology, University of Washington
a/ While the potential for reversion of vaccine strains to wild types may exist to some
limited extent on passage through man, normal disease potential of vaccine strains is
very low.
-------
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 JJ 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. Adanoviruses
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 C and
55°C) 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 55°C at both pH values
was: S_. typhimurium > Fecal streptococci » 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
-------
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 37°C.
-------
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. Conclusiont 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 1'eachate. 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 37°C 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 chp 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-
1. Although disposable diapers were associated with a greater/
incidence of diaper rash than hospital-laundered cloth diapers in one 'study,-,
i
they performed as well as commercially laundered diapers in another study. \
i
1
On the basis of these conflicting results, no definitive statement can be '
i
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 >sterilityiand 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
~Tnnpe ettflMite aiaperythan 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
-------
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 faces 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
LaOonna Harris
Denis Hayes
Hazel Henderson
Olga Madar
Margaret Mead
Glenn Paulson
Victor Reuther
Alvin Toff lei-
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 -n.
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
U -fc_
-------
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 omissionscould 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
i- e:
-------
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 problem 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 realizeNthat 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 cfcata 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 cruflial 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 j.n deciding use factors.
Another fact of life that could be mentioned in the report
z-e
-------
is the fact that a shift from reusables to disposables is generally
made across the board. Generally speaKing, the shift involves
not just a single product, but an entire range oi 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 pthfer materials mentioned, limestone,
^alt, 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
ETHVL TOWER
«3I FLORIDA
BATON ROUGE. LA. 7OPO!
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, B.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
- F
-------
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 toe 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.
l\ -F
-------
[association
'of the
nonwoven fabrics indust
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
, _ (cont'd.)
.1-3
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 <:<:, iy//
intended by this study. In the event that the Environmental Protection.
Agency should decide to retain this study, in any form, either on open
or closed files, then we most insistently urge that a copy of this
letter be included as an official part of that document.
We submit that the analysis of any disposable vs. reusable product
lines encompasses a highly complex set of values which requires, in
addition to many of the missing factual data as set forth above, the
inclusion of quality of life quotients and economic impact analyses which
have been completely ignored. We stand ready to offer whatever help
possible in reaching a fully informed and properly intelligent decision
as it relates to our national needs and priorities should such occasion
arise.
Very truly yours,
INDA /
RWS:rs . " Robert W. Sullivan, President
-------
National Wildlife Federation
112 16TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 Phone 202797-6801
June 28, 1977
Mr. Charles Peterson, Project Officer
Disposables/Reusables Contract (AW-463)
Office of Solid ₯aste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
If01 M Street, S.V.
: . Washington, D.C. 20^0
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 *hich 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 itams
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 ace 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 of 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-i
-------
Charles Peterson/
cussing commercial use of cloth towels and napkins, there is no question of the
"alidity of the environmental impacts that result from the washing of 'loads com-
j£3ed entirely of towels and napkins. In the home, however, washloads are not
sd the same way they are commercially. Most homes have a set a wash schedule.
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 washloads 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 MRI 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
-rt
-------
HI East Wacker Dri\
Chicago, Illinois 6060
June 24, 1977 312/644-6610
Mr. Charles Peterson
Project Officer
Dlsposables/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 1n the preparation of the final report'and in
consideration of any future studies.
Cordially,
£7Y~ui/
Iris Lalne
Executive Secretary
IL/cg
Enc.
i-TL
-------
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
*-
-X
-------
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
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 disposables 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 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.
Z.-IL
-------
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 resource
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.
3. 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
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 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 away" society'.
3-1
-------
APPENDIX J
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. Reusables''»
(Disposabies/Reusables Contract AW-463, MR I Project # i»010-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 MRI 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 Dod 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 flexibility -- 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 (AOL 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.14).
5. The report contains inconsistent data ... (p.lA).
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).
-------
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.
'* * T
I* I -*
-------
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 MR I
report. To this end, we hope that our comments will be helpful.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Foster
RWF/mc Executive Vice President
Ends.
V-J
-------
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. Page
1 REPA Flow Diagram 7
Table No.
1 Heat Content of Selected Industrial 15
Solid Waste Products
2 Energy and Post Consumer Solid Waste . 16
Impact Before and After Energy Recovery
Incineration Processes
3 REPA Impact Credits for Trim Waste 20
Recycle
4 REPA Impacts for Hot Drink Reusable 21
Systems
5 Energy Impacts for Reusable Tumblers, 23
Cups and Plates
6 Energy and Water Requirements for Flight 25
Rack Dishwashers
7 Data for Single Rack/Time Cycle Washer 27
8 REPA Impact Estimates Single Rack/Time 28
Cycle Washing Unit
9 REPA Impacts for Dish Washing with Single 29
Rack/Time Cycle Washer
10 ADL Versus MRI Energy Estimates for 30
Permanent Ware Washing
11 REPA Impacts for Washing 31
12 Cold Drink System Alternate REPA 36
Impact Estimates
13 Hot Drink System Alternate REPA 37
Impact Estimates
14 Plate 'System Alternate REPA Impact 38
Estimates
,; -.r
-------
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 MRI'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 - J~
-------
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 Impact 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 -JT
-------
Includes Three Questionable Aaeimptiona:
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 Waterborne
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
A -
-------
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.
5-0"
-------
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 -
-------
Raw Materials
Harvesting/
Extraction
Materials
Processing
Recycled
Materials
Processing
I L
Product
Fabrication/
Converting
T
Use/
Consumption/
Discard
Final
Dispcs.il
r
FIGURE 1
REP A FLOW DIAGRAM
7 -
-------
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 can 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 -
-------
The Comparability of Products Studied
A key assumption in the analysis is that products being compared
(e.g., a disposable versus reusable plate) are substltutable
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
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
REFA 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 -
-------
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
-------
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 spacer 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.
*
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 - J"
-------
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
(BTU/lb dry)
Ash
(weight %)
Corrugated Board and
Paper Products
7600
5.0
Hardwood
Textiles
Plastics
Metals, Glass
Misc. Rubber
8300
8000
14,600
12t>
11,300
3.0
3.0
1.5
95.0
15.0
Food Waste
8400
5.0-
Source: H. Hollander & J. D. Lesslie, AATCC Symposium
"The Textile Industry and the Environment 1973"
page 101.
15 -
-------
TABLE 2
I
H
ENERGY AND POST CONSUMER SOLID WASTE IMPACTS FOR DISPOSABLE AND REUSABLE
SYSTEMS
WITH AND WITHOUT ENERGY RECOVERY INCINERATION PROCESSES
Glass Tumbler-
Polypropylene
Tumbler
Paper Cup 9 oz. cold drink
Polystyrene Cup thermoformed
China Cup
Melamine Cup
Paper Cup 7 oz. hot drink
Polystyrene Cup
China Plate
Melamine Plate
Paper Plate white uncoated
Polystyrene Plate foam
Assumption: Density of ash 75
(impact /million uses)
Without Incineration
Post Consumer
Energy Solid Waste
(MM BTU) (cu. ft.)
204 1.8
209 1.4
416 241
697 187
611 4.9
591 5.3
356 237
571 761
439 8
402 6
453 368
1479 4582
Ibs/cu. ft.; ash residue is 8% by weight
With
Energy
(MM BTU)
204
208
310
509
611
584
251
507
439
394
206
1164
Incineration
Post Consumer
Solid Waste
(cu. ft.)
1.8
0.1
14.9
13.7
4.9
0.5
14.7
4.7
8.0
0.6
22.8
23.0
of waste stream.
-------
III. QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS 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. REPA 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
MRI 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 -
-------
LE 3
to
o
Raw Materials (Ibs)
Energy (MM BTU)2
Process Water (MM Gal)
Process Solid Waste (cu. ft.)
2
Atmospheric Emission (Ib)
Water Pollution (Ib)
Post Consumer Solid Waste (cu. ft.)
REPA IMPACT CREDITS FOR TRIM WASTE RECYCLE
(impacts/million
Impacts/
Ib Pulp
1.003
0.009
0.013
1 0.002
0.044
0.020
units)
Cold Drink
Cups
3109
27.6
40.3
6.2
136.1
62.0
Hot Drink
Cups
4423
39.4
57.3
8.8
193.7
88.2
Plates
4985
44.4
64.6
9.9
218.4
99.4
Scrap credit quantities are: Scrap
Cold Drink Cups 3100 Ibs
Hot Drink Cups 4410 Ibs
Plates 4970 Ibs
2
Energy credit for scrap as pulp substitute less transportation
impacts (0.1 MM BTU and 0.3 Ibs atmospheric emission) for each
system.
Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., Estimates
-------
TABLE 4
REPA IMPACTS FOR HOT DRINK
(impacts /million
REUSABLE SYSTEMS
uses)
China Cups
Without
Saucers
Raw Materials (Ibs) 4778
Energy (MM BTU) 434
Process Water (M Gal) . 200
t-j
f^
Industrial Solid Waste (cu. ft.) 42
Atmospheric Emission (Ibs) 1408
Waterborne Wastes (Ibs) 1142
Post Consumer Solid Waste (cu. ft.) 3.3
With
Saucers
5693
611
218
64
2142
1247
4.9
Melamine
Without
Saucers
3718
421
201
29
1272
1100
3.5
Cups
With
Saucers
4102
591
219
45
1938
1184
5.3
Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., Estimates
-------
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 -
-------
TABLE 5
ENERGY IMPACTS FOR REUSABLE
TUMBLERS. CUPS AND PLATES
(Impacts/million uses)
Glass Tumblers
Process Steps Washing Process
3%
97%
Polypropylene
Tumblers
5%
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 - T
-------
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 - 5T
-------
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."
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 MR I 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 -
-------
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
4^HIVB«HMIIB
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 -
-------
TABLE 8
N>
oo
Process Solid Waste (cu. ft.)
Electric
Detergent (packaging)
Total
Atmospheric Emissions (Ibs)
Natural Gas
Electric
Total
Waterborne Wastes (Ibs)
Natural Gas
Electric
Washing (20% of
Total
REPA IMPACT
:u. ft.)
ig)
(Ibs)
)
ergent)
ESTIMATES SINGLE RACK/TIME CYCLE
(impacts /million
Tumblers
16.3
1.2
17.5
201
549
750
18
94
244
356
items)
Cups
36.7
2.8
39.5
452
1235
1687
41
213
550
804
WASHING UNIT
Cups/Saucers
56.3
4.2
60.5
692
1894
2586
63
326
843
1232
Plates
29.4
2.2
31.6
361
988
1349
33
170
440
643
Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., Estimates
-------
TABLE 9
REPA IMPACTS FOR DISH WASHING WITH SINGLE RACK/TIME CYCLE WASHER
(impacts/million 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 - T
-------
TABLE 10
ADL VERSUS MRI ENERGY ESTIMATES FOR PERMANENT WARE WASHING
(MM BTU/million items)
MRI Flight Rack Washer
Tumblers
180
Cup
407
Saucer
Plates
362
Co
o
\
H
ADL Single Rack/Time Cycle
218
489
261
392
Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., Estimates
-------
TABLE 11
u>
(-
I
Raw Materials (Ibs)
Energy (MM BTU)
Process Water (M Gal)
Industrial Solid Waste (cu. ft.)
Atmospheric Emission (Ibs)
Waterborne Waste (Ibs)
REPA IMPACTS FOR WASHING
(million uses)
Tumblers
MRI
1531
179
86
13
540
389
ADL
1222
218
64
18
750
356
AVG.*
1361
200
74
16
656
371
MRI**
4520
508
243
36
1528
1368
Cups
ADL
3484
620
182
50
2137
1018
AVG.*
3950
570
209
44
1863
1176
MRI
3212
362
173
25
1086
813
Plates
ADL
2200
392
115
32
1349
643
AVG.*
2655
379
141
29
1231
720
Post Consumer Solid Waste (cu. ft.)
*Note: This average is weighted 45% for MRI's estimate (based on flight rack washers)
and 55% for ADL's estimates (based on single rack washers).
**
Estimates assuming load density for saucers 1.5 x cup density
Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., Estimates
-------
3. Service Life Assumptions
MR I 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.
-------
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 - X
-------
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
REFA impact credits for waste trim
1
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 REFA 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 -5
-------
TABLE 12
u>
1
Raw Materials (Ibs)
Energy (MM BTU)
Water (M Gal)
Industrial Solid Waste (cu. ft.)
Atmospheric Emission (Ibs)
Waterborne Wastes (Ibs)
COLD DRINK SYSTEM ALTERNATE
REPA IMPACT ESTIMATES
(impacts per million uses)
Glass
Tumbler
1503
204
74
cu. ft.) , 17
s) 680
376
e (cu. ft.) 1.8
Polypropylene
Tumbler
1372
209
75
16
718
375
1.4
Paper
Cup
26,448
416
105
49
1478
205
241
Polystyrene
Cup
1484
697
51
31
1963
266
187
Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., Estimates
-------
TABLE 13
HOT DRINK SYSTEM ALTERNATE
(impacts/million
China Cup/
Saucerl
Raw Materials (Ibs) 5693
Energy (MM BTU) 611
Water (M Gal) . 218
o> Industrial Solid Waste (cu. ft.) 64
1
*"1 Atmospheric Emission (Ibs) 2142
Waterborne Wastes (Ibs) 1247
REPA IMPACT ESTIMATES
uses)
Melamine 1 Paper
Cup /Saucer Cup
4102 38,239
591 356
219 135
45 66
v
1938 1425
1184 213
Polystyrene
Cup
1655
571
30
16
1854
253
Post Consumer Solid Waste (cu. ft.)
4.9
5.3
237
761
Assumption: China and melamine cups are used with saucer.
Saucer impacts assumed equal to cup impacts.
: Ai.thur I), Little, Inc., Estimates
-------
TABLE 14
CD
PLATE
Raw Materials (Ibs)
Energy (MM BTU)
Water (M Gal)
Industrial Solid Waste (cu. ft.)
Atmospheric Emission (Ibs)
Water borne Wastes (Ibs)
Post Consumer Solid Waste (cu. ft
SYSTEM ALTERNATE REPA IMPACT
(impacts /million
China
Plate
5263
439
153
60
1645
822
.) 8
uses)
Melamine
Plate
2814
402
151
30
1310
727
6
ESTIMATES
Paper
Plate
56,780
453
232
88
1813
265
368
Polystyrene
Plate
4087
1479
102
70
4924
609
4582
Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., Estimates
-------
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
Error
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
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 -
-------
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
date of Submission
June 28, 1977
-------
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-|
i
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 u'.i 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 d'isease 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. The MRI report dismisses the findings of higher-than-
acceptable standard plate counts and the presence of coliform
organisms on 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 hazards of
the reaction products discharged with dishwashing wastewaters.
(See page 38.)
5. The MRI 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,)
-17
-------
General 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 must 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)
/f-r
-------
to transmit disease; the most such standards can do is to indicate
ential 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
£or 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 Jn 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 decision:
"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.
-------
"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
th'at 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 incidence1 of
foodborne diseases contracted in foodservice establishments, '."n
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 1976
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 is
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 study
of the comparative bacterial levels of disposable and reusable
foodservice ware. This study, conducted by the Food Protection.
Laboratory of the Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC), is entitled
.sva-3-
-------
"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 not 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 orrission is particularly mystifying in view of the fol-
lowing paragraph on page 106 of the MRI report:
"Within the commercial or insitutitional 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-
s'-
-------
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
Considerations, which was completed on November 4, 1976. However,
this volumr 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 Single 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 dcrumentation
is hard to come by. Yet here it is, and it goes to the heart of
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
Columbia. This statement appears in a study paper entitled
-------
"Bacterial Content of Beverage Glasses in Hotels," submitted to
MR! 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 wrote it and
as it actually appeared in his paper;
i
"Anderson4 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 lat-er 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 regulator-s or
other responsible pexsons 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
the seriousness of the sanitation issues in foodservi'ce opera-
tions, and can only be seen in the context of the MRI report's
general downplaying of sanitation as a concern in the comparison
of disposable and reusable foodservice ware.
-------
Volume il, Health Considerations, Foodservice 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 public 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 19G3. 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."
-------
Fro-i "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,
for 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
sterilization problems."
Page 79, under Prevention and Control of Infection,
Isolation Techniques ar.d Procedures, Sanitation:
"... Disposable plates and utensils should be
used 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 exair.ple and there are orhcrs 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.
- -J
-------
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 140° to 160°F, and
a flow rinse at 180°F. 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 personne.l training" does not brondly
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
frequent 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 . :,ich 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 havo1 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.
On The 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 FOODSEPVICE 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,
maintaj-ied 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
Viol at. ive
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-
noss 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 "san.i t izat ion
rinse, clean, temperature, concentration, exposure time, equip-
ment, utensils sanitised" the 1976 Model Ordinance a'l locate.?. Tour
demerits. l.»ut for "single-service articles, storage, dispensing,
use" the Mouel 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 MRI report. Without clarification of 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 o4
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 rr.uy not go on to "double-
debit" by cher-;ing 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 MR I 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
-------
md the associated public health threat, Dr.- Mar-
cus Harowitz of the Center for Dicease 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 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.rle
service articles, it is possible to conclude mat
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. (Note:
Italics by MRI.)
73-r
-------
It is difficult to understand why the GAO report was 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.
T/-J-
-------
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 P "-> -indication by the MRI
75--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 HRI 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 not 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 if1 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.
ei -
-------
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 8
V. Results and Discussion 25
Appendix - Sanitary Surveys 29
63- T
-------
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. Farrow 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.X
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
ic-«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 m£s 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 m£ 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.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 ever 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 m£ and 1.0 mi plus Standard Methods
Agar. Incubated at 32°C for 48 hours.
2. Staphylococcus - 1 mi plus Streptosel Agar. Incubation at
35°C for 48 hours.
3. Streptococcus - 1 mi plus Streptosel Agar. Incubation at
35°C for 48 hours.
4. Coliform - 1 mje, filtered through a sterile Millipore filter
which is placed in a Millipore plate containing M-Endo Broth
plus Nutrient Agar. Incubation at 35°C for 24 hours.
Media control plates were made from each bottle of medium, and
Incubated 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
-------
TAbLE 1-1
L8C4TIBN
CITY-
SITE:
TE.ST TY^E:
tATEGSKy: CIUKS 8 PLATES
8ANITAWV SUM«ARY| (iBflO, FLBPRS, "ALLS*
CEILING BLD, DIRT*. EOU!PIFNT. SJN CUP
CHLP cu°
CHLP CUP
BREAD i
BREAD t>
B"EAD &
BREAD &
BREAD &
BREAD i
BREAD &
HST CUP
HBT CUP
H»T CUP
HBT CUP
HBT CUP
HUT CUP
HOT CUP
CUP
CUP
CMP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
"LATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
PLAb LA"
PLAS LAM
PLAS LA"
PLAS LAM
PLAS LAM
PLAS LA"
PLAS LA"
SrR NB
B9KL
sent.
BHtAD S,
BREAD &
BREAD &
BREAD &
BREAD &
BREAD &
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
8TR PLT
BTR PLT
BTR PLT
BO£AD & BTR PL*
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE AVEKAUE
REUSABLE SU«1
REUSABLE
REUSABLE AVERAUE
B
1
2
3
*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1*
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
«
BE
K
HE
TPC
130*0
5*P
C1
0
n
0
0
10*0
0
0
0
0
0
5.0
0
55. 0
0
0
0
0
'0
c
c
10«0
70*0
*0*0
1*5.0
5.0
50*0
5000*0
0
n
*0*r>
5V 0
130*0
*00*0
1100*0
*35.0
?0*0
30*0
130.0
5550*0
5*0
TNTC
0
19950*0
15.0
20« 0
.0
205*0
21*0
9.8
33«"00*0
27*0
12****
STAPH
0
0
0
0
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
«0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«0
0
35>o
0
?
0
0
0
0
0
0
85.0
75*0
25*0
0
0
25*0
710*0
0
0
10*0
0
0
0
.c
0
21-0
0
965*0
28. 0
3»«5
STPEP
")
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
RO*P
0
«0
0
0
0
20«0
0
.u
0
0
. 5*0
2?80*0
.0
0
.0
.0
.0
0
.0
.0
21*0
0
2*fi5«0
28*0
85.2
E.CBL1
0
U
0
u
fj
0
0
I'
u
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
«u
«0
0
0
u
0
«0
0
0
«0
0
u
«0
15*0
u
«0
0
0
0
0
I)
0
0
«0
0
80*0
0
0
0
0
"0
D
.0
0
21*0
0
95*0
28*0
3*»
-------
TABLE 2-1
L8CAT18N -
SYMACUSE
SITE? ?
TEST TYPEI *A«ILY STYLE
& PLATES
SE«VtCf.
SANITARY SUMMARY| G»80, FL88RS *ALLa,
CEILING GENERALLY CLEAN EXCEPT PBK DIRT
BUILDUP IN HARD T« CL£AN A«£AS Of FLBBR.
AREA CLEAN. NEAT.
T»>C STAPM STREP E.CSH
NO
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
UISPBSASLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP-SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP8SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
HEUSA8LE
H£US»6LE
"EUSAFLE
WEUSAELE
REUSABLE
NEUSAbLE
MEUSA6LE
REUSABLE
HEUSAHLE
KEUSAHLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSA6LE
KEUSAPLE
HEUSABLE
NEUSABLE
NEUSABLE
KEUSAHLE
NtUSABLE
REUSABLE
"^USABLE
«EUS»8LE
KEUS»BLE
REUSABLE
HEUSAbLE
«EUSARLE
*EUS»eLE
WEUSABLE
HtUSABLE
KEuSAbLE
KEUSABLE '
REUSABLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSABLE
CBLD CUP
C9LD CUP
CNLU CUP
COlC! CUP
C-JL2 CUP
C1LP CUP
COLO CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
OtMr>£H PLATt
OJNN£K PLATt
DINNE* PLATE
D1NN£N. PLATt
DINN£H PLATt
GLASS
OLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
Cup
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
OI^£K OLATE
01NME* PLATt
OTNi^EM PLATE
OINMEW PLATfc
OtNf'EH PLATE
Oir«»-£H PLATE
DINf'E* PLATE
BREAD BTR PLT
BRE'O BTR PLT
BREAD BTR PLT
BREAD BTR PLT
BPMO BTR PLT
»*EAU BTR PLT
BREAD BTR PLT
CUP
CUP
CUP
Cl.'P
CUP
CUP
CUP
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
98
93
9*
95
96
97
98
109
110
111
112
113
181
182
183
18*
185
186
187
128
189
130
131
133
1*8
1»9
150
151
152
, 153
15»
155
156
157
ISA
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
SUM
NUM8CH
AVERAGE
SUM
NUMBER
AVEHAUE
0
0
5.0
"0
10«0
15.0
0
10" 0
0
0
5.0
5.0
10« 0
0
175.Q
.0
0
«o
0
»5. o
45.Q
5.0
10*0
15.Q
5.Q
8*00" 0
750«0
60*0
10«"
8»00.0
80«0
295.Q
13Q..O
«0
.0
0
0
"0
10> 0
"0
5.0
5.0
15.0
0
*0>0
1650*0
45.0
10«C
65.Q
5.0
950«'>
15.0
235.0
1*«0
1?.4
9565.0
33.0
?89.g
A
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.Q
6o«0
0
0
0
0
0
lO'O
0
0
0
0
0
0
285>0
0
"0
(3
0
2o«o
0
5-0
19«0
3
»7o«0
33«0
14.?
0
0
«0
«0
0
0
0
0
0
«0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
«'J
«0
.0
0
>0
0
.0
«o.
0
0
0
«0
.0
.0
.0
65.0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
0
.0
.0
«u
.0
.0
0
.0
.0
«0
0
0
.0
.0
19.0
«0
65> 0
33. 0
2«0
"0
0
0
u
u
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
«u
0
0
0
u
0
«u
0
0
"U
>0
.0
0
0
0
"0
0
"0
0
o
u
0
«o
.0
0
0
u
u
0
0
19*0
0
u
33" 0
0
-------
TABLE 3-1
L8CATI8N
TEST
TEST
LATI
SEXVICI
OISPBSABLE
DISF3SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DJSPiSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
D1SP8SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
RtUS'BLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUS»SL£
RtUSAgLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
HEUSABLE
«EUS»HLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUS'BLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSAPLE
REUSABLE
CJTY: SYRACUSE
SITE! 3
TYPE! *A"ILY STYLE
:Ge*Y: CUPS & PLATES
m>-
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
0 INN£R PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATt
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
CUP
C'JF
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUH
B**L
B3*L
BBHL
1'St
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
SLASS
GLASS
SANITARY S'JMMARY. P99R. *ALLS» CEILING
IN NEED OF CLEANING. DEBRIS BN 0
0
"0
"0
20»0
125.Q
5-0
0
10-0
5.Q
0
0
7o»0
25.Q
0
0
o
35-0
0
«0
2o-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55.0
13«0
0
«0
0
0
0
0
«0
0
.0
0
0
0
"0
0
"0
35.0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
3C«0
5«0
5.0
0
5.0
25«0
5.0
"0
0
0
«0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
13.0
0
370-0 110*0
28>0 28.Q
13.2 3.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
o
0
«0
0
a
0
"0
«c
0
0
0
"0
«0
0
0
0
13-0
0
0
28«0
0
-------
TABLE »!
^8KTMEAST
CITY: SYKACUSE
TfST SITE: 4
TtST TYPE: FAMILY
LATE08RY. CU*S S PLATES
SERVICE
DISP"SABLF
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
OISP-)SABLF.
DISPOSABLE
DISpoSAHLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
D1SP9SA8LE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSAbLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
KtUS*BLE
KEUSA6LE
KEUSABLE
KtUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KLUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
HEUSAbLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
SANITARY SUM«ARYI AVERAGE. WALLS, CEILING
FLOORS. QENE»ALLY CLEAN, ceuo PHtfAKATioN
CLEAN, NEAT TRASH, JAMITOKIAL SUPPLIES
STORED IN SAME AREA. r«uL 909" P*BM
DISHWASHER DRAIN.
N8
TPC STAPM STREP E.CBLJ
CPLD CUP
COLP CUP
C8L3 CUP
CHL7 CUP
C8LP CUP
CSLO CUP
C«Ll' CUP
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATt
DINNER -PLATE
DINNER PLATt
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATt
6MWL
B«»L
b"»L
BOKL
BtJfL
BIwL
8t**L
BREAD & BTR PLT
BRE<0 5 BTR PLT
B»EAD BTR PLT
BREAD BTR PLT
BREAD BTR PLT
BRE»D BTR PLT
8"£AD BTR PLT
BRE»0 BTR PLT
BREAD BTR PLT
B"E»0 BTR PLT
BREAD BTR PLT
BRtAO BTR PLT
BRtAO BTR PLT
BRE«D BTR PLT
QLASS
GLAbS
GLASS
9LASS
QLASS
QLASS
ULASS
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
S5«L
Btf»L
B!t*L
BHML
BtWL
BO.HL
B0HL
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
BEUSABLe
?50
25 1
252
253
294
355
256
257
258
259
260
261
263
263
243
244
845
?46
247
248
249
264
265
266
*67
268
269
270
271
273
(73
274
?75
i?76
277
?78
?79
28Q
281
283
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
*90
291
313
314
315
316
317
418
319
SUM
NUMBER
AVERAUE
SUM
NU«BF.H
AVERAUE
l5«f
30»0
5*0
lOO'O
15.0
5«0
0
"0
0
0
10*0
0
0
30*0
10*0
TNTC
5.0
15.0
4*0*0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
10« 0
5.0
10.0
55.0
0
5.Q
5.0
ISO'O
5.0
0 '
5.Q
5*0
0
0
5»0
0
5.0
30« 0
30'0
10> 0
45. f>
135.Q
<0
175.0
25.0
0
0
0
0
0
190.0
14.0
13.6
137Q.O
41. 0
31.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
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
i *°
*3
0
0
0
0
0
«o
5«0
0
30*0
«0
10*0
0
0
0
10-0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
14*0
0
45. 0
43. o
1«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
0
0
0
0
0
0
>0
0
0
.0
0
10«0
.0
5.0
15.0
.6
0
.0
.0
0
0
0
0
.0
4.0
«0
SO'O
43«o
1*3
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
«o
«0
0
0
«0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14-0
0
0
43.0
0
-------
5-1
'BKTHEAST
CITY! SYRACUSE
TtST SITEt S
TtST TYPE: 'AMILY STVLE
CUPS S PLATES
SANITARY SUMMARYj 0090. PL99RS/ *ALLS.
CEILINQS CLEAN. WBRKING A«EA< EQ^IP^ENT
IN KITCHEN «EpT CLpAN. DINING ARfcAS V^RY CLEAN.
SER NB
TPC STAPM STREP E.C9LJ
DlbpBSABLE
DISP-SABLE
DISPOSABLE!
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE.
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
D1SP9SABLE
DISP8SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP-SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISk«SABLE
WEUSAELE
KEUSAfLE
KtUSAtJLE
WLUS«BLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAfitE
KtUSARLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAhUE
KEUSABLE
HEuSAbLE
«£USAftLE.
"LUSARLE
HtUSAELE
KEUSABLE
HEUSAR1.E
XLUSAHLE
«tUSAHLE
REUSABLE
KEUSAfcLE
KEUSAP.LE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEOSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
KtUSAtLE
KtUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
HEUSAPLE
DINNfK nLATE
D1N\E« OLATE
OJNfEK PLATE
DTNfEK PLATf.
DINNEH PLATE
UINNEK PLATE
DINNEK PLATt
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUp
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
BflWL
B"«L
bBKL
BUHL
BRWL
8»!»L
BIJWL
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
B«EAD & BTR PLT
BREAD S BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
.BREAD S BTR PUT
B*EAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
333
334
*3S
336
137
338
M39
3*0
«1
3*8
3*3
j»*
3*5
3*6
361
363
363
36*
365
366
367
375
376
377
37S
379
380
381
389
390
391
393
393
39*
395,
396
397
398
399
»00
*01
*08
10
Ml
*12
*13
»1*
H5
<16
15. 0
0
I5»c
15.Q
5.0
15. c
1?«C
10«f
5«0
0
5.C
0
0
0
BO'O
385.Q
80« 0
0
0
0
10« C
IIC'O
*oo«c
0
»o«o
5.0
0
5.Q
165o«0
130«0
55o«0
0
500«0
0
0
115.0
10-0
as'o
35.0
80*0
5.Q
*0>0
153.0
5.Q
0
150.0
0
10.0
.0
0
«0
0
0
0
«0
0
n
lO'O
0
0
0
5«0
5.0
«0
30«0
0
0
"0
0
0
15.Q
85. c
0
5-0
0
0
0
6o«0
5.0
.27o»C>
0
19S.O
-0
0
0
0
15«0
«0
'0
5-0
.5.0
10«0
0
0
15.0
0
0
0
n
0
0
10«0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10«0
l5«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
.0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
«0
«0
0
0
0
0
0
»0
0
"J
0
u
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«u
0
0
0
0
0
«0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
DISPOSABLE SUM 100*0 SO'O 10.0 '0
DISPOSABLE NUMBER i*>o i**o i*.o 14*0
DISPOSABLE AVEkAUE 7.J 1«4 .7 . «0
REUSABLE SUM »*15»o 71S«0 ?5«0 *0
REUSABLE NUMBE* 35.0 35«0 35«0 35«0
REUSABLE AVERAQE 126.f 80** ? *0
-------
TABLE .4-1
LOCATION . BE<3lS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS'
GLASS
GLASS
OINN£H PLATE
D!NN£H PLATE
DINf;£H PLATE
OINNEH PLATE
DIN'-E* PLATE
OINKE* PLATt
DINS£K PLATE
BOfcL
BO*L
B"*L
BP*L
BOHL
BOWL
B9*L
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
'CUP
BREAD S BTR PLT
BHEAD & BTR PLT
BREAD S BTR PUT
8MEAO & BTR PUT
BREAD S BTR PLT
BREAD S BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
417
418
419
430
431
433
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
430
431
433
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
4*1
443
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
453
453
454
455
456
457
458
466
467
468
469
470
471
473
487
488
489
490
491
493
493
SUM
NUMBEH
AVERAGE
SUM
NUMBEH
AVERAGE
"0
0
0
0
«0
0
"0
5.Q
5.0
10«0
5.Q
0
0
5.0
15.0
C
0
«0
0
0
5*0
95.0
315.Q
13So*0
180*0
155.0
610. 0
610*0
30*0
15.0
0
1400«0
«0
15*0
3?5.Q
70«0
«0
5.0
' 60*0
545.0
50*0
350*0
350*0
55.0
160*0
135. 0
1000«0
660*0
100.0
315. Q
5.0
10*0
305«0
1055.Q
35.Q
10*0
50«0
31*0
3.4 .
9V45.Q
35«0
384.1
0
«0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
-0
«0
o
0
0
5*0
0
0
«0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
«0
1070«0
0
0
"»0-0
10*0
0
«o
35-0
30*0
5«0
0
10-0
15-0
10-0
15. C
315.Q
130*0
.0
*>5«0
5*0
3*0
15*0
330*0
0
0
5.0
31*0
3
1965*0
35*0
56*1
0
.0
0'
0
1 0
0
. 0
«0
.0
.0
«0
0
0
0
>0
0
0
0
0
"0
.0
.0
"0
5.0
.0
5.0
15.0
is.u
.0
«0
"0
5.0
.0
.0
.0
5.0
0
0
10*0
5.0
0
35.0
tU
0
0
«0
345.0
30«0
.0
60*0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
>0
31>0
0
4?5»0
35-0
12*1
0
0
* 0
. (1
w w
. o
* u
* y
r\
I C C 00 C
u
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
u
0
«0
0
u
0
0
0
310*0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31»0
0
310*0
35*0
6*0
-------
CITY: SYRACUSE
TtST SIT£! 7
TEST
ryHE! CAFETERIA
LATECiflKYt CUPS 5 PLATES
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPUSAHL-
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOJABLF.
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
t'ISP"SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
KEUSA^LE
KEUSAKLE
REUSAKLE
KEUSAtiLE
HtUSAfLE
REUSABLE
HE us*. RLE
«f. USABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
wtUS'PLE
REUS*f>LE
REUSABLE
REUS *sLE
KEUSAf LE
REUSABLE
REUSA&LE
REUSAfeLE
KEUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
KEUSAfLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUS4RLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
HEUSABLE
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC cup
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
C«Lr-> CUP
C^L'.) CUP
C9L'1 CU"
C8L" CUP
C8L3 CUP
CMLD CUP
COL" CUP
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DIN\EW "LATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATF
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
B«HU
ll'i
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
. GLASS
GLASS
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
B"E»D & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BRE'D & BTR PLT
SANITARY SUMMARYI Pee". DISHWASMINIJ IN
CBMVERTED ST»RASE AREA. CEMENT FLOBRs, WnLLSj
CEILINGS in P68R REPAIR. FBBD PREPARATION,
SERVING AREAS NEED CLEANING.
TPC STAPH STREP E-CBL1
99
soo
501
$03
503
30*
505
^Q6
*Q 7
508
509
MO
511
512
»13
HI*
MS
616
517
518
519
526
527
*>28
*>Z9
530
S31
S32
S33
S35
536
537
538
539
561
562
563
564 '
565
566
->67
h68
569
570
571
572
573
57*
575
576
577
578
579
*60
581
0
115. C
0
10«0
0
65.Q
10« 0
C
0
0
0
0
'C
0
'0
0
0
0
0
0
75-0
2*0-0
155. p
5.0
*00«0
5.0
5.0
1650-0
280. C
?5«0
?85.p
1»00-0
130-0
8*0-0
10-P
15.0
5.0
»5«0
90«C
5.0
io-e
0
5.0
C
0
«0
.0
.0
5.0
5.0
0
S«o
5.0
15.0
55.Q
DISPOSABLE SUM 275.0
DISPOSABLE NUMBE* 21.0
DISPOSABLE AVERAGE 13.1.
REUSABLE SUM SSQO'O
REUSABLE NUMBrR 35.0
REUSABLE AVERAUE 157.1
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
«0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
285-0
>0
5.0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
"0
0
. -0
0
«0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81-0
0
385-0
35-6
9-1
-0
*5»0
0
0
P
0
0
5.0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
«0
>0
0
15«0
50-0
l5«0
«0
lO'O
.U
0
.0
!?5»0
0
0
"0
*60«0
5«0
0
10-0
0
5.0
»5«0
0
50"0
0
0
0
0
«0
>0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
65.0
21«0
3.1
1100-0
35.0
31.»
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
-0
u
"0
0
0
«0
«0
u
-0
0
«u
I)
»u
C
0
0
0
0
0
u
u
u
0
u
p
-0
0
0
0
0
«0
"0
0
u
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35-U
0
-------
TABLE
R£6I8Nj
CITY: SYHACUSE
TEST SITE: r,
TEST TYPE! FAMILY STyLE
CATEG8HY! CUPS 5 PLATES
SANITARY 8UM«ARY| AVERAGE. W9»K1NO Ot»T
"N FLOURS, eouiP«ENTt RECENTLY R^ODELED,
NE.<< WALLS, CEILINGS, EWIP«ENT. DISHWASHING
HY HAND, FILM en
DISPOSABLE
DISPHSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP»SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSARLE
HtUSABLE
HtuSABLE
HEUSABLE
KiUSABLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSABLE
HEUS»feLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSABLE
REUSABLE
HEUSA6LE
HtUSifcLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSASLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSAELE
HEiJSAELE
HEUSAH.E
HEUSABLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSARLE
HEUSABLE
HtUSABLE
HEUSA6LE
TPC 8TAPH STREP E.C8L1
AIL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
B»EAO & BTR PLT
bPEAO S BTR PLT
BREAD 5 BTR PLT
B»E»0 S 8TR PLT
BREAD 5 BTR PLT
H*E»D & BTR PLT
BREAD S BTR PLT
COLP CUP
CfLO CUP
COLU CUP
COLO CUP
COLO CUP
COLT CUP
C8LO CUP
DINN£H PLATE
0!V*£H PLATE
DINN£« PLATE
DINN£H PLATE
0|NN£R PLATE
OINM£K PLATE
OtNN£« OLATE
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS .
OINN£H PLATE
OINNEK PLATE
DINNER PLATE
DINNER PLATE
OJNN'EH PLATt
DINN£K PLATE
OINN£W PLATt
JUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
BREAD $ BTR PIT
BREAD & BTR PLT
BRE»0 S BTR PLT
BREAD S BTR PLT
BREAD 5 BTR PLT
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
667
668
669
»7Q
671
672
673
67*
A75
676
677
678
679
68Q
681
682
683
68*
6*5
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
69*
S89
690
591
S92
593
59*
595
596
597
598
S99'
600
601
602
6Q3
6Q*
6Q5
606
607
608
609
615
611
612
613
61*
615
616
63*
635
636
637
638
SUM
NUMBER
AVEKAUE
SUM
NUfBCR
AVEHAQE
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
Q
0
0
0
5.0
eo«o
0
0
0
«0
0
0
I8o«0
55. o
5«0
0
"0
«0
0
*0«0
185.Q
.0
5.0
5.Q
20«0
"0
300« 0
87QO«0
2800«0
1*SO«0
*SO>0
16950*0
10100.0
5.0
0
5.0
0
15.0
19*0
s'o.'o
35.0
25.Q
5,0
65.0
20.0
15-0
0
lO'O
5.0
0
65. Q
20*0
26S.Q
28. 0
9.5
33325.Q
33.0
1009.8
0
0
"0
0
0
0
«n
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«0
0
0
0
0
15«0
0
"0
"0
"0
«0
"0
39« o
0
.0
«0
0
a
«o
10*0
25*0
0
0
19* 0
6o>0
65> 0
"0
0
'0
0
«0
"0
.0
0
0
0
0
"0
"0
0
0
"0
0
"0
8«0
15" 0
28> 0
5
219.Q
33*0
6*5
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
)5«0
*0
«0
>0
ftS.O
15.0
.0
.0
<0
.0
>0
.0
.0
>0
.0
0
0
0
0
.0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
28.0
0
75.0 .
33.0
2«3
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
0
o
0
0
15«0
«o
D
"0
5«0
"0
0
0
0
0
>D
0
.0
«0
0
0
0
0
«o
*u
0
"0
0
0
0
0
28« U
"0
20"0
33*0
6
-------
TABLE
TE.ST SITE:
TtST
SERVICE
FAST
CUPS & PLATES
CLtA*« FI.SBHS CLEAM EXCEPT IN MAHD TB CLEAN
AREAS. F8K? PREPARATION AKE*,
VE"Y CLEAN.
NO
TPC STAPM STPEP E.C9L1
DISPOSABLE
DtSP"CABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
UISP"SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DIS^iSABLE
DISPOSABLE
UI SjP.^SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISI"?SABLfc
DISP-SABLt
UJi>P«SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DlS^'icABLE
DJ SFS5ABLE
D I SP**SABLE
DI SP-^SABLE
DI SP"*SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE.
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP«SABL«:
<">EAti 5 BTR PLT
H"»EAD S BTR PLT
3READ & BTR PLT
?"EAD 4 BTR PLT
a«t»D 5 BTR PLT
d"F.AO & BTR PLT
B^tAD 5 BTR PLT
OPtAD & BTR PLT
8«E»Q & BTR PLT
BKEAD S BTR PLT
C1LD CUP
CiLO LUP
C«JLD (.UP
C'JLO CUP
C"JLO CUP
C-1LT CUP
CeLU CUP
B^ML
B'">L
d^fcL
9i»l.
81XL
B^»'L
8f KL
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
696
697
698
699
700
701
708
703
70*
70S
7Q6
707
708
709
710
711
718
713
71%
715
716
717
718
719
73*
735
736
737
738
739
7*0
SUM
NU*BE*
AVERAGE
SUM
NUMHEK
AVEHAQE
. "
0
0
0
0
0
55.0
«0
S
0
5.p
0
0
P
0 '
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
«0
0
0
B.o
«0
25.0
5.0
5.0
ioo.«
31'0
, »*
0
o
>0
0
3
0
*0
')
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
5.Q
'0
f ""
5.0
31. o
2
«0
0
0
P
P,
»0
«0
»0
0
.0
0
0
0
«u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
«u
«'J
0
0
«0
.0
.0
0
0
0
3l«0
0
0
0
.0
u
0
0
0
0
0
I)
"0
o
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«u
0
0
.o
0
0
31*0
0
0
0
«y
-------
TABLE
CITY:
TtST SITE:
TtST
1C
ruHs & 'LATES
SANITARY SUMMARY; AVERSE. <[TCHtN AR£A,
"Lo WALLS, CEILINGS IN NEE° "F CLLANINB,
fA!NTING. FL98RS OlRTY KITH BRBKt*1 TILE*.
C6UNTEH F8Po PREPARATION* SERVICE AKtA
CLEAN.
TPC STAPH ST»EP E-CSL!
DISPSSA8LF
DISPOSABLE
DISPr*E»BLt'
DJSP-SABLE
DIb*"«*»aLi:
DISPOSABLE
DISP-SABLF:
DISPKSAflLF
DISP">SA8LI-
OtbP"SABLE
DISP"CABLf.
DISPOSABLE
DJSP"SA8LE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
OIBP»SABLE
DlbP-r-AbLE
D1SPPSAPLE
DISP-^ABLE
OISP"SAbLF
DISPOSABLE
KEUSAtLE
«£USA*LE
HEUSii;LE
XEUSAr-LE
NEUSAyLE
HfcUSAtLE
KfcuS'tLE
HEUSK.LE
NtUSAFLE
HtUS'PLE
K£US«PL£
KEUSAELE
HEUSARLE
K£US»BLE '
CMLH CUP
ClLi: CUB
CtLC CiJ=
CfLO CU"
CrtLi.> CUO
CNL1.' CU°
CBLC- CUP
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC cup
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC cup
OINr.EK PLATE
Dlf.f.EN <=LATE
D1SV£H PLATE
DINM£K PLATE
OINN£H PLATE
OIN~tX PLATt
OlN'i£"< PLATt
yw£AC & BTR PLT
BRE«0 & BTR PLT
B«E*0 & BT9 PLT
B«£AD 5 BTR PLT
8HEAQ 5 BTR PLT
BWt'D S BTR PLT
BREAD S BTR PLT
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
REUSABLE
776
777
778
779
7SQ
781
782
783
78*
785
786
787
78fl
789
799
"00
801
«02
»03
Hfl1*
BQ5
762
763
76*
76S
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
77*
775
SUM
NUMBf"
AVEHAUE
SUM
NUMBER
AVEHAUE
20« 0
«0
')
10"?
5.0
5.Q
0
5«0
10. 0
0
5.0
45.0
0
0
35.0
20»0
35.0
ISfl.c
5-0
5o«0
*0«0
0
30*0
185. 0
0
20 3
25«0
25.0
20«0
25. Q
0
5«0
0
0
0
»40«0
21.0
21.0
335.0
1»«C "
23.9
c
0
'*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
10" 0
5.Q
10«0
0
lO'O
0
0
0
0
0
80«0
5-0
15«0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*t
35.Q
2l«0
1.7
»0«D
1».0
2.9
0
t(J
«0
0
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
15. 0
"0
0
«0
0
0
.0
5.0
21.0
.2
15.0
1-t.O
1«1
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
u
u
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
«0
0
0
0
u
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
u
o
0
21. 0
0
0
1»«0
0
/0s- T~
-------
TABLE 11-1
TEST
TEST
CAT(
SERVICE
DISP«S«ELE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISFU₯ABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISF (SABLE
DISP"?«BLE
DISPOSABLE
DISF 'SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
UISP-SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP-VABLE
DISP'-SASLE
DISPOSABLE
DISFiSABLE
DISFMKABLE
DJSP-SA9LE
CITY; SYHACUSE
SITE! 11
TYP£! ^ AST PoBD
:Qf»RY: c\jrs s PLATES
IT£,-
B«tAD & BTR PLT
BPEAD & BTR PLT
B»EAD & BTR PLT
6 CUP
C"L^ CUP
CILLi CUP
B»fcAD & BTR PLT
BRLAO & BTR PLT
B»EAD & BT» PLT
BHE.AO 5 BTR PLT
BREAD s BTB PUT
b«tAD & BTR PLT
B»E.AD 5 BTR PLT
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
ALL PLASTIC CUP
SANITARY SUMMARY| AVERAGE. "80 REPARATION
AREA» EQUIPMENT K£PT CLEAN, FLOOKS IN
AREA NEEDED SWEEPING. RACK ROOM (STORAGE)
MAO OLD CE^NT FLOORS* CEILINGS, "ALLS
NEED OF PAINTING,
SE«
Tf»C STAPM STREP
888
889
830
832
*33
83*
835
836
837
M38
839
8*0
8*3
8**
8*6
8*7
8*8
8*9
850
851
852
853
85*
155
856
857
858
859
860
861
DISPOSABLE SUM
DISPOSABLE NUMBER
DISPOSABLE AVE*AUE
REUSABLE SUH
REUSABLE NUMBEK
REUSABLE AVERAGE
«0
»0
«0
0
"0
0
0
5.0
0
«0
"0
«c
«0
5.0
0
0
0
0
«0
0
"0
0
"0
0
0
0
»0
0
35.Q
«0
»0
80«0
5.0
55.0
125.Q
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
"0
0
*to
0
0
"0
3
0
35.Q
»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
35.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
0
0
"0
"0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
"0
u
0
«0
0
0
u
0
y
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
»0
0
0
"0
35.0
«0
0
0
.0
-------
'4fi|.E. 1?-1
" /'THE,jr
T-ST SI,-. .
TtST T VP-":
(.Ar=_oO"'-' t
uiSPHSAbLK
UISPHSAHLF
OISP^SABLE
UlbPSPABLE
NEUSARLE
"EUSAfLE
KEOSAK-LE
REUSABLE
NEUS4PLE
NEUSASLu
WEUSA8LE
KEUSAPLK
KEUSAPLI:
WEUSAFLE
REUSABLE
WEUSif-LE
KEUSAfcLE
NEUSAHLE
HEUSABLE
HEUSA6LE
REUSABLE
HEUSAPLE
HEUSAPLE
HEUSAHLE
HH-..-C
u r (5 PLT
STR PLT
HT:? PLT
»LL "I-'STIC tUP
I. L °LAFTIC CUP
AUL HLAJTIC CUP
ALL CLASTIC CUP
AL'. PLASTIC CUP
.-LL "LASTIC CUP
ALL CLASTIC CJP
0 !'*£.* =LATE
01NM,:--< PLATE
DI.-JNJH PLATE
C':\\;w PLATE
OINNSt*
PLAT;;
PLAT'"
I'LATE
i-'U .TE
iLASS
GLASS
GLASS
GLASS
fiREAO i ?TW PLT
UPEAC & 91« PLT
K;?E«!: & BTR PLT
HNEAO i gTR PLT
C-^EIU & BTR PLT
L1^?."".' 4 8TR PLT
Es£4w 4 erw PLT
DlKMtK PLATE
0!f;-.£H PLATE.
OIN^EK PLATE
CUM
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
OISP9S««3LE SUM
OISPOSABLE
UISPSSA8UE AVERAGE
«EUS*8UE SUM
REUSABLE NOMB£H
'E'.'SARLE AVEKAUE
5090.
AMD enuiPipNT VE«V CLTAN.
DlMNg AHrts V£»Y CLEAN.
>seo
%a
426
**3.'
**?3
929
)J)
9 j '
»32
''33
43 'I
y J 5
'36
Tj/
** 3 3
939
')>)
i«l
'<-2
9.'»'l
": +
V'.S
'.-* * --
9 . '
' '»'!
'- 1
''30
'.5;
*'/."
"3'J
''61
^62
S63
964
965
966
967
M66
"«i?
86B
»*9
*70
»7i
172
H9i*
»95
X96
-19"
U98
*)99
yoo
901
902
'03
90'>
yes
''06
907
90S
909
910
**! 1
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
H
QE
H
UE
T^C
->
0
0
0
0
0
1 1
210-6
.0
0
0
j ;
')
«.)
93-0
0
j
20«D
5<0
15.')
1
is.
JOO
0
.(1
0
10- 0
1 1
-0
0
o
0
c
,3
*0
. j
10»0
5.0
?o*o
0
»15«0
2tO«0
30'0
ICk'O
.0
0 '
«c
0
,0
l*0«r
0
.1
?0'0
G
C
10.0
0
0
c
0
.0
0
5.0
0
5-0
0
-0
"0
«0
380-0
35. c
10.9
9lO«f
35-c
26. 0
STAPH
T
«)
0
0
3
3
.1
5
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"J
>0
0
0
0
-c
0
0
0
"0
0
0
'0
0
:
M
'0
0
0..
3S-C
100O
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
ij
0
0
-c
0
0
0
-0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
-0
c
0
0
35-0
0
135-0
3S«0
3-9
ST3EP
0
" .'.)
. '0
0
"0
0
0
-0
.0
«0
0
0
«o
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
"0
-0
-0
0
0
0
0
o
.0
.0
0
0
.0
-0
"0
0
0
0
«0
.0
«o
0
0
0
0
0
0
«0
.0
0
.0
0
0
0
tO
«o
0
.0
0
-0
.0
0
«o
0
0
0
0
«0
0
0
«0
35« 0
0
0
35«0
U
F.CBL1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
«u
u
0
0
u
u
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
-0
0
0
-0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
u
o
u
0
u
'J
u
0
-0
-0
0
0
0
-0
«u
"J
u
«u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
. C'
0
u
35*13
0
0
35-U
u
-------
TABtE 13-1
'. <*IPN
SANITARY SUMMAUYl <3p,9r>. FL86DSi WALLS,
"800
CITY- sYKAcubE CEILINGS AVD EQUIPMENT VERY
TfST
TtbT
SITE: j3 SERVICE, DINING
TY^E: HSSPITAL
AREAS
CLEAN.
VERY CLEAN
LATEGeRY! CUPS & PLATES
SE-MCt
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISF»SABLE
DISP°?ABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISENABLE
DIaP-'SAbLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP"SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISP-SABLE
DISF-SABLE
DlbP-SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DIbPHSABLE
UJSP'SABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
DISPOSABLE
HKUSAPLE
REUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
Kt USABLE
KtUSABLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
KtUSAgLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KtUSAPLE
KtUSA0Lt
KEUSAPLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAELE
KtuSA5|.E
KEUSARLE
KtUSAPLE
KEUSAfLE
KEUSABLE
NEUSABUE
KEUSABLE
KEUSAHLE
ITE-1 SE« NP
PLATE "*99
PLATE 1000
PLATE 1001
PLATE 1002
PLATE 1003
PLATE 100*
PLATE loos
PLATE 1006
PLATE 1007
PLATE iocs
PLATE 1009
PLATE 1010
PLATE loll
PLATE- 1012
PLATE ' 1011
PLATE 101*
PLATE 1015
PLATE 1016
PLATE 1017
PLATE lois
PLATE iol9
CMLD CUP lo3»
C'ILP CUP lo35
CHLO CUP 1036
C1LC CUP 1037
COLD CUP loss
ALL PLASTIC CUP lo39
ALL PLASTIC cup 10*0
ALL PLASTIC cup 10*1
ALL PLASTIC CUP 10*8
ALL PLASTIC CUP lo»3
ALL PLASTIC CUP 10M
ALL PLASTIC CUP 10*5
GLAbS 992.
GLASS 993
GLASS 994
GLASS 995
GLASS 996
GLASS 997
GLASS 998
ALL PLASTIC- CUP lost
ALL PLASTIC CUP 1052
ALL PLASTIC CUP 1053
ALL PLASTIC CUP IDS*
ALL PLASTIC CUP 1055
ALL PLASTIC CUP '1056
ALL PLASTIC cup 1057
PLATE loss
PLATE K'Sg
PLATE . 1060
' PLATE ;o6i
PLATE 1062
PLATE 1063
PLATE 106*
PLATE 1065
PLATE 1066
PLATE io67
PLATE 1068
PLATE 1069
PLATE 1070
PLATE io7i
DISPOSABLE SUM
DISP9SABLE NUMBEK
UISP9S-ABLE AVERAGE
REUSABLE SUM
REUSABLE NUMBEK
REUSABLE AVEWAOE
TPC STAPM
fcO-C
10« 0
p
0
10*0
»0
»0«0
2»5o.O
.n
«0
0
0
"0
"0
160«0
0
.0
0
"0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
«0
0
"0
0
0
20« 0
100
»0«0
0
0
20«0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
"0
15.0
5.0
5.0 '
5.0
0
.0
.0
0
5-0
0
0
0
0
0
f)
«0
0
n
2780«0
33.0
8*>2
55.0
28. 0
2.0
0
5.0
0
0
0
"0
10*0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0
0
.0
0
p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-0
J.3.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
«0
0
.0
0
0
0
.0
«0
0
"0
0
0
0
n
"0
18.0
33. 0
.5
20*0
28> 0
.7
ST«EP
0
X)
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
«'J
.0
.0
.0
.0
"0
0
0
0
"0
0
"0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
«0
.u
u
.0
.0
.0
«0
>u
.0
.0
0
33.0
0
0
28.0
.0
E.CSLI
0
0
0
0
"0
"0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
"0
.0
0
0
u
u
u
u
0
0
0
u
0
>u
u
0
0
"0
0
I)
0
0
0
0
0
0
y
"0
«y
u
0
0
«0
.0
0
0
0
.0
0
u
u
«u
0
0
»0
0
0
33« 0
0
0
?S'0
0
-------
irtljTA«Y U'JMlARVj QB80. KITCHEN A«tA,
UININQ w- VERY CLEAN. CUPPOARDSJ
i-QUJPKENT pi_U, BUT KEPT VErtY CLEAN.
". »T£:>
SLWV [CF
UISc'-fSABLr
oia^sABLic
oisPBSA'iL':
Utb'-""A'iLt:
UIiiP??A3LE
UIVffSAdLt
U 1 SP^SAoLE
U1SH1SA3LE
OISP-NASLt
JlSP''SAbLE
U ISP^^AdLf
UiS^FABLE
UIKPOSA3LE
DISPOSABLE
UISP^SABLE
U1SPW3A3LE
JIS^SASLE
SISPISASLc
UISPHSA8LT
UISP1SA3LE
UJSPt?A3LE
HtUS'fiuE
KtUSAijLl
KEUSAHLt
KEUSAi-LE
Kt'JSA9L£
"t.UoMLrJ
,^EUS-ErL-
HtUSAtfLE
XEUSASLE
^EUSAfiLE
."fcL'SAPUE
«t'USA*L£
KEUSA8LE
"iUSafrLE
NEUSA&L?.
n£U5A5L£
REUSABLE
K£USA&i.£
REUSABLE
KiUSAbLE
«£USABLt
Xfc.UEf.aLc
KtUSAgLc
£
I'.'-'-;.- ;
BM £.»'.)
8''l AJ
fl»tAO
CULD
":'L'J
C'Ji.i:
CML 'J
C'ILL1
CML.L1
C'^LD
JIM'.?
Ol\\f
OIN'-'E
:) '.»'£
51 '''£
'Ji'V'.E
">; x''pi
^l.'K
-'.If
C.;p
C )£
"Ij-J
- 'p
C';'J
C I Nr,-£
"IN'^E
0 INN;
Of^'N'c
0 !MNC
D I IV >'J.
OI^'iJ
PLAT?
PLAT;
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
'LATE
PLATE
5«tAC
BPi.»0
*5°E'-0
?w)i Ati
3'-ii.A'J
frRi'AQ
fE'C
K ST'< c-LT
,i -?T=? PLT
<; ;iT(i PLT
S 3T« PLT
J, Tf? °LT
S 3T* PLT
s !JT-! PLT
cu=
CU°
CUP
CUP
cu°
c;ij»
CUP
K P'.ATt
* aL.'"'Ti
K PL^Tt.
w c L A t
'< =IA|'£
K -H.AT-.
"< '-L.-\"i.
K L'LATt
H -'LATE
K n.ATE
x 3l.ATE
x 'LAl't
H =L/-TL
C PLA'E
i 8TP PLT
4 BT» PLT
S yTR P'-T
5 BTR PLT
S 3TP PLT
i 3TR PLT
5 UTR »LT
SEW Nd
107?
1071
1 )"/»
lijV5
10/6
I'J'/V
tfjV8
1O7''
1U.10
1 'J'*'i
'.'Jo?
1083
1081
1085
luSA
10?..'
;o-^8
1.0 3 S
lu'-'o
iO'Jl
:.O<)H:
il'JO
no;
i '. 0-?
no-
.'.in-*
.'O'J
1 1 06
1107
150?
1109
1 1 1 j
'. ' ! I
:. '. 1 3
i '. 1 3
1^1^
1115
IS '6
111''
1 1 H
1119
1 120
1121
1123
M23
!!?'">.
\ 1 25
1126
I!?/
T?C
0
0
0
. ;i
1 0
'J
* 0
"T
, "1
,;i
. )
b^n
5o "i
.;_!
'0
,^,
mi
O
«C
"D
tO
'''O
c
J
>
2'- j
5.0
20 iO
?5«0
0
0
*0
C'
<0
55.Q
*0
30-0
so«r
*j f.n
**00"0
"J
c
c
'0
»c
-0
S..-J
5 'C
.0
5TAPH
'to
O
. '0
0
tO
'0
3
!0
0
0
'0
0
tQ
0
"0
in
0
1 "I
0
0
0
3 , :,
0
. A
'J
5-0
0
fl *l
"0
to
i ;
C
.'0
0
or
'C
..j
25-0
0
«0
0
tO
»o
tO
- -,
0
.c
STREP E-C<
tO
0
.0
tO
tO
tO
tO
tO
tO
tO
0
0
"C
"0
0
0
0
0
>o
0
0
«o
«o
n
0
5-0
0
j (j
'0
.0
«'.;
0
0 .
0
0
0
«o
>0
0
tf
0
»0
«c
«u
0
0
t'O
'0
.0
»L1
tO
tO
t(J
1.1
t()
0
tO
§0
tU
tO
0
tO
0
0
0
u
u
0
0
.0
t'J
0
"0
o
tO
fj
IJ
t'J
0
'
1 J
t'J
1.1
0
tO
C'
'J
0
u
»o
u
0
u
tO
0
0
tO
.0
UISPMS'dLE SUM 10-0
DISPOSABLE: AVEHAOE $
REUSABLE SUM »6io-'
PEbSABLC NUMHE'I ?8»^
REUSABLE AV£HAU£ 166.»
El-C
3U- -
29-0
Sl.O
5.0
aa.o
a
?i =o
2." M.
-------
TABLE
CITY: SYHACUSfr
Tt>' SITE: i"
TtST TYPE: bC^WL
& PLATES
SANJTA»Y SUH*A.OY. QB90.
CEILING AN? EQUIPMENT VERY CLEAN.
DlMNQ A«(TAS vrRY
STAPH STREP
"ALLS,
uisp-SASLt:
DISPOSABLE
UISP-SABLL
iJISF-tABLE
Disp -SABLE
DISPOSABLE
OiyP-'VAS^L
UISK-CABLF
UJSJ'-'SA.BLt
DlSr-?AbL':
KfUS'-LC
»'LE
KtuSifc^e
KEUb-.*-LE
rfEUSi^LE
"u 1185
B"i"L H8<>
B"«L 1187
fafr.. 1188
b^t-u 1189
B«». 1190
DISPOSABLE SUM
DISPOSABLE NU«H£K
DISPOSABLE AVERAOE
^EUS»BLE SUM
sEUSAiJLE VJHHE"
*t USABLE AVEKAUE
«r
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
c
c
30«0
5.0
10«0
0
5?S.0
is.?
10« 0
5.0
lfc^'0
?o«o .
20«C
*95.o
150»0
8o«0
60« 0
30«C
250*0
10.0
5«C
20«C
65.Q
33Q. C
95.0
?5«0
5.0
'' «0
5.0
0
0
10-0
.0
2»50« 0
28.0
87.?
C
n
6
0
0
0
s
%
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
'3
5»0
n
* -\
0
n
0
0
5«0
0
5-0
*0'0
.0
3
0
5.3
'0
c
0
0
0
0
0
c
10«0
»0
60*0
2B«0
?!
0
0
0
0
.0
' «0
0
0
«u
0
0
«0
0
u
0
0
u
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
5.0
28.0
.2
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
J
0
u
u
"J
«0
c
0
0
0
u
0
0
u
0
0
0
u
c
0
.0
0
i;
0
0
0
0
u
u
. r.
0
u
10«0
0
0
28. 0
0
-------
TABLE ls.1
;vftKTHE»ST MEANS AND DEVIATIONS
CITY! SYRACUSE
tu^s & PLATES
TOTAL NUMBED AVERAGE STO.DEV. MIN. MAX.
TPC iJISPeSABLf: S9?0'00 337.QO l7«57 138. *4 -QQ
IU tOO'OO 27i»«86 l»54'7i> »oo
!>TAP>- OISPeSA'JLE l^S.QO 337.00 «»7 3« 1* «00 SO«OU
REUSA.'iLt S360«00 »02'00 13*33 72.»5 «QO lO'O'OO
STHE" 01SP8SABLE SO'OO 337-00 «2» 2«66 .QO »9'00
REUSABLE »260*00 i*02«00 10*60 H9«35 .QO
t-CBL! OISPBSAttLE «OQ 337.QO "00 00 «00 "00
REUSABLE 3P5.QO *02«00 »81 11«25 .QO 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
Staphylococcusa
47
13.33
Streptococcus
.24
10.60
Coliform
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
-------
Table 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 t.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 American
Dietitian Association, 1950) as reported in Hospitals, ^4:92, January, 1950.
-------
Table 18-1
Data Breakdown According to
Sanitary Quality of the Establishment
Disposables
Reusables
Est.
No.
1
3
6
7
Rating1
P
P
P
P
% Total
No. of items having
bacterial counts of
>100 <100 0
1
2
0
1
4.8
4
5
7
4
24.1
16
13
14
6
71.1
No. of items having
bacterial counts of
>100 <100 0
10
8
19
9
36.8
12
13
12
19
44.8
6
7
3
7
18.4
4
8
10
11
A
A
A
A
% Total
1
1
1
0
3.1
7
4
10
6
28.1
6
23
6
31
68.8
5
7
1
-
14.8
20
19
7
-
52.3
17
6
6
22.
9
2
5
9
12
13
14
15
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
% Total
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
2.4
7
9
6
7
7
5
0
24.7
11
5
25
7
24
19
10
72.9
7
10
-
3
0
1
6
14.6
18
14
-
9
6
11
18
41.1
7
11
-
23
22
16
3
44.3
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.
//o -
-------
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, while 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
Disposable Reusables
4.8
3.1
2.4
36.8
14.8
14.6
Observations
The higher counts on reusable items probably result from the fact that
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 is pr3sent,
of course, for both reusable and single service items. Reusables are sublet
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 art unec
once and discarded. In SRC's opinion, the chance for contamination at c.ie
food serving establishment is less than that presented by reusables.
-------
APPENDIX A
Sanitary Surveys
-------
LOCATION. NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #1 (Cafeteria)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 5/26/76
GJENEJBAL:
" OOR ~ old, dirty
WA_i_S ~ paint chipping
~:I LINGS - soiled
EQUIPMENT -grease coated
WINDOW (SCREENS) - no windows
LIGHTING - adequate in kitchen, inadequate in dining & serving area
HANDWASHING FACILITIES Rest room dirty
& 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,) -60sec. 140°F
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) - 10 sec. 180°F
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 SITE: #2 (Family Style)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 5/18/76
GENERAL:
FLOOR - dirty in corners
WALLS - clean
CEILINGS ~ clean
EQUIDMENT ~ clean except for grease and meat particles around broiler
WINDOW (SCREENS) - ves
LIGHTING - good
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
8 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,) - 195°?
RINSE TIME (TEMP.) - ISO-F
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
GENERAL:
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
8 REST ROOM - good
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - good
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - vet rag .
WASTE DISPOSAL open 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., 180°F
RINSE TIME (TEMP.) - 2mm., 22o°F
DRY TIME (TEMP.) - air, silver hand dried
COND, OF EQUIP- - stainless, clean
MANUAL
WATER TEMP.
WASH -
RINSE ~
SOAK TIME -
SOAP -
DRYING PROCED'J-E -
GENERAL COMMENTS
Kitchen area generally dirty with greasy dust and food particles.
Dishwashing and dish storage are generally clean.
-------
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) - n° windows
LIGHTING - no light over sink, good in other areas
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM - good
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - very 8ood
RODENTS AND INSECTS - n° 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
PRE~WASH PREP.- scrape and pre-rinse
WASH SOLN, - Val-Chem
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - Smin., 150°F
RINSE TIME (TEMP.) -Imin., 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/im
GENERAL:
FLOOR - clean
WALLS - clean
CEILINGS -clean
EQUIPMENT - clean
WINDOW (SCREENS)- windows did not open
LIGHTING ~ no 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,) - 160°F
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) - 1800F
DRY TIME (TEMP,) - air
COND, OF EQUIP, -
MANUAL
WATER TEMP,
WASH -
RINSE ~
SOAK TIME -
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
Restaurant - good overall cleanliness
// 7 -
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: #6 (Family Style)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: e/is/76
GENERAL:
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 6. 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
i 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
DISHWASHING:
. MACHINE
PRE-WASH PREP,- wash/rinse
WASH SOLN, - Klean-All DeLux dishwashing compound
WASH TIME (TEMP.) - "10-12 min."
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) - 3 min @ 1808F
DRY TIME (TEMP,) - air
COND. OF EQUIP. - old - approx. 25 yrs. old
MANUAL
WATER TEMP.
WASH -
RINSE -
SOAK TIME ~
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
Old sugar/soup bowls greasy & dirty, stained coffee cups, food
particles adhering to bread & butter plates. Overall - a dirty
establishment.
"6 -
-------
LOCATI \jii: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE.1 #7 (Cafeteria)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 6/28/76
GENERAL:
FLOOR - old broken-surfaced concrete - filthy
WALLS ~ painted masonite - 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
by employees. No gauges 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: .-/7/76
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. ~ n°t available - 150°F 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.
- T
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TET.7 SITE: #9 (Fast Food)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 6/10/76
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 - P°or in washing area
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM ~ stainless steel double sink in kitchen
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - good
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
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)- no opening windows, screened front door
LIGHTING ~ poor in kitchen, good in eating/serving area and around counter
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM - good
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - ! ^d
RODENTS AND INSECTS - »< evidence
AREA CLEANUP - sponge ano 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 PREPi- no pre-wash prep.
WASH SOLN, - Impact
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - 3 min
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: 011 (Fast Food)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 6/18/76
GENERAL:
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.
-------
LOCAT.ON: NE/Syracusc
TEST SITE: //12 (Hospital)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 5/22/76
GENERAL:
FLOOR - tile - clean
WALLS - tile - clean
CEILINGS ~ aluminum - clean
EQUIPMENT ~ cafeteria had buildup in corners, kitchen - clean
WINDOW (SCREENS) - all windows screened
LIGHTING - good
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM - clean and readily available
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - very good
RODENTS AND INSECTS - no evidence
AREA CLEANUP - wet rag
WASTE DISPOSAL ~ covered, lined trash containers
STORAGE & HANDLING
DISPOSABLE ~ in sleeves and boxes on shelves. Clean storage room
off kitchen.
REUSABLE ~ no storage - used immediately after washing
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE
PRE-WASH PREP,- scrape and spray
WASH SOLN, .- Impact
RINSE TIME (TEMP.) -»
DRY TIME (TEMP,) - air
COND, OF EQUIP, - stainless steel, very clean
WASH TIME (TEMP,).-"S 5 mln. 200°F
MANUAL
WATER TEMP,
WASH -
RINSE -
SOAK TIME -
SOAP -
DRYING PROCEDURE -
GENERAL COMMENTS
There were 2 kitchen areas, one for hospital meals and one a
general service cafeteria. The hospital kitchen was very clean.
The cafeteria kitchen had some food and dirt buildup in hard to
clean areas of equipment and floors.
-------
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. 160°F
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) - ISOOF
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: //1A (School)
CATEGORY: dishes
DATE: 5/11/76
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 PREP^- pre-rinsed and scraped
WASH SOLN, - "Salute"
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - 170°F
RINSE TIME (TEMP,) - 180°F
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.
1-Z.f. - T"
-------
LOCATION: NE/Syracuse
TEST SITE: l'f15 (School)
CATEGORY:
DATE:
GENERAL:
FLOOR - clean
WALLS - clean
CEILINGS - clean
EQUIPMENT - stainless, clean
. WINDOW (SCREENS) - no windows
LIGHTING - good
HANDWASHING FACILITIES
& REST ROOM - clean
PERSONAL CLEANLINESS - verv 8°od
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
DISHWASHING:
MACHINE
PRE~WASH PREPi~ presoak and double rinse
WASH SOLN, - "Salute"
WASH TIME (TEMP,) - leo-F
RINSE TIME (TEMP.) - 170°F (susally 180° 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.
GPO 027 022
-------
APPENDIX K
The Society of the
Plastics Industry, Inc.
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 tc 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,
, / /
Ralph L. Harding, Jr.
President
RLH:alc
SW-152c
------- |