United States Office of Water & SW-179c
Environmental Protection Waste Management „
Agency Washington IDC 20460
Solid Waite
Collection of Data Pertinent
to the EPA's Development
of Guidelines
for Government
Procurements
of Paper Products Containing
Recycled Materials.
-------
Prepublication issue for EPA libraries
and State Solid Waste Management Agencies
COLLECTION OF DATA PERTINENT TO THE ERA'S DEVELOPMENT
OF GUIDELINES FOR GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENTS
OF PAPER PRODUCTS CONTAINING RECYCLED MATERIALS
This report (SW-i?9c ) describes work performed
for the Office of Solid Waste under contract no. 68-01-4765
and is reproduced as received from the contractor.
The findings should be attributed to the contractor
and not to the Office of Solid Waste
Copies will be available from the
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1979
-------
This report was prepared by Franklin Associates, Ltd., Prairie Village, Kansas,
under contract no. 68-01-4765.
Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
commercial products constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-179c) in the solid waste
management series.
-------
PREFACE
This final report was prepared by Franklin Associates, Ltd.,
Prairie Village, Kansas, for the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste, Resource Recovery Division,under Contract No. 68-01-4765.
The report is presented in two parts. The first part is a summary of the
findings and analyses of the study. This is followed by the appendices,
which contain technical details, data used in the analyses and other back-
ground information.
This project relied heavily on interviewing people knowledgeable
about the procurement of paper and paperboard products. We are indebted to
the numerous individuals in government service which contributed information
to this project, as well as the representatives of fifteen paper and paper-
board companies that shared their knowledge and experience with us. Special
recognition is made to members of trade associations, particularly the
American Paper Institute, which provided assistance throughout the study.
Finally, appreciation is due John M. Heffelfinger, who served as
the EPA project monitor. His active involvement in this project was
invaluable.
-------
COLLECTION OF DATA PERTINENT TO THE EPA'S DEVELOPMENT
OF GUIDELINES FOR GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENTS
OF PAPER PRODUCTS CONTAINING RECYCLED MATERIALS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND 1
OBJECTIVE OF THIS STUDY 1
RESEARCH PLAN 2
REPORT OVERVIEW 3
Chapter 2 - SUPPLY AND DEMAND ISSUES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEMAND FOR PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
PRODUCTS 4
U.S. CONSUMPTION OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD 13
AVAILABILITY OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD MANUFACTURED FROM
RECOVERED MATERIALS BY REGION 16
POTENTIAL DEMAND UNDER RIPPLE EFFECTS 20
Chapter 3 - PROCUREMENT GUIDELINES ISSUES
PURPOSE OF GUIDELINES 23
DEFINITION OF RECOVERED MATERIALS 25
Historical GSA Definitions 25
EPA's Mission 27
Optional Definitions 28
Paper Industry Positions 30
ECONOMIC IMPACTS 30
Government Issues 30
Industry Issues 32
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 32
ENERGY IMPACTS 33
CERTIFICATION OF RECOVERED MATERIAL CONTENT 34
PRODUCT PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS 35
Brightness 36
Cleanliness 36
Curl in Copier Papers 37
POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON WASTE PAPER SUPPLIES 37
Chapter 4 - VIEWPOINTS OF PAPER INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES
INTRODUCTION 39
IMPORTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT AS A CUSTOMER 39
OPTIMIZATION OF RAW MATERIALS ON ECONOMICS OF
PAPER MANUFACTURE 40
SPECIAL PROBLEMS WITH GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS 41
IMPACTS OF PREVIOUS GSA EXPERIENCE 42
iii
-------
Chapter 5 - OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO EPA AND CONTRACTOR
RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION 43
GENERAL ISSUES 43
Definitions 43
Certification of Recovered Material Content 44
Competition 45
Preferences 46
Wood and Other Fibrous Residuals 48
Program Success 48
ISSUES SPECIFIC TO PRODUCT CATEGORIES 49
Introduction 49
High Grade Bleached Papers 49
Description 49
Technical Equivalency 52
Availability 52
Cost 53
Performance Specifications—Brightness 53
Cleanliness 56
Other Specifications 56
Recovered Material Levels 56
Sanitary Tissue Products 57
Description 57
Technical Equivalency 57
Availability 57
Cost 57
Performance Specifications 58
Recovered Material Levels 58
Unbleached Paper and Paperboard 58
Description 58
Technical Equivalency 59
Availability 59
Cost 59
Performance Specifications 60
Recovered Material Levels 60
COMBINATION PAPERBOARD 60
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A - AMOUNT OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS
PURCHASED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
INTRODUCTION A-l
METHODOLOGY A-l
DISCUSSION A-2
Comparison of Total Federal Paper Purchases to
Total Domestic Production A-2
Comparison of Federal Government Purchases to
Domestic Paper Production by Grade A-2
Graphic Analysis A-10
Correlation Statistical Analysis A-16
Time Series Statistical Analysis A-18
CONCLUSION A-24
Appendix B - AMOUNTS OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS
PURCHASED BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
INTRODUCTION B-l
METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION B-l
State Government Paper Purchases B-l
Local Governmental Paper Purchases B-6
School District Purchases B-7
CONCLUSION B-10
Appendix C - PURCHASING POLICIES OF STATE GOVERNMENTS,
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS
INTRODUCTION C-l
METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION C-2
State Government Purchasing Policies and
Procedures C-2
Voluntary "Modeling Effects" C-4
Involuntary "Modeling Effects" C-4
Local Government Purchasing Policies and
Procedures C-5
School District Purchasing Policies and
Procedures C-6
CONCLUSIONS C-8
Appendxx D - ENERGY REQUIRED TO MANUFACTURE VIRGIN AND
RECYCLED PAPER AND PAPERBOARD D-l
v
-------
Appendix E - HEALTH RELATED ISSUES FOR VIRGIN AND RECYCLED
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS
INTRODUCTION E-l
DISCUSSION E-l
Potential Hazards Associated with the Use of
Postconsumer Waste in Paper Products E-l
Potential Hazards Associated with High Brightness
Printing and Writing Papers E-2
CONCLUSIONS E-5
Bibliography of Asthenopic Research E-6
Appendix F - USE OF RECYCLED PAPER IN OFFICE COPIERS
INTRODUCTION F-l
METHODOLOGY F-l
Appendix G - PAPER AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY CONSUMPTION OF
WOOD RESIDUES AND WASTE PAPER BY END-USE AND
REGION
INTRODUCTION G-l
METHODOLOGY G-2
DISCUSSION G-2
Aggregate National Data for Forest and Manu-
facturing Residues G-2
National Aggregate Data, Consumption of Waste
Paper by End-use G-2
Printing and Writing Papers G-ll
Tissue G-ll
Bleached and Unbleached Kraft Paperboard G-15
Semichemical Paperboard G-15
Kraft and Special Industrial Papers G-19
DISCUSSION OF REGIONAL DATA G-19
Forest and Manufacturing Residues G-19
Regional Consumption of Waste Paper by End-use G-31
Printing and Writing Paper G-31
Tissue G-40
Bleached and Unbleached Kraft G-48
Semichemical Paperboard G-52
Kraft and Special Industrial Papers G-57
CONCLUSION G-64
Appendix H - RECYCLING CAPACITY IN TWO PRODUCT SEGMENTS
OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY H-l
vi
-------
Appendix I - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF VIRGIN AND RECYCLED
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD MANUFACTURE 1-1
Appendix J - GSA DEFINITIONS OF RECOVERED MATERIALS J-l
Appendix K - PROGRESS REPORT ON STATE PURCHASES OF RECYCLED
FIBER PAPERS
INTRODUCTION K-l
MARYLAND K-l
CALIFORNIA K-2
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 2 - SUPPLY AND DEMAND ISSUES
Table II-l - MAJOR PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PURCHASE
CATEGORIES 6
Table II-2 - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIRECT
PURCHASES OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD,
1970 TO 1977 8
Table II-3 - COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASES TO
TOTAL U.S. PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTION 14
Table II-4 - COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENT PAPER PURCHASES
TO SELECTED GRADES OF PAPER TO TOTAL
U.S. PRODUCTION 15
Table 11-5 - AVERAGE USE OF WASTE PAPER IN PAPER AND
PAPERBOARD MANUFACTURE BY REGION, 1976 19
Chapter 3 - PROCUREMENT GUIDELINE ISSUES
Table III-l - GSA REQUIRED MINIMUM PERCENTAGES OF RE-
COVERED FIBER IN PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
PRODUCTS, 1976 26
Table III-2 - SUGGESTED DEFINITIONS OF RECOVERED
MATERIALS 29
Appendix A - AMOUNT OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS
PURCHASED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Table A-l - COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASES TO
TOTAL U.S. PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTION A-3
Table A-2 - COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENT PAPER PURCHASES OF
SELECTED GRADES OF PAPER TO TOTAL U.S.
PRODUCTION A-4
Table A-3 - COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASES OF BOXES
TO U.S. CONTAINERBOARD PRODUCTION A-5
Table A-4 - FIBER BOXES USED AS PACKAGING OF GOODS
RECEIVED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN 1970 A-7
Table A-5 - SELECTED FEDERAL PAPER PROCUREMENT DATA A-15
Table A-6 - PAPER CONSUMPTION PER FEDERAL EMPLOYEE,
BY SELECTED GRADE A-20
Table A-7 - PAPER CONSUMPTION PER REAL FEDERAL EXPEN-
DITURE, BY SELECTED GRADES A-22
viii
-------
Appendix B - AMOUNTS OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS
PURCHASED BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Table B-l - STATE PAPER PURCHASES, 1976 B-3
Table B-2 - PAPER PURCHASES OF SELECTED STATES B-4
Table B-3 - KANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
PAPER PURCHASES B-8
Appendix D - ENERGY REQUIRED TO MANUFACTURE VIRGIN AND
RECYCLED PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
Table D-l - ESTIMATES OF FOSSIL FUEL REQUIREMENTS FOR
VIRGIN AND RECYCLED PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
PRODUCT MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS D-4
Table D-2 - FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION D-ll
ENERGY USAGE FOR 100% TISSUE MILLS
PAPERMAKING ONLY, 1977 DATA D-l2
ENERGY USAGE BY GROUNDWOOD PRINTING PAPER
AND NEWSPRINT MILLS D-13
ENERGY USAGE BY BLEACHED CHEMICAL WOOD
PULP PRINTING-WRITING PAPER MILLS D-14
ENERGY USAGE BY BLEACHED CHEMICAL WOOD
PULP PRINTING-WRITING PAPER MILLS D-15
ENERGY USAGE FOR SEMICHEMICAL PAPERBOARD D-16
ENERGY USAGE FOR UNBLEACHED KRAFT PAPER-
BOARD - SOUTHERN D-17
ENERGY USAGE FOR SOLID BLEACHED PAPERBOARD D-18
ENERGY USAGE FOR RECYCLED PAPERBOARD, 1977
NORTH REGION D-19
ENERGY USAGE FOR RECYCLED PAPERBOARD, 1977
PACIFIC COAST D-20
ENERGY USAGE FOR RECYCLED CONTAINERBOARD -
TOTAL, 1977 D-21
Appendix G - PAPER AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY CONSUMPTION OF
WOOD RESIDUES AND WASTE PAPER BY END-USE
AND REGION
Table G-l - FOREST AND MANUFACTURING RESIDUES CONSUMED
IN THE MANUFACTURE OF WOOD PULP IN 1976
U.S. TOTAL G-l
Table G-2 - WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION IN PRINTING/WRITING
PAPERS RANKED BY PERCENT OF WASTE TO TOTAL
PRODUCTION IN 1976 ' G-6
Table G-3 - WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION IN TISSUE MANU-
FACTURE RANKED BY PERCENT OF WASTE TO
TOTAL PRODUCTION IN 1976 G-7
IX
-------
Page
Table G-4 -
Table G-5 -
Table G-6 -
Table G-7 -
Table G-8 -
Table G-9 -
Table G-10 -
Table G-ll -
Table G-12 -
WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION IN BLEACHED AND
UNBLEACHED KRAFT PAPERBOARD RANKED BY
PERCENT OF WASTE TO TOTAL PRODUCTION
IN 1976 G-8
WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION IN SEMICHEMICAL
PAPERBOARD RANKED BY PERCENT OF WASTE TO
TOTAL PRODUCTION IN 1976 G-9
WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION IN KRAFT AND
SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL PAPERS RANKED BY PERCENT
OF WASTE TO TOTAL PRODUCTION IN 1976 G-10
FOREST AND MANUFACTURING RESIDUES CONSUMED
IN 1976 IN WOOD PULP MANUFACTURE RANKED BY
PERCENT OF RESIDUES IN PULPWOOD CONSUMED G-22
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION IN PRINTING
& WRITING PAPERS, 1976 G-32
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION IN TISSUE,
1976 G-41
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION IN BLEACHED
AND UNBLEACHED KRAFT PAPERBOARD, 1976 G-49
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION IN SEMI-
CHEMICAL PAPERBOARD, 1976 G-53
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION IN KRAFT
AND SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL PAPERS, 1976 G-58
Appendix H - RECYCLING CAPACITY IN TWO PRODUCT SEGMENTS OF
THE PAPER INDUSTRY
Table H-l - DEINKING CAPACITY LISTED IN LOCKWOOD'S
DIRECTORY - FINE & PRINTING PAPERS H-2
Table H-2 - DEINKING CAPACITY LISTED IN LOCKWOOD'S
DIRECTORY - SANITARY PAPERS (TISSUE) H-4
Table H-3 - DEINKING CAPACITY BY REGION FOR TWO
PRODUCT CATEGORIES H-6
Table H-4 - WASTE PAPER USE IN TWO PRODUCT CATEGORIES H-8
Appendix I - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF VIRGIN AND RECYCLED PAPER
AND PAPERBOARD MANUFACTURE
Table 1-1 - QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH REPLACING VIRGIN
PAPER PRODUCTS WITH RECYCLED PRODUCTS
1-3
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Chapter 2 - SUPPLY AND DEMAND ISSUES
Figure II-l - Federal purchases of paper products. 9
Figure II-2 ~ Federal purchases of selected paper
products. 10
Figure II-3 - Federal purchases of selected paper
products. 11
Figure II-4 - Ratio of Federal paper purchases to
Federal employment. 12
Figure II-5 - Wood residue consumption in woodpulp
production. 17
Chapter 5 - OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO EPA AND CONTRACTOR
RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure V-l - Manufacturing sequence for paper starting
with virgin wood and/or recovered wood
residues 50
Figure V-2 - Manufacturing sequence for paper starting
with waste paper. 51
Appendix A - AMOUNT OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS PURCHASED
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Figure A-l - GSA purchases of selected paper products. A-ll
Figure A-2 - GSA purchases of selected paper products. A-12
Figure A-3 - GSA purchases of selected paper products. A-13
Figure A-4 - GPO paper purchases. A-14
Figure A-5 - Measures of Federal government activity. A-17
Figure A-6 - Ratio of paper purchases to Federal
employment. A-21
Figure A-7 - Ratio of paper purchases to real Federal
spending. A-23
Appendix B - AMOUNTS OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS PURCHASED
BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Figure B-l - Comparison of employment to paper purchases
for five states. B-5
Appendix D - ENERGY REQUIRED TO MANUFACTURE VIRGIN AND
RECYCLED PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
Figure D-l - Simplified flow diagrams of paper product
manufacture by three methods. D-3
Figure D-2 - Fossil fuel requirements for manufacture
of printing paper made from virgin slush
pulp, virgin market pulp and deinked waste
paper pulp. D-6
xi
-------
Figure D-3 - Fossil fuel requirements for manufacture of
tissue made from virgin slush pulp, virgin
market pulp and deinked waste paper pulp. D-7
Figure D-4 - Energy savings from postconsumer waste
recycling. D-8
Appendix G - PAPER AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY CONSUMPTION OF WOOD
RESIDUES AND WASTE PAPER BY END-USE AND REGION
Figure G-l - Wood residue consumption in wood pulp
production. G-4
Figure G-2 - Cumulative wood residue consumption in
total wood pulp manufacture. G-5
Figure G-3 - Waste paper consumption in printing and
writing paper manufacture. G-12
Figure G-4 - Cumulative waste paper consumption in
printing and writing paper manufacture. G-13
Figure G-5 - Cumulative waste paper consumption in
tissue manufacture. G-13
Figure G-6 - Waste paper consumption in tissue
manufacture. G-14
Figure G-7 - Waste paper consumption in bleached and
unbleached kraft paperboard manufacture. G-16
Figure G-8 - Cumulative waste paper consumption in
bleached and unbleached kraft paperboard
manufacture. G-17
Figure G-9 - Cumulative waste paper consumption in semi-
chemical paperboard manufacture. G-17
Figure G-10 - Waste paper consumption in semichemical
paperboard manufacture. G-18
Figure G-ll - Waste paper consumption in kraft and
special industrial paper production. G-20
Figure G-12 - Cumulative waste paper consumption in kraft
and special industrial paper manufacture. G-21
Figure G-13 - Forest and manufacturing residues consumed,
Northeast Region, 1976. G-26
Figure G-14 - Forest and manufacturing residues consumed,
Central Region, 1976. G-27
Figure G-15 - Forest and manufacturing residues consumed,
Southern Region, 1976. G-28
Figure G-16 - Forest and manufacturing residues consumed,
Western Region, 1976. G-29
Figure G-17 - Cumulative forest and manufacturing wood
residue content in pulpwood manufacture,
by region, 1976. G-30
xii
-------
Figure G-18 - Waste paper consumption in printing &
writing paper, Northeast Region, 1976. G-35
Figure G-19 - Waste paper consumption in printing &
writing paper, Central Region, 1976. G-36
Figure G-20 - Waste paper consumption in printing &
writing paper, Southern Region, 1976. G-37
Figure G-21 - Cumulative consumption of waste paper in
printing and writing paper manufacture,
by region, 1976. G-38
Figure G-22 - Waste paper consumption in tissue,
Northeast Region, 1976. G-43
Figure G-23 - Waste paper consumption in tissue,
Central Region, 1976. G-44
Figure G-24 - Waste paper consumption in tissue,
Southern Region, 1976. G-45
Figure G-25 - Waste paper consumption in tissue,
Western Region, 1976. G-46
Figure G-26 - Cumulative consumption of waste paper in
tissue manufacture, by region, 1976. G-47
Figure G-27 - Waste paper consumption in bleached &
unbleached kraft paperboard, Southern
Region, 1976. G-50
Figure G-28 - Cumulative consumption of waste paper in
bleached and unbleached kraft paperboard
production, by region, 1976. G-51
Figure G-29 - Consumption of waste paper in semichemical
p'aperboard, Central Region, 1976. G-54
Figure G-30 - Consumption of waste paper in semichemical
paperboard, Southern Region, 1976. G-55
Figure G-31 - Cumulative consumption of waste paper in
_semichemical paperboard production, by
region, 1976. G-56
Figure G-32 - Consumption of waste paper in kraft and
special industrial paper, Northeast
Region, 1976. G-60
Figure G-33 - Consumption of waste paper in kraft and
special industrial paper, Central Region,
1976. G-61
Figure G-34 - Consumption of waste paper in kraft and
special industrial paper, Southern Region,
1976. G-62
Figure G-35 - Cumulative consumption of waste paper in
kraft and special industrial paper pro-
duction, by region, 1976. G-63
xiii
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In the eight years since the passage of the Resource Recovery Act
of 1970, EPA has devoted much of its resources to the area of making recovered
materials more readily available from waste streams. A wide range of
possibilities have been explored, which include resource recovery from
solid waste by technologically sophisticated plants to voluntary source
separation programs. However, much emphasis has been on the "supply-
push" concept that abundantly available raw materials derived from waste
will be more economical for industrial users than virgin materials.
In the recently passed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976, however, there is a mandate from Congress for EPA to explore the
possibility of the "demand-pull" side of recovered material markets. The
concept is that Federal procurement can provide leadership in creating a
market for products utilizing materials recovered from waste streams.
In order to carry out this mandate, EPA has matched components of
solid waste with products that the Federal Government purchases. EPA has
been mandated to provide a mechanism through which the government can create
demand for the materials recovered from waste streams through the product
procurement process.
The plan to do this will proceed in stages. First, a data base
must be assembled on the recovered material-product matchups to determine
how appropriate procurements can proceed within the confines of the four
"reasonables"—competition, cost, availability, and technical performance.
The data base will then be used to write guidelines for the procurement
processes. EPA will then assist procuring agencies at all levels of govern-
ment in implementing the guidelines.
OBJECTIVE OF THIS STUDY
The primary objective of this study is to prepare a base of
numerical data and quantitative information relating to the writing of
guidelines for government procurement of paper and paperboard products
containing recovered materials. Franklin Associates, a private inde-
pendent contractor, was engaged for this effort in order that independent
and impartial technical expertise could be brought to bear on this problem.
Specifically, the following kinds of information are to be pro-
vided to EPA.
-------
1. Past, current and projected quantities of paper and
paperboard used by the Federal Government.
2. Past, current and projected quantities of paper and
paperboard used by non-Federal sources that may look
to the Federal Government for guidance in writing
procurement specifications. This covers state and
local governments (including schools) as well as
private businesses.
3. Relationship and importance of government purchases
to the paper and paperboard industry.
4. Availability of recycled products.
5. Problems in defining recycled or recovered materials.
6. Economic, energy and environmental impacts of procurement
guidelines.
7. Procedures for certifying recovered material content.
8. Viewpoints of the paper and paperboard industry relating
to the procurement guidelines.
Analysis, assessment and policy implications of the information
obtained in this study are provided to EPA.
RESEARCH PLAN
The objectives of this study were met by using several information
gathering techniques. Most important were numerous personal interviews
supplemented by library research. People contacted included employees of the
Federal Government, state and local governments, and representatives of private
industry. Included in the latter category are the staff of the American Paper
Institute, individual paper companies, and the National Association of Recycling
Industries.
The Federal Government agencies contacted include the General Services
Administration, the Department of Defense, the Government Printing Office, the
Joint Committee on Printing of the U.S. Congress, the National Bureau of Stand-
ards, and the Office of Solid Waste in the Environmental Protection Agency. At
the state and local level, 12 state purchasing agencies were contacted as well
as 10 local school boards and 2 state energy offices. In private industry,
15 paper companies were interviewed,as well as high level members (vice presi-
dents and division managers) of the American Paper Institute. These individuals
provided information and insight in relation to the objectives stated previously.
-------
REPORT OVERVIEW
The results and findings of the study are presented in this
report. Chapter 2 provides a summary of the quantitative supply and
demand statistics, which outline the government's purchasing history
and industries' ability to supply the products in question. Chapter
3 is a discussion of various guideline issues along with facts and
possible solutions to problems. Chapter 4 relates the paper and paper-
board industry's views. Chapter 5 presents the options available to
EPA based on the findings of this study. The appendices which follow
Chapter 5 contain the numerical detail and background information.
-------
Cha'pter 2
SUPP-LY AND DEMAND ISSUES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEMAND FOR PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS
The Federal Government employs approximately 2 million civilians
and another 2 million military personnel for which work-place supplies and
in some cases living supplies must be provided. The task of government
employees is to provide services to the rest of the population, rather than
supplying material goods. This means that the employee force, except for
the combat troops in the military, is primarily engaged in office and cleri-
cal type duties. The result is that the Federal Government must purchase
paper products for the various tasks which involve filing and processing
forms, printing and writing informative material, collecting and analyzing
statistics, and performing studies on problems in the nation's interests. In
addition, the government must supply personal paper products for the employees'
health and convenience. It is quite evident, then, that the Federal Government
must be a large customer of paper and paperboard packaging products.
The products purchased by the government are purchased to a large
extent through centralized purchasing agencies. The largest such agencies
are the General Services Administration (GSA), the Government Printing Office
(GPO, which is the paper contracting agent for the Joint Committee on Printing),
and the Defense Supply Agency (DSA,but now known as the Defense Logistics
Agency) of the Department of Defense. In this study it was necessary to focus-
only on GSA and GPO, as DSA purchases almost all of its paper products through
the other two agencies. GPO purchases printing and writing papers, primarily
for the Washington, D.C. area, while GSA purchases many kinds of products and
makes them available at depots located throughout the country.
The data base for government paper consumption used in this study
was derived from GPO and GSA reports made available to Franklin Associates.
GPO reports all of their paper purchases and can provide a detailed breakdown
of the specific kinds of paper purchased. GSA has accurate and complete
statistics for most of the rest of the paper and paperboard purchased by the
government through their "stores" programs. Some additional products are
purchased by government agencies but not reported in detail to any central
agency. These products include items that cannot be easily or economically
stored, or involve quite small orders. An accurate estimate of the annual
purchases of paper products by these methods is not available, but is believed
by GSA to be much smaller than the GSA "stores" purchases. For purposes of
this study, the amounts of paper and paperboard reported by GPO and GSA were
assumed to be approximately equal to the total government purchases.
The government also receives and uses other paper and paperboard
products which are presently, or could be, under the influence of government
specifications. One such area is paper and paperboard secondary packaging,
which is packaging of products purchased by the government. The only sec-
-------
ondary packaging which is potentially of significant tonnage is corrugated
containers. Data on the amount of corrugated shipped to the government are
not collected, but Franklin Associates has developed a technique for esti-
mating the quantities. The details of this estimation technique can be
found in Appendix A. In that appendix, corrugated boxes received by the
government are calculated for defense and non-defense expenditures by the
government for 47 product categories.
The results were tabulated for one year for which complete data
are available. The results are that 143,000 tons of corrugated containers
were received by the government in that year. Of that total, 28,000 tons
were consumed for non-defense uses while 115,000 tons were consumed by the
military agencies. By far the dominant categories were communications equip-
ment and motor vehicle parts. By contrast, in that year GSA purchased 25,000
tons of boxes directly. Thus, far greater amounts of corrugated came into
the governments' hands by way of secondary packaging.
Another area where there are significant receipts of paper by the
government is the purchase of printed matter. Examples include reports to
the government other than those on printed forms (such as this research
report); and contract printing done for the government, such as is done for
GPO. The magnitude of the reports submitted to the government is difficult,
if not impossible, to estimate, but data are available on contract printing.
In 1977, GPO spent $300 million in contract printing. It is estimated by
GPO that one-half of this amount represents the cost of the paper, which
translates to a possible 190,000 tons of paper. These purchases were made
through 15 different offices and represent 257,500 individual purchases,
with the typical purchase being $1,400.
Whether these indirect purchases of paper and paperboard are to be
included under the procurement guidelines is a matter of interpretation of
the law.* However, even if they are included, EPA cannot recommend recovered
material levels unless they determine that such requirements would allow a
satisfactory level of competition—price, delivery and performance standards
considered. In the indirect purchases where the paper and paperboard is not
the item being purchased directly, more difficulty would be experienced by
suppliers in meeting recovered material specifications, which raises
questions as to their inclusion in recovered material requirements. Thus,
because it is uncertain as to whether these categories would be included in
EPA recommendations, only direct purchases of paper and paperboard are in-
cluded in the data that follow, but it should be borne in mind that the
quantities of materials reported may be understated if indirect purchases
are included.
The specific categories of direct purchase paper and paperboard
studied are listed in Table II-l, which is a listing of the GSA categories.
For purposes of discussion, the detailed categories are grouped into four
main categories—high grade bleached papers, tissue products, unbleached
paper and paperboard, and miscellaneous converted items. The last category
* There are two aspects of the law that could lead to exclusion. One is a
$10,000 minimum purchase rule, and the other relates to definitions of terms,
-------
Table II-l
MAJOR PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PURCHASE CATEGORIES
High Grade Bleached Papers
Fine and Printing (including newsprint)
Mailing Envelopes
Memo Columnar Pads
Tabulating Paper
Tabulating Cards
Xero graph ic/Copy
Tissue Products
Sanitary Products (toilet tissue, towels, napkins, etc.)
Industrial Wipers
Unbleached Paper and Paperboard
Coarse Paper
Corrugated Boxes
Fiber Sheets and Boxes
Miscellaneous Converted Items
-------
is very diverse, difficult to track,and changes in composition from year-
to-year. As shown in Table II-2, in recent years, the volume of products
in that category has been declining so that it now accounts for 11 to 16
percent of the products purchased. Therefore, that category will not ap-
pear in the subsequent analysis.
An historical series of the amount of paper and paperboard pur-
chased annually by the government is tabulated in Table II-2, and gra-
phically displayed in Figures II-l, II-2, and II-3.
The total amount of paper and paperboard purchased directly each
year varies, but since 1970 the volume has ranged from a high of 437,000
tons in 1971 to a low of 308,000 tons in 1977. There are large variations
from year-to-year as can easily be seen on the graphs. These large vari-
ations probably represent fluctuations in inventory rather than large
variations in actual use, although this cannot be documented.
By far the largest major category is high grade bleached paper,
which accounts for 46 to 59 percent of the paper and paperboard purchases.
This category is dominated by the fine and printing papers, which accounts
for one quarter to one third of all purchases.
The figures show that not only do the totals purchased in quanti-
ties show great year-to-year variations, but the quantities of each subcategory
also vary unpredictably from year-to-year. However, there appears to be a
gradual down trend for most of the products purchased. To examine these
trends more closely, a statistical analysis of the data was made. A direct
analysis of the numbers did not result in a usable analysis of the purchased
products. However, it is reasonable to expect that the paper purchases are
related to the number of Federal employees. When these ratios are calculated
and plotted, Figure II-4 is the result. Simple curve fitting techniques did
not allow a reasonable presentation of the data which can be readily extra-
polated to 1985. However, by inspection it can be seen that the use of
pounds of paper per employee is fairly constant for most categories, except
for envelopes (for which there has been a considerable decline), and for
Xerographic/copy paper, for which there has been a significant increase. The
general decline in the total pounds of paper purchased per year appears to
be related to a decline in Federal employment of about one percent a year.
We conclude that the Federal government direct purchases of paper
and paperboard are declining at an overall slow rate, but that large year-
to-year variations exist. There is no reason to suspect that this will not
continue in the near future.
-------
Table 11-2
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIRECT PURCHASES OF PAPER ^ND PAPEBBOARD, 1970 TO 1977
High Grade Bleached Papers
Eine and Printing *
Mailing Envelopes
Memo Pads
Tabulating Paper and Cards
Xerographic/Copy
Subtotal
Tissue Products
Unbleached Paper and Paperboard
Coarse
Boxes
Subtotal
Miscellaneous Converted Items
Total
1970
103 tons
147.9
43.5
N/A
15.5
N/A
206.9
59.5
40.7
19.0
59.7
92.5
418.6
.ng amount
tications
7. Total
35.3
10.4
N/A
3.7
N/A
49.4
14.2
9.7
4.5
14.3
22.1
100.0
1971
103 tons
131.1
43.8
N/A
50.2
N/A
225.1
53.0
35.4
25.3
60.7
98.6
437.4
) 7. Total
30.0
10.0
N/A
11.5
N/A
51.5
12.1
8.1
5.8
13.9
22.5
100.0
s: 1970, 7,000 tons; 1971,
and American Paper Institute
1972
103 tnas
129.5
50.0
N/A
53.0
N/A
232.5
56.0
31.0
30.0
61.0
86.2
435.7
7. Total
29.7
11.5
N/A
12.2
N/A
53.4
12.9
7.1
6.9
14.0
19.8
100.0
7,000 tons; 1972, 7
1973
-103 tons
127.8
37.5
N/A
45.0
20.8
231.1
46.1
36.4
32.5
68.9
44.0
390.1
,000 tons;
7. Total
32.8
9.6
N/A
11.5
5.3
59.2
11.8
9.3
8.3
17.7
11.3
100.0
1973, 7,
1974
103 tons
136.0
33.5
25.0
43.0
4.2
241.7
50.0
35.8
39.0
74.8
55.0
421.5
000 tons;
1978."
7. Total
32.3
7.9
5.9
10.2
1.0
57.3
11.9
8.5
9.3
17.7
13.0
100.0
1975
103 tons 7. Total
113.6
31.9
8.4
48.5
18.4
220.8
54.0
39.4
24.0
63.4
49.6
387.8
1974, 8,600 tons;
29.3
8.2
2.2
12.5
4.7
56.9
13.9
10.2
6.2
16.3
12.8
100.0
1975, 8,600
1976
103 tons
70.9
28.1
7.5
27.4
14.7
148.6
56.6
33.6
30.7
64.3
52.0
321.5
7. Total
22.1
8.7
2.3
8.5
4.6
46.2
17.6
10.5
9.5
20.0
16.2
100.0
tons; 1976, 8,700
1977
103 tons
88.2
14.3
10.2
37.4
38.6
188.7
35.9
21.3
19.7
41.0
42.8
308.4
tons; 1977
7. Total
28.6
4.6
3.3
12.1
12.5
61.2
11.6
6.9
6.4
13.3
13.9
100.0
, 8,700
-------
250 _
200 I
150 1
o
O.-O
e c
3 «
tn to
C 3
O O
O f
100 1
50
Printing & Writing
Sanitary
Conputer
^ **>**' Memo Pads
197C - 1975
Figure II-l. Federal purchases of selected paper products.
1980
1985
-------
250 .
200 _
CO
C C
o o
O.T3
e c
s «
0) »
C 3
O O
u ,e
150
100
50
Mailing Envelopes
Coarse Papers
1970
1975
1 r r
1980
1985
Figure II-2. Federal purchases of selected paper products.
-------
250 _
200 J
OB
c c
o o
•rt JJ
4J
O.-O
E C
s fd
in eo
C 3
O C
CJ J—
150
100
50
1970
1975
Boxes
Miscellaneous Converted Papers
1980
198f
Figure 11-3, Federal purchases of selected paper products.
-------
/o n
o
.-I
o.
X-i
01
o.
O
Bu
§
o
60
50 H
40 H
30 1
20 I
10 1
Printing & Writing
Sanitary
.' Xerographic
/ Computer
Coarse Papers
Mailing Envelopes
1970 1975 1980
Figure IJ-4. Ratio of Federal paper purchases to Federal er.ployinent.
-------
U.S. CONSUMPTION OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
The Federal Government is clearly a large single customer of
paper and paperboard, as its central purchasing agency procures products
for a civilian work force approximately two times as large as the nation's
largest private employer (American Telephone and Telegraph employs 950,000
people), in addition to supplying the military establishments. Thus, the
government is undoubtedly the largest single customer for paper in the U.S.
and could possibly wield considerable influence in markets with paper
companies. However, it is important to also analyze the market from the
companies' points of view in terms of government purchases in relation to
companies' sales. A detailed derivation of pertinent data on this subject
may be found in Appendix A.
The size of the government market in relation to total paper and
paperboard sales is given in Table II-3 (obtained from Appendix A). Taken
as a whole, government paper and paperboard direct purchases are quite small
when compared to U.S. production. For the years 1970 to 1977, government
sales ranged from 0.55 percent to 0.88 percent of the total output of the
paper industry. In terms of the major categories of paper and paperboard,
the government purchases a small fraction of paperboard ranging from 0.25
percent to 0.53 percent. The percentage of paper ranges from a high of
1.3 percent in 1970 to a low of 0.86 percent in 1977. The paper data are
further broken down by grade in Table II-4. Even on a grade-by-grade basis,
government purchases are a small percent of the total, ranging from less
than one percent for coarse papers to a range of 1.9 to 6.6 percent for
envelopes.
Thus, government direct purchases are a small fraction of the
total paper and paperboard products manufactured in this country.
13
-------
Table 11-3
COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASES TO TOTAL U.S. PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTION
Government Purchases
(Thousand Tons)
Paper 17 Paperboard 2J Total
U.S. Production
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976 3/
1977
314.9
299.3
307.2
304.5
322.5
306.3
237.9
236.7
103.
138,
128,
85.
99.0
81.5
83.6
71.7
418.6
437.4
435.7
390.1
421.5
387.8
321.5
308.4
23,371
23,736
25,371
26,796
26,898
23,305
26,611
27,381
(Thousand Tons)
Paperboard Total
25,383
26,037
28,502
29,572
28,915
24,756
28,440
28,953
48,754
49,773
53,873
56,368
55,813
48,061
55,051
56,334
1.35
1.26
1.21
1.14
1.20
1.31
0.89
0.86
Government Share
Paper
1.35
1.26
1.21
1.14
1.20
1.31
0.89
0.86
(Percent)
Paperboard
0.41
0.53
0.45
0.29
0.34
0.33
0.29
0.25
Total
0.86
0.88
0.81
0.69
0.76
0.81
0.85
0.55
Source: GSA and GPO Private Communication. American Paper Institute, "Statistics of Paper and Paperboard,
1978."
I/ Paper category includes printing and writing papers, memo, columnar pads, mailing envelopes, sanitary
papers, teletype papers, carbon papers and Xerographic paper.
2/ Paperboard category includes disposable mess equipment, miscellaneous converted items, boxes, tab cards
and index card stock.
3/ Adjusted for transition quarter.
-------
Table
COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENT PAPER PURCHASES OF SELECTED GRADES OF PAPER TO TOTAL U.S. PRODUCTION
(Thousand tons and' percent)
Printing & Writing^
Gov ' t .
Purch.
(000
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
I/
2/
tons)
147.
131.
129.
148.
140.
132.
5/ 85.
126.
Includes
Includes
9
1
5
6
2
0
6
8
U.S.
Prod.
(000
tons)
9,067.5
9,278.5
10,133.5
10,994.2
11,067.2
9,056.4
11,022.2
11,587.6
GPO and GSA
teletype and
Gov ' t .
Share
(Per-
cent)
1.63
1.41
1.28
1.35
1.27
1.46
0.78
1.09
purchases
computer
Sanitary
Gov 't. U.S. Gov ' t . Gov ' t . '
Purch. Prod. Share Purch.
(000 (000 (Per- (000
tor.s) tons) cent) tons)
59.5 3,494.0 1.70 15.5
53.0 3,604.3 1.47 50.2
56.0 3,746.2 1.49 53.0
46.1 3,771.8 1.22 45.0
50.0 3,823.2 1.31 43.0
54.0 3,771.9 1.43 48.5
56.6 3,954.6 1.43 27.4
35.9 4,069.0 0.88 37.4
of printing and writing papers except
form bond papers and tab cards.
Computer—
U.S.
Prod.
(000
tons)
1,234.6
1,259.5
1,394.4
1,630.6
1,672.2
1,321.0
1,496.1
1,502.5
computer
Gov ' t .
Share
(Per-
cent)
1.26
3.99
3.80
2.76
2.57
3.67
1.83
2.49
form bond ,
Mailing Envelopes—
Gov't.
Purch.
(000
tons)
43.5
43.8
50.0
37.5
33.5
31.9
28.1
14.3
envelopes
U.S.
Prod.
(000
tons)
655.7
644.5
716.5
784.9
733.7
620.4
723.9
757.7
, and tab
Gov't.
Share
(Per-
cent)
6.63
6.80
6.98
4.78
4.57
5.14
3.88
1.89
cards.
Gov ' t .
Purch.
(000
tons)
37.5
39.1
33.7
40.8
40.1
42.2
40.9
24.6
4/
Coarse Papers—
U.S.
Prod.
(000
tons)
4,865.5
4,862.0
5,046.3
5,060.4
5,224.8
4,233.7
4,907.2
4,934.1
Gov't
Share
(Per-
cent )
0.77
0.80
0.67
0.81
0.77
1.00
0.83
0.50
3_/ Includes white wove and kraft envelopes.
4/ Includes bleached and unbleached kraft papers and industrial wipers.
5_/ Adjusted for transition quarter effects.
Source: GSA and GPO private communications and American Paper Institute, "Statist js of Paper and Paperboard, 1978."
-------
AVAILABILITY OF PAPER'AND PAPERBOARD MANUFACTURED FROM RECOVERED MATERIALS
BY REGION
The issue being Considered here is the stimulation of the use of
recovered materials in the manufacture of paper and paperboard products via
government procurement practices.
Government purchases of these products are dependent on availa-
bility. To be practical, specifications should be set so that the recovered
material levels called for are low enough that adequate supply is available,
but high enough to stimulate private companies to consider additional use of
recovered materials in their products. The products must be available in
the general vicinity of the points of use, or extra transportation costs may
be incurred.
As an aid to determining appropriate recovered material levels in
different regions of the country, a special study of the paper and paperboard
industry was conducted to determine the availability of broad grades of paper
and paperboard at various reuse rates in different regions of the country.
The results of that study are detailed in Appendix G, but a summary is pre-
sented here.
Recovered materials will be considered in two broad categories in
this study. The first is forest and forest product manufacturing residues.
These are discarded wood fibers resulting from tree harvesting and wood pro-
cessing operations. The other category is waste paper, which includes paper
recovered after being discarded by the final consumers as well as paper recov-
ered from any paper manufacturing and converting operations once the paper
has been discarded at the paper mill. The reuse of paper and paperboard is
generally known as recycling, and that term will be used in this report.
Data for this presentation were provided by the American Paper
Institute through a special analysis of their annual capacity survey, where
companies report detailed information on their use of recovered materials.
The information available is for the use of forest and manufacturing wood
residues used as a percent of the total wood fiber consumed in the manufac-
ture of paper. Wood is the primary raw material from which virgin paper
is manufactured. Wood fiber is converted to water slurry called wood pulp,
which becomes paper. The following data were given in terms of the fiber
content of wood pulp.
Figure II-5 summarizes the data. Wood pulp is available in sig-
nificant quantities at any level of use of recovered materials, including
wood pulp made from 100 percent recovered materials. Fifty percent of the
wood pulp manufactured is 40 percent or more recovered material, v.'ith 11
percent of the wood pulp containing 95 percent or more recovered materials.
Reference to the regional data detailed in Appendix G shows significant
variation in the use of residues. The west leads in residue use with a
median level of 95 percent residues in the wood pulp being manufactured.
The northeast, central, and southern regions have median levels of 34 to
38 percent residue in the wood pulp manufactured. As a result, paper and
paperboard products manufactured from wood residues are conveniently avail-
able at any level of residue use, but the availability of high percentages
of residues is much greater in the west, particularly in the Pacific North-
west, where there is a significant concentration of wood pulp manufacturers
which derive their raw materials principally from lumber and plywood mills.
16
-------
c
O
O O
3 H
•O
O U-l
t- O
4-1
O. C
i-) 4)
3 O
O. l-i
•O 41
O C-
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
20 30 40 50 60
Wood Residue Content (Percent of Furnish)
70
80
9C
100
Figure II-5. Wood residue consumption in wood pulp
-------
Turning to the more commonly known examples of paper recycling,
various categories have been examined in Appendix G. Data there show
waste paper usage as a percent of paper products produced. Details found
in Appendix G show that 77 percent of paper produced contains less than 5
percent recycled fiber, and only 3 percent of the paper produced contains
50 percent or more recycled fiber, and only one percent is produced at
recycling rates of 90 percent or more. Thus, the relative availability
of recycled paper compared to virgin paper is quite low. However, there
is still 170,000 tons of fine and printing paper produced at the 90 per-
cent or higher recycling rate and 400,000 tons at 50 percent recycling
or higher, which is more than adequate to supply the Government. But, it
is likely that much of that tonnage will not meet the other Government
specifications which relate to product performance. Much is not readily
available for Government purchases as it is already committed to more
profitable private markets.
Table II-5 shows the regional results which can be calculated from
data in Appendix G. The overall recycling rate is 6.6 percent, but most
recycling takes place in the northeast and central regions of the country.
Very little recycling occurs in the south, and almost none in the west, where
only 49,000 tons of waste paper are consumed.
The conclusion which can be drawn from this is that fine and print-
ing papers with high recycling content comprise a very small percent of the
paper available. This means they are not nearly as readily available as
virgin paper, and in the north and west only quite small tonnages are manu-
factured. Thus, t-o purchase high recycled fiber content fine and printing
papers will frequently mean special orders as many suppliers will not have
appropriate grades in stock, and special efforts will often be required.
This is consistent with the experience of many of the government entities
at all levels interviewed in the course of this study.
Table II-5 shows that there Is considerably more recycling in
tissue products than for the fine and printing papers. Overall, the recycling
rate is 30 percent, and in Appendix G it can be found that 50 percent of the
tissue products contain approximately 12 percent or less recycled fiber.
On the other hand, over 30 percent of all tissue products contain 30 percent
or more recycled fiber, with a significant tonnage (nearly 10 percent of
the U.S. total) containing 90 percent or more waste paper. Regionally, we
once again find a wide disparity in regard to recycling. The large majority
of waste paper is used in tissue mills in the northeast and central region.
Only 15 percent of the waste paper consumed by tissue mills is used in the
three-quarters of the country included in the west and south regions.
We conclude that recycled fiber is more readily available in tissue
products than in fine and printing paper, but once again there are sizeable
differences between regions, making it doubtful that tissue made from waste
paper is readily available in the south and west from nearby mills.
18
-------
Table 11-5
AVERAGE USE OF WASTE PAPER IE PAPER AND PAPERBOARD MANUFACTURE BY REGION, 1976
Northeast Central South West Total U.S.
103 f
Fine and Printing
Paper
Tissue
Senichemical !_/
Linerboard I/
Coarse Paper
(Kraft and Special
Industrial Paper) 74 15.4 124 24.7 69 2.0 3 0.3 270 4.9
10 tons
281
484
48
-
Percent of
Production
6.4
32.4
29.2
_
10 tons
455
590
301
-
Percent of
Production
11.5
51.9
26.0
-
10 tons
84
88
520
-
Percent of
Production
2.2
10.3
22.7
-
10 tons
49
107
110
_
Percent of
Production
5.0
15.1
19.1
-
10 tons
869
1,269
979
-
Percent of
Production
6.6
30.3
23.8
8 21
_!/ These are the components of corrugated boxes.
2/ Estimates based on unpublished data.
Source: American Paper Institute, private communication (see Appendix C for details).
-------
Recycling levels for corrugated boxes could not be directly de- r
termined from the data, but the amount of recycling can be estimated from
the box components. A corrugated box is made by sandwiching a piece of
paperboard which has been fluted (or "corrugated") between two outer sheets,
or liners. The inner material is called "corrugating medium" and is manu-
factured from semichemical paperboard or recycled paperboard. The two outer
liners are usually made from unbleached kraft linerboard. The composition of
a corrugated container varies depending on the type and style of containers
being manufactured, but the average composition derived from the Fibre Box
Association Statistics for 1976 is 69 percent linerboard and 31 percent medium.
Table II-5 shows that the average level of recycled materials in
corrugating medium is 24 percent. The regional effect is much less pronounced
for the medium than for the other grades discussed so far, ranging from a
high of 29 percent in the northeast to a low of 19 percent in the west.
Therefore, substantial tonnage of recycled material is generally available.
It ,is important to realize that if the linerboard is 100 percent virgin
fiber, then the average recycled fiber content of 24 percent in the medium
alone leads to an overall box content of 7 percent waste paper-derived fiber.
An estimate of use of waste paper in linerboard cannot be made ac-
curately because the data are not reported separately for the various kinds
of kraft paperboard, only for a general category of bleached and unbleached
paperboard. However, interviews with the paper industry reveal that there
is a growing use of waste paper in linerboard mills, generally in the range
of 5 to 30 percent, although many linerboard mills are still 100 percent virgin
fiber operations. There is also a limited amount of 100 percent recycled
linerboard available. Unpublished data indicate that the current utili-
zation of waste paper results in an average waste paper fiber of 8 percent
in linerboard, but no regional data are available. However, the regional
distribution is apt to be similar to that of medium. This combined with
24 percent recycled medium would result in an average corrugated container
which is 13 percent waste paper fiber.
The final paper product category to be considered is coarse paper.
As in the case of printing and writing papers, the recycling average level
is quite low at about 5 percent. Eighty-five percent of the tonnage con-
tains 5 percent or less recovered paper, and about 3 percent of the tonnage
is 50 percent or more recycled. The regional data in Table II-5 show that
almost ail of this recycling occurs in the northeast and central regions of
the country. Consequently, it appears that very little recycling occurs
for coarse papers, and virtually none occurs in the south and west, but
significant quantities may be available in certain locations.
POTENTIAL DEMAND UNDER RIPPLE EFFECTS
Specifications for goods are often quite complex and difficult to
construct so that the buyer and seller communicate precisely. This leads
to frequent sharing of purchase specifications by entities purchasing
similar items. On a complex matter such as the use of recovered materials
20
-------
in products, it is expected that Federal Government specifications would
be studied, and in some cases copied. As a result, it is expected that
the Federal specifications will result in a ripple effect, which means
that some state and local jurisdictions and private businesses would apply
the Federal specifications to their own needs.
In order to assess the possible magnitude of this effect, paper
and paperboard purchases by state and local governments were estimated. A
survey of state and local governments was undertaken to establish use pat-
terns and amounts of purchases. These are detailed in Appendix B. The
conclusion reached is that all state and local government purchases of fine
and printing papers as well as tissue products (napkins, towels, toilet
tissue) in the country considered as a whole amount to approximately twice
the Federal Government totals. The use of Federal specifications in private
.sector purchases is not common, so the potential ripple effect would be
considered quite small. Also, state and local government direct purchases
of boxes and coarse paper are insignificant, so that category is not con-
sidered further.
State and local governments purchase products packaged in boxes,
so there is some corrugated in the form of secondary packaging received by
the states. An examination of the detailed data in Appendix A shows that
most of the corrugated received by the Federal Government is for defense-
related purposes. For the types of goods purchased by state and local
governments, the secondary packaging is much less. Because of the lack
of detailed state and local purchase data, it is necessary to rely on the
Federal experience to estimate the values of secondary packaging by analogy.
State and local government activities are similar in nature to non-defense-
related Federal activities, so the use of products should be similar. As
reported above, we know that the fine and printing papers and tissue for
state and local are double the Federal purchases. Based on these facts,
we estimate that secondary packaging is in a range close to that of the non-
defense Federal category, or about 40,000 to 60,000 tons per year.
The values quoted here are maximum potential ripple effect values.
In the past, the actual ripple effect of recovered material procurement
specifications has been small. Many states and localities have shown in-
terest in the Federal specifications, but our survey of states indicated
that little action had been taken. At the local level, governmental bodies
and public school boards try to buy locally if possible (see Appendix C).
The lack of general availability of recycled paper products precludes
purchases in many cases. It was also apparent at this level of government
that budgets are frequently quite limited, and significant use is made of
special purchases of products which are slightly off specifications which
companies make available at reduced prices. Our impression is that the
ripple effect to the local government and public school level would probably
be dependent on universal availability of recycled products at competitive
prices. Consequently, the primary ripple effect is expected to be purchases
by state governments, although isolated cases of local entities and private
businesses using Federal guidance to procure recycled products will undoubt-
edly occur.
21
-------
We conclude that the maximum potential ripple effect in printing
and writing papers and in sanitary papers is approximately equal to the
size of Federal Government purchases. If guidelines would be extended to
include packaging of products purchased by governments, the potential
ripple effect would be equal in size to the Federal Government civilian
purchases. However, the ripple effect in coarse papers and direct pur-
chases of corrugated boxes is probably insignificant.
This maximum potential ripple effect would probably never be
realized because the non-Federal Government purchases tend to be much
smaller than Federal purchases. The result is that purchase of recycled
products will depend more on local availability than for the Federal
Government. Nevertheless, California, Maryland, and Florida* have had
success in purchasing some recycled products and there is reason to
assume that at least some other states will have similar success. How-
ever, we estimate that total purchases of recycled products for states
under special procurement programs designed to purchase recycled products
will not exceed 1,000 tons of products in 1978.
* Private communications have been received from these states,
22
-------
Chapter 3
PROCUREMENT GUIDELINE ISSUES
PURPOSE OF GUIDELINES
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), (PL94-
580), Subtitle F, Section 6002(c) requires that procuring agencies of the
Federal Government, and certain other entities receiving funds from the
Federal Government, must procure items composed of the highest percentage
of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satis-
factory level of competition. In addition, procuring agencies must under-
take a review and revision of specifications to eliminate exclusion of
recovered materials and require recovered materials to the maximum extent
practical.
Section 6002(c) of the Act requires the Environmental Protection
Agency to prepare, and from time to time revise, guidelines for use by pro-
curing agencies in complying with the above requirements.
The intent of Congress as set forth in the Act is clear. It is
their desire that use of materials recovered from waste streams be stimulated,
and that one way of doing this is for the government to set an example in
the purchase of products consumed. However, the requiring of products which
are composed of recovered materials, either entirely or partially, is a very
complex task. In the case where the procuring agency has not had experience
in purchasing such products, it means altering existing purchasing policies.
For the agencies that have had experience in this area, it means insuring
that their policies are consistent with the principles outlined in RCRA.
This involves determining how to define recovered materials, and how to
obtain the maximum amount of recovered materials usage consistent with ac-
ceptable business practices. Those practices must include procuring products
that are available at a fair price; they must be readily available in terms
of quantity and delivery times at all geographical locations; an acceptable
number of bids must be received to insure competitiveness; and products must
meet all performance criteria.
The EPA guidelines will serve several purposes. The basic useful-
ness will be that they are the vehicle through which a policy will be
implemented. Thus, the basic attribute of the guidelines will be to stimu-
late the use of recovered materials. Ideally, this would occur through a
"demand-pull" type of mechanism, where the demand for goods by the govern-
ment will increase the marketability of recycled materials. If the demand
by the government is large enough, it will bring about a basic change in
manufacturers' raw materials policies. That is, if the government were
viewea as an important customer by the paper mills, they would install manu-
facturing capacity for the use of recovered materials in order to meet
government requirements.
23
-------
As'discussed later, our analysis shows that government demand is,
not large enough to bring about this result for almost all paper mills.
Instead, government purchase is viewed as marginal business, typically
accounting for one percent or less of any given paper mill's output. Thus,
the results of implementation of the guidelines will likely be modest in nature.
As a practical matter, government business is viewed as desirable by many
mills because they are a large customer, although not purchasing a sig-
nificant fraction of the mill's production. Thus, there is some incentive
for paper mills to comply with government specifications, so there is a
possibility that government specifications could play a part in company raw
materials policy decisions.
The paper industry has been a growth industry for many years. Pro-
duction of paper is continually being expanded. This fact, coupled with
the normal obsolescence of equipment, means that new production capacity is
being continually installed. In order to remain competitive, each company
must review their own economic situation before new equipment is installed.
There is always the choice that new production equipment be designed to
require either virgin or recycled raw materials. Part of the economics
relates to probable customers for the new capacity. Thus, if the government
requires the use of recovered materials, this fact must be taken into account
by any mill doing business with the government. Therefore, to the extent
that a company desires to engage in government business, it would have to
consider using recovered material. It is highly likely, then, that in some
cases, government procurement guidelines could be a factor in the installation
of recovered material capacity at paper mills.
Another purpose of the guidelines is more philosophical in nature.
It is a proper function of government to bring about actions for the public
good. RCRA was enacted as part of a national resource policy. In that re-
gard, the government must determine which natural resource policies are in
the public good. In RCRA, Congress has reflected their will by stating that
the maximum use of recovered materials is a natural resource policy which
should be encouraged. A purpose of the guidelines is to reflect this national
policy by laying out specific ways in which this policy may be implemented.
Irrespective of how successful the guidelines are at this point in time in
stimulating increased use of recovered materials, it is important that the
government lay the framework for materials policies which are deemed to be
in the nation's best interest for the long term.
Finally, an important purpose of the guidelines is to provide a
blueprint for procuring agencies to implement RCRA. The guidelines must
give specific instructions as to how agencies can procure paper composed of
recovered materials. Because each agency cannot (and should not) engage in
a comprehensive analysis of the paper industry, the guidelines must contain
information on the industry's ability to make paper available at various
recycling levels, sources of supply, the effects of recycled fiber on product
performance, and must highlight significant problems which a procuring agency
may encounter in purchasing recycled products which are not encountered in
purchasing other products.
24
-------
In summary, the procurement guidelines will serve three purposes.
The basic purpose is to enunciate government policy in natural resource con-
servation. The policy established, by Congress is that use of recovered
materials conserves natural resources. Another purpose of the guidelines
is to implement the policy by providing a framework through which natural
resources are conserved by stimulation of recycling. Finally, the guidelines
serve as an information source for procuring agencies by providing detailed
information on which agencies can base procurement decisions.
DEFINITION OF RECOVERED MATERIALS
RCRA uses the term "recovered materials" throughout in the mandate
to EPA. It is necessary that a specific and detailed definition of this
term be set forth by EPA. Over the past few years, this term has meant
different things to different people, and in some cases has come to mean
different things to the same people at different times. In this report,
three possible definitions will be discussed along with possible impli-
cations for government procurement.
Historical GSA Definitions
Since the early 1970s, the General Services Administration (GSA)
has been active in the procurement of -paper products made wholly or in part
of recovered materials. After much consideration of appropriate definitions
of recovered materials, GSA adopted their well-known two tier definitions of
recovered materials. These are reproduced in Appendix J. Part I of the GSA
definitions was "postconsumer" waste, while Part II was wastes from commercial,
industrial, and agricultural processes. The Part I included two major cate-
gories labeled A and B. Category A was paper and paperboard wastes which
had passed through their end-use, but had not entered the municipal solid waste
stream. These are the "source separated" wastes. Category B includes all
paper, paperboard, and fibrous wastes that enter and are collected from
municipal solid waste.
Part II of the GSA definitions is more complex, and has five major
categories. Categories A and B include waste from the paper manufacturing
operations such as trim and cuttings. Categories C, D, and E relate to
fibers prior to paper manufacture or to non-wood fibers. Category C is
agricultural wastes such as forest residues, and by-products of manufacturing
processes, such as sawdust. Category D is wastes generated by conversion of
fibrous material to goods, such as waste rope from cordage manufacture.
Finally, Category E includes fiber recovered from waste streams, particularly
in paper mills.
GSA has utilized these definitions to encourage use of recovered
materials in paper purchases. Recovered materials were specified in terms
of a given percent of Part I material and a given percent of Part II ma-
terial. As of the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 1978, recovered
material recycling was specified by GSA as shown in Table III-l. We esti-
mate that 50,000 to 100,000 tons of recovered materials were used in govern-
ment purchases nationally that year, with 20,000 to 30,000 tons being Part I
postconsumer waste. The postconsumer waste paper in products purchased by
the Federal Government amounts to less than 0.5 percent of the amount of
waste paper used in this country over that time period, and may have been
as low as 0.2 percent.
25
-------
Table III-l
GSA REQUIRED MINIMUM PERCENTAGES OF RECOVERED FIBER
IN PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS, 1976
Fine and Printing
Paper, Looseleaf
Paper, Blotting
Columnar Pads
Backing (Pads)
Backing (Col. Pads)
Memo Column Pads
Mailing Envelopes
White, Bond, Rag
Light Colors
Dark Colors
Sanitary Papers
Paper, Toilet Tissue
Towels, Paper
Napkins, Table, Paper
Tissue, Facial
Paper, Doily
Coarse Papers**
Trays, Prepacking
Paper, Wrapping, Waxed
Bags, Paper, Grocers
Tags, Shipping, Blank
Bags, Paper, Waxed
Boxes, Paperboard Lunch
Bags, Paper, Kraft & Foil
Bags, Paper, Mench.
Paper, Wrapping, Freezer
Industrial Wipers
Towels, Wiping, Paper
Industrial, Institutional
Towels, Paper, Plastic Wiping
Disposable Food Service
Plates, Paper
Cups
Butter, Chips
Fiber Boxes
Miscellaneous Converted Papers
Graph Paper
Paperboard, Drawing
Labels
Cardboard, Paper
Part I*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
40
,30
5
40
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
15
10
0
Total***
30
35
25
100
100
20
25
20
30
50
95
60
20
50
30
10
25
13
10
80
15
15
20
20
20
20
15
15
25
35
50
85
25
10
Source: General Services Administration, private communication.
* Postconsumer waste.
** These are primarily "brown" paper.
*** Part I plus Part II recovered fiber.
26
-------
EPA's Mission
In order to assess the usefulness of the GSA definitions, it is
necessary to determine EPA's mission and see what definitions are consis-
tent with that mission. The specific charge given to EPA in RCRA is to
promote the use of recovered materials. Recovered materials are defined
in the act in broad terms as any material collected or recovered from solid
waste; and solid waste is defined basically as any solid or semi-solid dis-
carded from households, businesses, industries, mining activities, or agri-
cultural operations.
These definitions are broadly worded and can be interpreted in
different ways. One interpretation could be that recovery of all kinds of
solid wastes is equally important. If this interpretation is adopted, then
EPA should proceed to stimulate recovery of all kinds of solid waste, without
preference to the various materials. Another point of view is that recovery
of some materials is more important than the recovery of others. For example,
substitution of recycled aluminum for virgin aluminum results in significant
energy savings, which can be as high as 80 to 90 percent of the energy to
manufacture virgin aluminum. On the'other hand, use of forest residues in
place of harvested trees may result in little or no energy savings at all.
Recovery of materials also has many other impacts. Not only are
energy resources affected, but material resources as well. To use the two
examples cited above, recovery of aluminum from waste, and using the recycled
product as a substitute for virgin aluminum avoids the use of bauxite. This
is clearly an advantage to the country, as bauxite is a virgin mineral of
finite extent. In addition, this ore is found primarily in foreign countries,
which makes this country more dependent on other countries. In the case of
forest residues, their use as a replacement for harvested trees represents
a wise use of agricultural resources, and extends the life and potential
usefulness of the nation's forests.
Another important aspect of recovering materials is the impact on
land resources. Avoidance of disposal results in less land area being used
for waste disposal. These impacts are greatly different for the two examples
cited. For aluminum, the typical mode of disposal is to use it as landfill.
Landfill sites are becoming a valuable and scarce resource in most urban
areas, so that avoidance of disposal is an important national goal. However,
disposal of forest residues occurs in areas where land availability is not
nearly as serious a problem. In addition, residues of this type degrade
naturally and return to the environment. Thus, disposal of aluminum poses a much
greater problem to the nation.
The examples given here were for aluminum and paper products. How-
ever, the same principles hold true for other products made from other ma-
terials, such as steel, glass, plastic, and textiles. In each case, different
impacts exist on natural resources. These variations exist between each
product, and also between various locations where impacts occur.
27
-------
It can be readily seen from the examples given that recovery of
different materials can have widely varying impacts. The determination of
which materials are the most important to resources is a very complex and
difficult task. However, one important reason for the existence of EPA is
to consider issues such as this and render policy recommendations. Thus,
EPA should view their mission in these matters in that context. EPA can
and should exert leadership in this area to identify the areas of resource
recovery which are in the nation's best Interest. This would appear feo be
consistent with the intent of Congress and the President.
Optional Definitions
The task of adopting appropriate definitions for recovered
materials is a necessary basic step before writing guidelines for procure-
ment specifications. These definitions must be consistent with EPA's
mission. If EPA can show it is in the nation's best interest to recover
and reuse postconsumer waste, then the procurement specifications should
reflect that view.
One option is for EPA to adopt the old GSA definitions (see Ap-
pendix J). These definitions were used to encourage the use of recovered
materials at two levels. Minimum percentages of recovered materials were
specified as Part I and Part II separately. This has the effect of stimu-
lating both postconsumer (Part I) and non-postconsumer (Part II) waste
recovery. It is probable that recovery of both is desirable for the
country.
EPA may decide that Part II type materials are being adequately
stimulated by normal economic processes, and choose to provide only for
Part I requirements in procurement specifications. If this route is chosen,
then a definition similar to the GSA Part I definitions of recovered materials
should be adopted. This would have the advantage of focusing on the post-
consumer wastes which have long been the primary concern of the EPA Office
of Solid Waste, and would be simpler to administer than requiring levels for
all recovered materials. However, it has the adverse effect in that the
government would be taking a position of not seeming to be interested in
the use of other recovered materials, even though their use may have a
favorable impact on natural resource utilization.
Another option is to define recovered materials in terms of the GSA
Part I postconsumer wastes and Part II, categories A and B, which includes
wastes from paper manufacturing operations. This has the advantage over
requiring use of only postconsumer wastes in that there may still be some
small amounts of waste from paper product manufacture, such as small printing
establishments, which is not used. In addition, this definition would include
all grades of waste paper now recognized in the waste paper trade and would
make it much easier for paper mills to identify recovered materials, rather
than trying to keep separate records on postconsumer and non-postconsumer
waste paper. This definition is also consistent with current widespread use
of the term "recycled paper." Grades of paper popularly known as "recycled
paper" often are made of the previous GSA Type II, category A and B waste
papers. This suggested reorganization of the previous GSA definitions is
shown in Table III-2.
28
-------
Table III-2
SUGGESTED DEFINITIONS OF RECOVERED MATERIALS
PART I - WASTE PAPER
(A) Paper, paperboard, and fibrous wastes from factories, retail
stores, office buildings, homes, etc., after they have passed
through their end-usage as a consumer item, including: used
corrugated boxes; old newspapers; old magazines; mixed waste
paper; tabulating cards; and used cordage.
(B) All paper, paperboard, and fibrous wastes that enter and are
collected from municipal solid waste.
(C) Dry paper and paperboard waste generated after completion of
the papermaking process (i.e., those manufacturing operations
up to and including the cutting and trimming of the paper machine
reel into smaller rolls or rough sheets) including: envelope
cuttings, bindery trimmings, and other paper and paperboard waste,
resulting from printing, cutting, forming, and other converting
operations; bag, box, and carton manufacturing wastes; and butt
rolls, mill wrappers, and rejected unused stock.
(D) Finished paper and paperboard from obsolete inventories of paper
and paperboard manufacturers, merchants, wholesalers, dealers,
printers, converters, or others.
PART II - OTHER FIBROUS RESIDUES
(A) Fibrous by-products of harvesting, manufacturing, extractive, or
woodcutting processes, flax straw, linters, bagasse, slash, and
other forest residues.
(B) Wastes generated by the conversion of goods made from fibrous
material, i.e., waste rope from cordage manufacture, textile
mill waste, and cuttings.
(C) Fibers recovered from waste water which otherwise would enter the
waste stream.
29
-------
There is also the possibility that use of recovered materials under
this definition (Table III-2) would increase the use of postconsumer waste.
This would occur because of a "domino" type of effect. If the guidelines
stimulate use of waste paper, the Type I C and D materials (the non-postcon-
sumer grades) would be the waste paper in highest demand for the paper products
purchased by the government. This increase in demand would raise the price
of wa,ste paper and stimulate other users of waste paper who could conceivably
use lower grades of postconsumer waste paper to examine that option. If the
price of the higher grades increases too much, it might bring about a situation
where potential users of lower grades would find it economically feasible to make
capital commitments for cleaning equipment to utilize more postconsumer waste.
Perhaps the real advantage in this option is that it would indicate
the government's approval of using the Part I C and D type wastes and would
give recognition to the paper industry for using higher grades of scrap paper
such as converting scrap. Certainly, EPA would not want to give any appearance
of being opposed to the use of those wastes.
Finally, another option is the one recently adopted by GSA. They
have interpreted RCRA as meaning that no distinction can be made between
categories of recovered materials, so that all must be treated equally. This
means that postconsumer wastes cannot be specified separately. The impacts
of this is that all secondary materials are viewed as being equal. This is
contrary to EPA's position, and as discussed above is inconsistent with the
information which has been developed by EPA over the past few years. This
option would seem to be inconsistent with EPA's goals.
Paper Industry Positions
To our knowledge, the paper industry as a whole will not take a
position on the recovered material definitions. Some individuals within the
industry would favor one approach, while others may favor another approach.
However, it is important to realize that the old GSA definitions were worked
out over a long period of time in consultation with the paper industry, and
they have by and large been accepted in the paper industry. Perhaps the paper
industry's greatest concern is for long-term stability in the definitions and
specifications of procuring agencies. This stability has been recently des-
troyed by the changes in the GSA procurement specifications.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Government Issues
Economic impacts on the government may occur as a result of govern-
ment procurement of recycled products. These impacts could occur by either
the government incurring additional administrative costs as a result of the
procurement program or as a result of increased costs of products.
The costs of administration of the program could range from nearly
zero to a large amount, depending on how the procurement guidelines are
written. The GSA experience has been that additional costs of their program
in procurement specifications requiring recovered materials in products has
been minimal. In actual fact, the recovered material specifications is one
30
-------
of a great number of specification items which must be checked and monitored
by GSA. They report that any additional cost would be difficult to pinpoint,
but in any case, the incremental cost of the recovered material specification
is small.
On the other hand, if the procurement guidelines are written so as
to require close monitoring on the part of the government, the expense could
become quite large. This program might include training of groups of field
inspectors to monitor and inspect paper manufacturing operations. If the
guidelines are written so as to require this, the costs could become quite
high. However, an accurate estimate can not be made without reference to
specific requirements.
A possible economic impact on the government would be an in-
crease in the price of purchased products. If government purchase require-
ments result in increased use of waste paper, it could drive up the cost of
products to the government. However, the cost of waste paper represents only
about 5 to 10 percent of the cost of the finished product purchased by the
government, so an increase of 10 percent in the price of waste paper would
result in a cost of product increase of only one-half to one percent.
Another possible added cost would be the cost of new processing
facilities to accommodate more contaminated waste paper. However, the cost
of added cleaning and processing will have an effect on final product pur-
chase price in the same range as increases in waste paper prices.*
In addition, we project that the new waste paper capacity in paper
mills will be only in the form of incremental capacit>. For the paper in-
dustry as a whole, this would be at a quite small growth rate. Thus, any
adjustments which have to be made in long term markets will be slow, which
will minimize the economic impact.
We conclude that the economic impact to the Federal Government of
these procurement guidelines will be insignificant in terms of increases in
prices caused by the policies. The exceptions to this will be if the govern-
ment tries to purchase paper in a "seller's market." That is, if recycled
paper is in short supply, attempts by the government to purchase significant
quantities will drive up prices. However, if the government gauges its pur-
chases to the supply situation, and stimulates growth in recycled products
by providing a stable market for recycled products, increases in product
prices will be minimal.
* The effect on the paper mills alone is more significant because the added
costs are a larger fraction of the value of the paper at the mill.
31
-------
Industry Issues
Adverse economic impacts on the paper industry could occur if ,
government policies would stimulate a product shift in the paper industry,,
from virgin products to recycled products. This impact would be caused by
inefficient use of virgin fiber mill equipment, added capital costs caused
by purchases of recycling capacity to replace the idled virgin capacity, and
a shift of labor from virgin mills to recycling mills (or from virgin capacity
to recycling capacity at the same mill). However, our assessment is that
government purchase policies can do no more than stimulate a growth in recycling
of one percent per year, and that growth will be in the form of added paper
manufacturing capacity rather than replacement of virgin paper manufacture.
In this case, there are no adverse economic impacts of the nature cited above.
The capital costs incurred will be for added capacity, and the labor needed
.will be new labor requirements. The only difference is that the added capacity
will be for production of recycled products rather than virgin products. Thus,
we conclude that there will be no significant adverse economic effects on the
paper and paperboard industries.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Manufacture of paper results in effluents to the environment in
the form of air pollution, water pollution, and solid wastes. The potential
impact of the guidelines will be a conversion of government purchases from
use of virgin materials to use of recovered materials. The guidelines will
not cause an increase or decrease in demand for products. Thus, the net
impact on the environment will be the result of shifting from virgin paper
manufacture to recycled paper manufacture.
An accurate comparison of virgin and recycled paper mill effluents
is difficult to assess at the present time, as discussed in detail in
Appendix I. The effluents from mills are subject to considerable change
as new pollution control devices are installed. Basically, the wastes dis-
charged to the environment by virgin and recycle mills are of the same type.
That is, one type of mill does not discharge products inherently more
damaging to the environment than the other type of mill. As discussed in
Appendix I, recycling mills tend to discharge less air pollution than virgin
mills. Recycling mills also tend to discharge less water pollution, but
this is not always so. It depends on the particular raw materials used by
the mill and the practices of the individual mills. Finally, solid wastes
from recycling mills may or may not be less than solid waste from virgin
mills. Generally, the solid waste from recycling mills is less, but if low
yield waste paper such as old magazines is used, the solid waste from a
recycled mill can be quite high. Postconsumer waste is always reduced to
the extent that postconsumer wastes are used in recycling.
The important point to remember, however, is that the government
influence on.the paper industry will not bring about a switchover at a rate
greater than one percent per year. This rate of government stimulated
change in production, coupled with the fact that virgin and recycling mills
have environmental impacts not greatly different, means that the environ-
mental impacts of the government actions will produce changes in environ-
mental impacts which are insignificant.
32
-------
ENERGY IMPACTS
Energy is required in the paper and paperboard manufacturing
sequence at all stages, which includes logging and wood residue procure-
ment, paper manufacture, conversion of paper to product, and transportation
between all steps. If recycling of paper occurs, the logging and wood
residue procurement steps are eliminated, and instead, waste-paper procure-
ment is substituted. Also, recycled paper manufacture requires a substan-
tially different amount of energy than virgin paper manufacture.
As shown in Appendix D, the question as to whether recycled pro-
ducts require less energy to manufacture is not clearcut. Generally, the
fossil energy for manufacture of corrugated containers and their components
is the same whether they are virgin or recycled. So, no energy savings
occur with that replacement. The same is true for unbleached kraft coarse
papers.
The situation for tissue and the fine and printing papers is much
more complex. The complexity arises because the industry frequently uses as
a raw material for paper manufacture a commodity known as market pulp. Mar-
ket pulp is essentially a virgin wood pulp which is manufactured similarly
to paperboard, dried and baled, and sold to a mill with recycling facilities.
The market pulp is then mixed with water, and frequently blended with waste
paper in the making of recycled paper products. However, market pulp is
also purchased by virgin paper mills to supplement their own pulp. This
occurs when a particular mill does not produce a pulp of the desired char-
acteristics for certain products. To remedy this situation, market pulp
may be purchased to upgrade the mill's self-produced pulp. The problem
is that market pulp is an energy-intensive product, primarily because it
must be dried before shipment. As shown in Appendix D, use of market pulp
can result in fossil energy use of 40 to 50 percent higher than if normal
manufacturing methods were used, and from 60 to 110 percent higher than
100 percent recycled products.
Unfortunately, market pulp is frequently blended with recycled
waste paper in order to meet performance and or aesthetic requirements.
Whether recycled paper now on the market represents energy conservation or
not depends on whether market pulp was used in its manufacture. Reference
to material in Appendix D may help in determining this in specific instances.
Nevertheless, in mills using market pulp, encouraging more use of
waste paper could realistically result in an energy conservation of 5 to 10
percent over the next ten years if a reduction of market pulp in the range
of 10 to 20 percent could be brought about.
Recent energy consumption data made public by the American Paper
Institute and reproduced in Appendix D show that in some cases use of re-
cycled paper may result in conservation of energy, while in other cases it
may actually result in use of more purchased energy being used than for
virgin paper. These data are based on a sample of existing mills.
33
-------
Some data indicate that recycling mills that are quite old and
lack modern energy conservation technology are primarily the ones responsible
for high energy consumption. However, if new recycling mills are compared
to new virgin mills, the recycling mills are in many instances less energy-
intensive. We conclude that the energy picture is very complex and difficult
to interpret. It appears that there is no convincing evidence that govern-
ment procurement of paper containing recycled material will necessarily
result in conservation of purchased energy.
In summary, simply buying recycled products now on the market may
result in some energy conservation, no energy conservation, or even an in-
crease in energy when compared to virgin products, depending on particular
situations. However, any stimulation of growth in the use of waste paper as
a percent of furnish, particularly at the expense of market pulp, will gen-
erally result in energy conservation.
CERTIFICATION OF RECOVERED MATERIAL CONTENT
An important part of any purchase process is the verification
of what has been purchased. In the case of purchasing paper with specified
recovered material content, this includes verification that the recovered
materials are present in the product in the quantities specified.
This verification may be difficult to obtain with 100 percent
assurance. It is not possible ,to perform quantitative tests on the final
product to determine whether the specified materials are present. Recycled
paper fibers are identical to virgin paper fibers in chemical composition
and form. Recycled fibers tend to be shorter and to differ in microscopic
appearance from virgin fibers, but it is only a tendency. Some virgin
fibers are also quite short, and have the same microscopic appearance as
recycled fibers. Thus, it is not possible to perform chemical, microscopic,
or other scientific examinations to determine secondary material content.
The only way to determine secondary material content is to know
what raw materials are used in the manufacturing process. This means that
verification of content relies on individuals being present at the time of
manufacture to see what raw materials are used. A certification as to
content then can be made by the individuals present.
At the present time, GSA has been specifying recovered material
certification by the manufacturing companies. Thus, mill operating personnel
observe the raw materials mix and report it accordingly. This self-certifi-
cation relies on the veracity of the companies for accuracy.
This system is simple and inexpensive for the government to monitor,
All indications are that the system works well, but the government has no
guarantee that the certifications are accurate, and there is presently no
independent way of checking on this. This simple self-certification proce-
dure is open to honest misinterpretations of the recovered material defi-
nitions, and also open to dishonest misrepresentation.
-------
In order to provide more assurance to the government, independent
inspections would be needed. These inspections could take many forms, in-
cluding on-site inspections while paper is being manufactured for government
consumption or inspections of mill raw materials records. These inspections
could occur for each government purchase, or selected mills could undergo
occasional inspections.
A program of independent inspections would be costly and difficult
to administer. It would mean hiring new staff and training them to inspect
paper manufacturing facilities, which is a complex and difficult procedure.
There is also the problem of creating greater inconvenience for the paper
mills, and in creating extensions of a bureaucracy to which the paper mills
already object. A further disadvantage to the on-site inspections is that
there are still possibilities of error and dishonesty by individual inspec-
tors, so the problem of reliable certification is not entirely eliminated.
Difficult decisions need to be made to determine the optimum means
of recovered material use verification. The costs and benefits of self-
certification need to be weighed against the more complex and expensive
independent inspection systems that may be more accurate, but will certainly
be more distasteful to the suppliers. Perhaps a self-certification approach
with more intensive efforts in education of suppliers as to recovered ma-
terials definitions would be sufficiently effective to meet the government's
needs and minimize disruptions of suppliers.
PRODUCT PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
Pulp prepared from waste paper and pulp prepared from virgin wood
are both basically cellulosic wood fibers of similar chemical composition.
However, waste paper pulp contains contaminating materials which arise be-
cause of the inks, adhesives and other materials which were necessary to
the functions performed by the paper before discard. These contaminants
are difficult to deal with, and the upgrading of waste paper pulp is ex-
pensive and requires energy. The result is that some paper products pre-
pared from waste paper have difficulty in competing with virgin products.
It is important that the government examine procurement specifications to
insure that they are entirely functional and do not act to inhibit the use
of recycled products.
35
-------
Brightness
Manufacturers of recycled paper products have mentioned brightness
specifications in printing and writing papers as being an area which should
be studied for functionality. The question as to whether lower brightness
paper would function as well as paper presently being purchased is an important
one. Manufacturers of virgin paper products as well as those that manufacture
recycled products have indicated even a fairly small lowering in brightness
specifications so that hypochlorite bleaching of pulp would be eliminated would
result in monetary savings to the government, and reduce energy consumption of
paper manufacture by as much as 5 to 7 percent. In the case of recycled paper,
the highest levels of brightness are reached not only by intensive bleaching,
but also by adding a bright, white substance (usually titanium dioxide) to
the paper surface. This is quite expensive, and titanium dioxide manufacture
is quite energy-intensive.
Manufacturing paper of lower brightness will save money and energy.
Recycled paper manufacturers believe that they could more easily meet govern-
ment specifications if brightness is lowered. However, certain problems
may arise if the government lowers brightness standards. If only a minimum
brightness is specified, only one or a small number of suppliers could be
utilized at any one location in order that paper match from one printing run
to the next. This is because some suppliers may find it easier to supply
the government with brightness higher than the minimum (as now happens with
toilet tissue). On the other hand, if brightness is set a a value lower
than the commercial norm, some companies may simply lower the brightness by
adding carbon black or other darkening agents to their product. In any
event, this would subvert the purpose of obtaining paper more inexpensively
and at lower energy requirements.
It is observed, then, that if the government lowers brightness
specifications, it may or may not have the desired effect immediately.
However, in the long term, it may be important for the government to pro-
vide leadership in use of lower brightness paper. Procurement specifications
allowing for the use of lower brightness paper might be a leading factor for
companies deciding to devote a certain fraction of their capacity to lower
brightness paper. In this way, the goals desired by the government could
be achieved, including a possibility of enhancing the competitive position
of recycled paper manufacture for government bids. Nonetheless, this all
must be predicated on the ability to use lower brightness paper without
sacrificing its functional utility.
Cleanliness
As a result of the contaminants inherent in the use of waste paper,
recycled paper using postconsumer raw materials frequently contains specks in'
the finished, products. This is also an inherent problem in virgin paper pro-
ducts because small bundles of wood fibers can find their way into finished
paper products. Nevertheless, the specks are more easily prevented by removal
from the virgin pulp than from recycled pulp. Cleanliness is a troublesome
problem for products made from recycled products.
36
-------
It is important for some applications that paper be free from
specks. However, government specifications should be examined for situa-
tions where specks do not significantly affect the paper's function.
Examples might be computer printout, note pads, and other uses where
aesthetic impact is of lesser importance. A relaxation of speck requirements
for government purchases would make it easier for recycled products to be
more competitive with virgin products by reducing the need for stringent
pulp cleaning procedures which do not enhance the functionality of the
paper products.
Curl in Copier Papers
One of the large single product items purchased by the government
.is paper for copying machines. There is also considerable interest in the
use of recycled paper in copying machines. Contact with virgin and recycled
paper manufacturers, with manufacturers of copying machines, and with large
volume users of copying machines has revealed that there is nothing inherent
in recycled paper which prevents it from performing as well as virgin paper
in copying machines (see Appendix F). Nevertheless, a unique problem does
arise in the newest generation of copying machines which are designed for
high speed and high volume copying. These machines use a very hot stage in
the processing sequence,which puts a curl into the paper. If ordinary
copier paper is used, this.curl will result in machine jams, and make use
of high speed collators virtually impossible. To combat this problem, a
special paper is manufactured with a carefully built in "reverse curl," so
that when the paper curls in the copying process, it merely takes out the
"reverse curl" and comes out straight.
The manufacture of the "reverse curl" paper requires that special
runs be made in the paper mills. At present, only two companies manufacture
the paper. Because neither uses secondary fibers as raw materials, recycled
paper is not available for the new generation of copiers.
Specifications for recycled copier paper do not need to be avoided
for technical reasons, except for the new generation of high speed copiers.
But the paper must be of good quality and be cut properly whether it is
recycled or not.
POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON WASTE PAPER SUPPLIES
Increased use of recycled products will bring about an increase in
waste paper demand. Historically, increased demand of waste paper has in-
creased prices in the short-term. There is a transitory effect as demand
increases faster than supply, which drives up prices sharply. This stimulates
the exploitation of new waste paper supply, which eventually lowers prices
as supply and demand move into balance. However-, the exploitation of new
supply usually requires some additional costs above the level that existed
before the demand increase. This is because new supply comes from suppliers
at greater distances, or from suppliers that must receive higher prices than
they previously were able to obtain. Thus, a permanent increase in demand
for waste paper eventually causes a permanent increase in waste paper prices,
although historically this increase has been small, in the range of $1 to $3
per ton on a long-term basis.
37
-------
Another aspect of the increased demand for waste paper is that new
supply is frequently more contaminated than old supply. This means that costs
to waste paper dealers are increased b.ecause additional processing is needed.
Also, more processing may be needed at paper mills, which would Increase costs
to the mills. Thus, the Increase in waste paper demand will cause increased
costs to the paper mills by increasing operating costs, and/or by increasing
the costs of raw materials.
The potential exists that increased requirements in recovered ma-
terials for government purchases of printing and writing papers would cause
some shifts in the grades of waste paper consumed by paper mills. The im-
mediate effect would be an increased demand by printing and writing paper
mills for the higher priced grades of waste paper which they require in their
operations. This would first drive up the price of those grades. Other
types of paper mills which use some higher grades, such as tissue or paper-
board mills, would have to pay the new higher prices for those grades, or
perhaps invested capital equipment which would allow use of lower grades of
paper. Thus, stimulation of use of the higher (more expensive) grades of
waste paper could have a ripple effect, which would Increase the use of lower
grades of waste paper, including postconsumer waste.
The basic nature of the waste paper market is that it is very
volatile, being characterized by short-term swings in supply and demand.
As discussed earlier, it is our contention that increases in use of
recycled products by the government would amount to no more than in-
creases in new recycling capacity, at a slow growth rate. At slow
growth, the disruptions in waste paper markets would be minimal, avoid-
ing sharp price changes and rapid changes in supply. Thus, the effect
of government purchases on waste paper markets would be minimal, although
new levels of supply may bring about slightly higher prices for the
reasons cited above. Unfortunately, the dynamics of waste paper markets
are not well enough characterized to allow a precise calculation of this
effect.
38
-------
Chapter 4
VIEWPOINTS OF PAPER INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES
INTRODUCTION
As a part of the background data and information base of this study,
managers in fifteen paper companies were interviewed to learn more about pos-
sible impacts on paper companies of possible procurement guidelines requiring
secondary fiber content in products. These companies represented a cross-
section of the industry, including large companies with large timber holdings,
small companies with little or no timber holdings, virgin fiber-based com-
panies, recycling companies, companies that do both virgin and recycling
manufacture, companies that used to recycle but no longer.do, companies which
plan to add recycling capacity, companies which do business with the govern-
ment, and companies which no longer bid on government contracts. Information
was elicited concerning the companies' abilities and desires to meet possible
secondary fiber requirements, as well as their past experience in these
matters with the GSA requirements. It is important that the government have
detailed knowledge of these matters, particularly because of the bid method
of purchasing used by the government. If guidelines are set in a manner
deemed unrealistic by the companies, they will not (or cannot) bid for
government contracts. This chapter is a summary of the findings of the
industry interviews.
IMPORTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT AS A CUSTOMER
The ability of government purchases to alter raw materials policies
of a paper company depends on the importance of the government as a customer.
Fourteen of the fifteen companies interviewed stated that government pur-
chases accounted for less than 2 percent of their annual production, and in
most cases the value was less than one percent. Not only was this true of
companies as a whole, but was also true of individual mills within large
companies. The one remaining company sold most of their production to
governments at all levels.
The fact that government purchases are such a small percent of a
company's business is an important consideration in regard to the effective-
ness of the procurement guidelines. For the fourteen companies not relying
substantially on government business, their decisions are based on their
private markets. Thus, they make raw materials decisions and capital invest-
ment decisions consistent with their private customer specifications. At
present, they bid on government business because they can accommodate govern-
ment purchases within the framework of their private business.
39
-------
Most companies interviewed have been able to meet all government
specifications, including GSA recovered material definitions. * However,
these have been met within the context of their on-goirig operations. In
some cases, special purchases of waste' paper were made specifically for a
government order, but no permanent raw materials or capital expenditure
decisions have been made based on the government specifications. The
fourteen companies without exception said that if recovered material
specifications exceed their present capacity to comply, they would simply
not bid for government contracts rather than significantly alter their
operations or make new capital investment. Some companies pointed out the
special runs they now must make to meet existing government specifications
result in extra costs to them, and this frequently is reflected in their
bid price.
Another point made by many companies was that government business
tends to be viewed as marginal business. That is, government business is
sought only after all commercial sales are executed. Then, if unused
capacity exists, government business is sought. This effect can be seen
when paper supplies are short, because under those conditions the number
of companies bidding is small, and prices are probably higher than for
the commercial market. On the other hand, when paper supplies are
abundant the number of bidders are much more numerous, and prices are
closer to the commercial market prices. The companies report that this
effect is caused primarily by the special conditions which are placed on
government purchases (discussed later) combined with the fact that the
government purchases are a small fraction of their sales.
The point to be made here is that while government business is
desired by the companies that sell in the bid markets, it is far down on
the list of preferred customers. This means that there is a limit to
special specifications which the government can make and still receive
bids. Thus, levels of recovered fiber required by the government must
be set at levels reasonably attainable by the companies.
OPTIMIZATION OF RAW MATERIALS ON ECONOMICS OF PAPER MANUFACTURE
The basic goal of any paper company is to make a profit. If a
company does not make a profit, it will not exist for long. Toward that
end, operations are subject to constant change so as to minimize costs.
Thus, raw materials decisions are studied carefully to determine what raw
materials policies will maximize profits. A particular raw materials mix
is chosen by each company after assessing their particular situation. For
example, a company with extensive timber holdings would likely utilize
that resource in their paper manufacture. On the other hand, if a company
has no timber holdings, they may choose between baled virgin wood pulp
(market pulp) and various grades of waste paper.
Each company carefully optimizes their raw materials choices so as
to maximize profits. The companies interviewed all showed sophistication in
studying their raw materials policies. Many companies which are primarily
virgin material-based have detailed knowledge of recycling operations, but
choose the virgin raw materials route for sound economic reasons. Likewise,
users of secondary materials are quite knowledgeable of all their options.
40
-------
As a matter of course, then, raw materials policies of the
companies are optimized. This means that governmental activities to
change the raw materials mix will most likely create a non-optimal
situation and will increase the costs of paper manufacture compared to
the status quo. One possible exception to this is if the government
provides a market for recycled materials which could be supplied by
added capacity. Thus, with that one exception, artificially altering
raw materials policies would likely only result in higher prices for
paper products.
SPECIAL PROBLEMS WITH GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
As discussed in a previous section, special provisions in govern-
.ment contracts decrease the desire by many companies to do business with
the government. Example items which companies classify as nuisances are
things like having to use special colors of inks, mark items in a special
way, and the filling out of numerous declarations and forms which are inci-
dental to the function of the product. It is also distasteful to some
companies to have their records and premises inspected, especially when
the inspections are repeated by each agency with which they are doing business.
The requirements of secondary fiber in products purchased by the
government are viewed by the companies as another inconvenience. It cannot
be determined to what extent such requirements have on companies' decisions
to bid, but two companies listed the recovered material requirements in GSA
bids as being one nuisance item too many, and have since declined to bid on
government orders. One of those companies indicated also that it would be
quite difficult to meet those specifications from an economic point of view.
Another item mentioned by the companies was that it would be easier
to bid on government contracts if "off-the-shelf" items, i.e., "commercial
grade" products, would be purchased. Although the government is moving in
this direction, the requirements of case size, basis weights, sheet size,
and other paper properties which are different from accepted commercial
practices lead to higher prices and more nuisance for the companies. The
companies report that there is still room for progress in that area.
Another special problem with government business is the inability of
the government to be able to predict ahead of time how much product will be
purchased. As shown in Chapter 2, the year-to-year variations in government
purchases seem unpredictable. In addition, even after a contract is won,
there is no assurance as to how much product will actually be bought. This
coupled with the elusive nature of bid business, means that most companies
are not sufficiently assured of government business that they would make
significant changes in their business patterns for government business.
41
-------
The special problems listed by the companies are a deterrent to
doing business with the government. It is difficult to assess the precise
costs to the government because of the fact that industry has to deal with
these problems, and to assess the number of companies which decline to bid
because of them. However, there can be little doubt that specifications to
require inclusion of recovered fibers are viewed as another nuisance item by
many companies.
IMPACTS OF PREVIOUS GSA EXPERIENCE
Since 1972, the fifteen companies interviewed have participated in
GSA bids with recovered material specifications. The companies were asked
their views on the success of the GSA specifications and to relate their
experience with them.
Perhaps the most important finding is that none of the fifteen
companies interviewed felt that the specifications had resulted in a basic
change in raw materials policies by any company. Two of the companies have
ceased being suppliers to the government as a result of the recovered ma-
terials requirements. For the thirteen companies continuing to supply the
government, the specifications were met by making special purchases of waste
paper and by making special runs. The companies perceive that this results
in extra costs to them.
It is not easy to determine the effects of the specifications on
price and competitiveness in the bidding process. In the normal course of
business, the number of bidders varies greatly from quarter to quarter,
depending on the number of companies with excess capacity at a particular
time. Likewise, the prices bid vary greatly depending on excesses or
surpluses of paper. Consequently, it is not possible to easily determine
the effect of the specifications on price and competition. However, the
companies feel that the specifications have led to higher prices and fewer
bidders. Certainly in cases where companies had frequently won government
bids but subsequently withdrew from bidding, it would seem possible that
there would be some effect on price. Also, if the companies perceive that
there are increased costs of meeting the specifications, it would be expected
that these costs would be reflected in price.
It was also ascertained that some problems existed as to the defi-
nitions of recovered material, particularly for the postconsumer grades. Not
all companies interpret the definitions in the same way. As a result, it is
possible that companies felt they were using postconsumer waste paper in some
instances when in fact they were using grades that EPA would not classify as
postconsumer. Perhaps a more intensive educational campaign could resolve
these problems.
To' summarize the companies' comments, it can be said that they gen-
erally feel the GSA specifications have not significantly increased the use
of waste paper; that they have reduced competition and raised prices; and
that they represent a new nuisance item in contracting with the government 5
and that government is not a valued enough customer for them to consider
alterations in their manufacturing processes, or making new capital invest-
ment to meet government specifications for purchased products.
42
-------
Chapter 5
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO EPA AND CONTRACTOR RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Since the mid-1960s, there has developed a history of procurement
procedures aimed at stimulating the use of recovered materials in products.
The aim is to reduce consumption of finite materials, reduce solid waste,
conserve energy, and alleviate pollution. Many of the procurement efforts
were disastrous because of poor planning caused primarily from a lack of
awareness of the complexity of such procurements, and because a dearth of
knowledge about these matters existed.
By far the most successful attempts in paper product procurement
have been made by GSA. Since 1972, significant purchases of products con-
taining recovered materials have been made, and GSA has evolved workable
procedures. Therefore, the possibility that such procurements can be suc-
cessfully made has been proven, although the possibility does exist that
the procedures can be optimized further.
This chapter is a summary of the factual findings by the contractor
concerning options available to EPA concerning the implementation of a re-
covered materials specifications program. Recommendations are made on the
various issues which reflect the best judgment of the analytical team. It
should be carefully noted that these recommendations are advisory only, and
do not necessarily reflect the judgment of EPA or of anyone else.
GENERAL ISSUES
Definitions
As discussed in Chapter 3, EPA must select definitions of recovered
materials consistent with their mission. It appears that the most useful and
potentially most successful approach would be to adopt generally the wording
and structure of the original GSA definitions, as they have been accepted by
all parties involved. However, an important change in structure should be
made with the Part II A and B categories. These categories include paper
fiber scrap or discards from converting, printing, and manufacturing operations.
These categories are not "postconsumer" in the sense that EPA uses the term,
but are closely linked to the term "waste paper" in the minds of most people
in the affected industries, the government purchasing entities, and the gen-
eral public. It is also clear that EPA wishes to encourage the use of those
materials, although they are presently recovered routinely at very high
levels for reuse. Therefore, we recommend that Part II A and B become Part I
C and D. This will neatly split the definitions into two categories which may
be called waste paper, and wood and other fibrous residues.
43
-------
Certification of Recovered Material Content
An important part of any purchase process is the verification
of what has been purchased. In the case of purchasing paper with speci-
fied recovered material content, this includes verification that the re-
covered materials are present in the product in the quantities specified.
This verification may be difficult to obtain with 100 percent
assurance. It is not possible to perform quantitative tests on the final
product to determine whether the specified materials are present. Re-
cycled paper fibers are identical to virgin paper fibers in chemical
composition and form. Recycled fibers tend to be shorter and to differ
in microscopic appearance from virgin fibers, but it is only a tendency.
Some virgin fibers are also quite short, and have the same microscopic
appearance as recycled fibers. Thus, it is not possible to perform
chemical, microscopic, or other scientific examinations to determine
secondary material content.
The only way to determine secondary material content is to know
what raw materials are used in the manufacturing process. This means that
verification of content relies on individuals being present at the time of
manufacture to see what raw materials are used. A certification as to
content then can be made by the individuals present.
At the present time, GSA has been specifying recovered material
certification by the manufacturing companies. Thus, mill operating per-
sonnel observe the raw materials mix and report it accordingly. This self-
certification relies on the veracity of the companies for accuracy.
This system is simple and inexpensive for the government to monitor.
All indications are that the system works well, but the government has no
guarantee that the certifications are accurate, and there is presently no
independent way of checking on this. This simple self-certification proce-
dure is open to honest misinterpretations of the recovered material defi-
nitions, and also open to djshonest misrepresentation.
In order to provide more assurance to the government, independent
inspections would be needed. These inspections could take many forms, in-
cluding on-site inspections while paper is being manufactured for government
consumption or inspections of mill raw materials records. These inspections
could occur for each government purchase, or selected mills could undergo
occasional inspections.
A program of independent inspections would be costly and difficult
to administer. It would mean hiring new staff and training them to inspect
paper manufacturing facilities, which is a complex and difficult procedure.
There is also the problem of creating greater inconvenience for the paper
mills, and in creating extensions of a bureaucracy to which the paper mills
already object. A further disadvantage to the on-site Inspections Is that
there are still possibilities of error and dishonesty by individual inspec-
tors, so the problem of reliable certification is not entirely eliminated.
44
-------
Difficult decisions need to be made to determine the optimum
means of recovered material use verification. The costs and benefits of,
self-certification need to be weighed against the more complex and ex-
pensive independent inspection 'systems that may be more accurate, but
will certainly be more distasteful to the suppliers. Perhaps a self-
certification approach with more intensive efforts in education of
suppliers as to recovered materials definitions would be sufficiently
effective to meet the government's needs and minimize disruptions of
suppliers.
Another important issue concerns the scope of application of
the certification. Under GSA practice, the certification applies only to
the actual product received by GSA. An alternative would be to require
specified annual use of recovered material by the supplying mill. The
impact of this would be that a mill in compliance would be using recovered
materials for an entire year, rather than for only a special run for
Government purchases. Thus, the potential impact on recovered material
use would be much greater. However, because of the smallness of a
Government purchase it is unlikely that most mills would alter their
entire raw materials structure for purposes of supplying the Government.
Instead, they would most likely decline the invitation to bid, and the
competitiveness of Government bidding would be seriously affected. Con-
sequently, it appears that the only practical approach is to require
certification of specific products received.
A practical problem arises in the reporting of recovered material
use in terms of units which are to be used. The most convenient approach
to use is to specify recovered material content in terms of the way the
supplying mills measure quantities. Perhaps the easiest way to specify
recovered materials is the following: recovered material content is ex-
pressed as a percent, derived by dividing the weight (as received) of
recovered materials used by the weight of the product transferred to the
converting operation, and multiplying by 100 (to convert to percent).
We specifically recommend that the EPA guidelines contain pro-
visions for a simple certification system such as is presently used by GSA,
which consists primarily of a simple declaration by company officials for
the products actually received by the processing agency. The level of
recovered material should be in terms of percent, as defined above.
Competition
The level of competition on government bids varies dramatically
from quarter-to-quarter, and also depends heavily on business conditions.
Therefore, it is not easy to determine the effect on competitiveness of
the GSA actions in regard to recovered materials, although GSA has been
able to maintain competition on their bids. Nevertheless, the secondary
fiber requirements obviously cut some former suppliers who had been low
bidders from the bid process, so the competition is most likely reduced
to some degree by the recovered material specifications. In some regions
of the country where recycled products are not manufactured by several
companies, the competitive situation would be expected to be less than in
other areas.
45
-------
It would be expected that any added specification which is not
met by all manufacturers will reduce competition to some extent. Conse-
quently, EPA will need to include in the guidelines carefully selected
recovered material levels so that an acceptable level of competition
exists. GSA has found levels acceptable to them by a trial and error
approach. If recovered material levels are too high, an insufficient
number of bids will be received. A provision should be made by EPA to
determine if the reason for non-bidding was the recovered material speci-
fications, either by follow-up letter or phone call to non-bidders. If
the recovered material level is the reason, then the levels can be reduced
and the bidding procedure could be repeated.
Preferences
In 1978, the State of California established a provision for
giving certain recycled product procurements a 5 percent monetary pre-
ference over non-recycled products. For the first eight months of 1978,
they purchased $1.2 million of recycled paper products, with $1.1 million
being purchased only because the 5 percent preference was allowed. How-
ever, they report that the additional cost to the state was only $15,000.*
This is the only documented evidence that we found for this procedure.
The GSA approach is different. It has been to set recovered
material levels and simply take the low bidder. The California approach
is to allow bidding irrespective of fiber source, but grant the possible
preference for products defined as "recycled." Apparently, both approaches
have been successful to a certain extent. Another possible approach is to
create a "recovered material set aside," where an open bidding would be
allowed, but some specified amount of products containing certain levels
of recovered materials would be purchased irrespective of price.
In interviews with paper and paperboard companies, even those
manufacturing recycled products, they expressed the opinion that premiums
or preferences would increase the prices paid by the government as the
sola effect of such programs. They felt that such action would not result
in increased use of recovered materials.
As mentioned in numerous other places in this report, we feel it
would be advisable to build on the successful aspects of the GSA program.
It has been successfully implemented without preference or premiums. How-
ever, the California experience is worthy of consideration. Very little
recycling is done in the western half of this country in fine and printing
papers, yet California has been successful in making purchases. We recom-
ment that EPA study the California approach to see if it offers any advan-
tages to the -Federal Government. However, the Federal Government must
* State of California, private communication. See Appendix K.
46
-------
weigh such a program against the policy to purchase products at the lowest
prices. The situation remains that the California approach may have re-
sulted in more competition and may have resulted in lower prices while
encouraging the use of recovered materials. Perhaps Government purchasing
agents could experiment with the "preference" approach at a minimum of
three selected locations in the U.S. for one year and carefully study the
results to see if general application would be feasible.
Under such a program, the preference would be reserved for those
products containing as a minimum the levels of recovered materials now re-
quired by GSA, or the levels recommended later in this report. In addition,
bidders would be required to furnish information as to the recovered material
content of the products they are proposing to deliver to the government.
This information could then be used as a data base in revising the levels
of recovered materials for which the preference would be allowed.
This program appears to be an innovative approach to procurement.
It allows full and open bidding by not excluding virgin material manufacture,
which presumably allows the government to purchase products at the lowest
possible price. At the same time it serves notice that the government en-
courages use of recovered materials, and in fact gives preference to products
containing recovered materials. This should stimulate any company interested
in bidding on government contracts to use recovered materials. On the other
hand, it helps insure that the government will receive bids, even for cases
where products containing recovered materials are periodically scarce.
Another advantage to this system is that it removes the necessity of the
government to accurately determine correct levels of recovered materials to
be specified. If initial estimates used to set recovered materials prove
either too high or too low, the government should still be able to purchase
products in an acceptable way.
Perhaps one of the greatest advantages is that it facilitates the
inclusion of indirect purchases into the system. It no longer places a
burden on the government to determine whether the levels of inconvenience of
specifying recovered materials for secondary packaging and purchased print-
ing materials would be so great as to deter bidding. By using the preference,
it encourages the use of recycled products in a real way, but does not dis-
courage open bidding.
Another example where the preference would help solve a difficult
problem is the purchase of products where only one or two manufacturers
produce recycled products. In some years, these manufacturers may choose
not to bid. Thus, the government would have to set the recovered material
level at zero in order to purchase products. On the other hand, if the
preference approach is used, the purchase of the recycled products would be
stimulated in years when recycled materials are potentially available, but
when they are not, the government could still purchase products. Thus, the
recovered material specifications could remain'at reasonably high levels
and would likely stimulate use of recovered materials.
47
-------
In summary, use of a preference would seem to possess many advan-
tages, such as maintaining high levels of competition, encouraging the use
of recovered materials, and broadening the base of products for which re-
covered materials could be actively encouraged.
Wood and Other Fibrous Residuals
In the remainder of this report, it is assumed that recovered
materials will be considered in two categories—waste paper, and wood
and other fibrous residuals. The complex issues which must be resolved
apply only to waste paper. The reason for this is that wood and other
fibrous residuals used in paper manufacture consist almost entirely of
forest residues and wastes from wood product manufacturers. These resi-
dues are used as a replacement for logs in virgin mills. They do not
significantly affect product quality, availability, or cost. Therefore,
the following discussions of the complex issues will relate to the use
of waste paper only.
Program Success
At some point, the EPA guidelines will be evaluated as to their
success as a raw materials policy as well as their effect on the purchasing
of products. In the short term, the program will be a success if the
Government can purchase acceptable products that contain recovered materials
for its use on a competitive basis. In the long term, the program will be
a success if the basic raw materials policies tend to increase the recovery
of materials from solid waste. It is unreasonable to expect that Government
purchasing policies will bring about a rapid or significant change in the
near future. However, we project that the Government efforts can encourage
installation of recovered material processing in plants as part of their
normal new capacity additions. This effort will be enhanced by the recent
allowance of a recycling equipment tax credit which is a part of recently
enacted energy legislation.
Accurate projections of this effect are not possible, but even
stimulation of a one percent per year increase in the use of waste paper
in Government purchased products would eventually amount to a significant
increase, and this level of stimulation seems possible.
The decisions to add new capacity at a paper or paperboard mill
are very complex. It would be difficult to relate such capacity expansion
directly to government actions of any kind. Nevertheless, we recommend
that EPA monitor these activities each year as a matter of background
interest. We also urge EPA to monitor Federal activities in the area of
product purchases to document the amounts of recovered materials purchased.
Finally, we recommend that a simple formal procedure be adopted to monitor
state purchases annually to document progress of secondary material use
in that area. These items will assist EPA in documenting the success of
this program.
48
-------
ISSUES SPECIFIC TO PRODUCT CATEGORIES
Introduction
In this section, the following product categories will be analyzed
separately: high grade bleached papers, sanitary tissue products, unbleached
paper and paperboard, and combination (recycled) paperboard. The issues
treated for these grades (except combination paperboard) are as follows:
technical equivalency of products containing recovered materials with
products containing virgin materials, availability, cost, performance
specifications, and recovered material levels.
High Grade Bleached Papers
Description. This category represents the largest tonnage of
Government purchases, and includes printing and writing papers, envelopes,
pads, tabulating paper and cards, and copier paper. It is generally a
very attractive paper, frequently white, and bright and free from dirt.
Its composition is typically bleached kraft and/or sulfite paper. When
made from waste paper, it is generally made from high grade paper manu-
facturing wastes or deinked ledger grades of waste paper.
When the bleached kraft and/or sulfite paper is made in the
virgin form, it is manufactured in the sequence shown in Figure V-l.
Wood is harvested and shipped to a wood pulp mill, where the logs are
generally debarked, chipped, and placed in a digester. The wood chips
are mixed with water and chemicals and cooked under pressure in the
digester in order to break down the lignins and natural adhesives which
bind the wood fibers together. The wood fibers are then removed from
the digester in the form of a water slurry forming kraft or sulfite wood
pulp, depending on the nature of the particular digestion process. In
some cases, a pulp is made by simply grinding logs in the presence of
water, producing a "groundwood" pulp that is more brown in color than
the kraft and sulfite pulps. In any case, pulp is washed, cleaned,
bleached, and processed through a series of stages until it is suitable
for paper manufacture.
The paper is usually manufactured at the same site as the pulp
mill. Pulp is spread on a traveling screen through which the water drains,
leaving the fibers on the screen to form the sheet of paper. The sheet
is then passed through rollers and steam heated dryers to remove additional
water, and finally is wound into large rolls. The large rolls are subse-
quently trimmed and sent to a converting plant where the final product is
manufactured.
Recovered materials can be used as a partial or a complete replace-
ment of the virgin materials. If recovered wood or other fibrous residues
are used, they are simply used to replace virgin logs with no other major
changes in the manufacturing sequence being necessary. If waste paper is
used, the manufacturing sequence is shown in Figure V-2.
49
-------
Wocd
Harvesting
Wood
Processing
Pulp
Manufacture
Ui
o
Recovered
Wood
Residues
Pulp
Processing
Paper
Manufacture
Finished
Paper
Waste
Paper
or
Market
Pulp
Figure V-l. Manufacturing sequence for paper starting with virgin wood and/or recovered wood residues.
-------
Waste Paper
Procurement
Pulping
Pulp
Processing
(including
de inking)
Paper
Manufacture
» Finished
Paper
Market
Pulp
Figure V-2. Manufacturing sequence for paper starting with waste paper
-------
The steps in paper recycling are similar to virgin paper manu-
facture, differing primarily in the choice of raw materials. In recycling
mills, waste paper is mixed with water in a machine called a pulper, which
is similar in operation to a kitchen blender. The waste paper pulp which
results from this operation undergoes ink removal (deinking) if necessary
and is then cleaned, bleached, and processed similar to the processing of
wood pulp in the virgin manufacturing sequence. Paper is then manufactured
and converted to products in exactly the same way as for virgin paper.
A common alternative is for virgin and recycled fibers to be
mixed. This can happen at facilities described in either Figure V-l or
Figure V-2. In mills such as described in Figure V-l, waste paper may
be pulped and mixed with virgin pulp prior to paper manufacture, thus
producing paper with recycling rates which may range from near zero per-
cent to near 100 percent.
In a related fashion, mills of the type described in Figure V-2
may use virgin fiber to produce a range of recycling rates. They utilize
virgin fibers in a form called "market pulp," which is a dried pulp pro-
duct of a virgin paper mill quite similar to a thick sheet of paper.
Virgin market pulp is interchangeable with waste paper in recycling mills.
Technical Equivalency. Papers in this category containing waste
paper are manufactured within a range of qualities in the same way that
virgin papers are manufactured. However, for any set of performance speci-
fications, both virgin and recycled paper can be manufactured. In one
study* a "blind" set of printing and writing papers were sent to labor-
atories for examination of performance of characteristics. The results
showed that recycled paper was generally indistinguishable in quality from
virgin paper, although there was a wide range of quality in both virgin
and recycled paper. Perhaps more importantly, recycled paper currently
is competitive in commercial markets with virgin paper. There is little
doubt that EPA can assure prospective purchasers that recycled paper which
meets performance specifications is technically equivalent to virgin paper.
Availability. As discussed in Chapter 2, recycled paper is not
as widely available as the competitive virgin paper. The high grade bleached-
papers containing waste paper are move available in the east and central
portions of the country than in the south and west. Thus, if difficulty is
encountered in obtaining delivery to some depot locations, EPA should con-
sider allowing exceptions in the areas of scarcity. However, GSA has
successfully obtained bids without having to resort to regional exceptions.
* Franklin, William E., Robert G. Hunt and Sally T. Sharp, "Paper Recycling,
The Art of the Possible 1970-1985," Midwest Research Institute" for the
Solid Waste Council of the Paper Industry, published by the American Paper
Institute, New York, March 1973.
52
-------
.Another problem with availability is the fact that the recycling
mills tend to be small and do not produce individually all grades of paper.
Paper merchants prefer to do routine business with only two or three com-
panies which can supply them all grades. Thus, recycled papers are special
order items for most paper merchants. This can further complicate avail-
ability. This is especially troublesome to state and local governments
who deal more with paper merchants than does the Federal Government.
Federal purchases generally involve working with the mills on a special
order, although typically a paper merchant is involved.
Cost. Paper of all grades is available at a range of costs, and
this includes paper with recycled fiber content. However, since the early
1970s the Government has regularly purchased some grades of paper products
with recycled fiber content through the competitive bid process. Because
of large variations in prices from quarter to quarter it is not possible
to tell accurately whether the Government is paying a premium for recycled
fiber or not, but the opinion of the purchasing agencies is that they are
not. This opinion is reinforced by the recent experience by the state pur-
chasing agencies of California and Maryland, as documented in Appendix K.
In addition, it is of interest to realize that the recycled paper grades
purchased by Government agencies are generally in competition in the
commercial market and must be priced competitively. Thus, it appears
that recycled grades of paper are generally cost competitive, although
there may be isolated situations where this is not true.
Performance Specifications—Brightness. One of the most well
known and controversial issues associated with high grade bleached papers
is brightness. Brightness is important in these products because they are
primarily products which are written or printed on and thus must have
appropriate visual characteristics. The controversy surrounds the proper
specification of the visual characteristics.
Two important aspects of the paper in question are that they must
provide appropriate contrast with the printed or written matter, and they
must provide an appropriate background when color printing is used. The
use of brightness and/or color specifications is an attempt to provide
those attributes.
Brightness is a term that is widely used in the paper industry,
and refers to a test in which blue light of a specific wavelength is used
to illuminate paper while a light meter measures the reflected light from the
paper. Typical brightness values for printing and writing papers fall
in the 80s, with some brightness values in the low 90s and some in the
70s or occasionally below that for manila or "groundwood" papers.
One criticism of this measure is that it is made in blue light
while the paper is always viewed in white light. In an attempt to remedy
this situation, the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) and the Government
Printing Office (GPO) are experimenting with measuring the reflectance of
paper under white light. An additional criticism of the brightness measure
is that it does not relate directly to the print contrast and color com-
patability, which are the functional attributes of the paper. The JCP and
53
-------
GPO are also experimenting with chromaticity measures, which are directly
related to the functional aspects of the paper. Although the JCP and GPO
experiments are one logical approach to the specifications problem, it
presently suffers from a practical consideration. The reflective and
chromaticity measurements can not be easily made. In fact, the equipment to
make these measurements is quite expensive and very few, if any, paper
companies can make the measurements. Thus, accurate quality control dur-
ing production runs is not possible, although many companies have had
success using trained personnel to visually compare production paper to
standard sheets provided by GPO.
At the present time there are no Government specifications for
brightness of printing and writing paper. However, a standard sample of
paper (adopted by JCP) is submitted to prospective bidders, and paper must
in most cases conform to the standard sample in regard to color, finish,
formation and cleanliness. Chromaticity and luminance values of the
standard sample are given to prospective bidders for their information,
although bidders generally are not able to make these measurements on
their own paper.
The standard sample is presently a key item in the Government
specifications. The standard samples are drawn from actual production
runs of large companies selling in highly competitive commercial markets.
As such, these samples should be as close to typical as could be hoped
for. Paper received by GPO is compared to the standard sheets. Devi-
ations from standard sheets are converted into demerits based on each
measurement taken. When demerits accumulate to 31, the shipment is sub-
ject to rejection. A serious deviation on any one of more than 22 tests
can result in as many as 36 demerits and rejection, although lesser
deviations can result in 4 or less demerits. Nevertheless, it is possible
to have shipments rejected on the basis of luminance and chromaticity
measurements which do not match the standard sample.
It should be noted that standard specifications, such as bright-
ness, color, etc., are necessary, at least to some extent. Every ream
of paper opened in the printing of a single book should match, or the
results would be displeasing. It is also desirable to have all reams of
one type of paper match in a single warehouse to reduce the necessity of
keeping track of different kinds of paper. Thus, it is important to have
standard specifications for all of the sources of paper for a single end
user. In terms of color and brightness, it is apparent that matching is
important. That is, minimum or maximum standards alone would not be
sufficient.
The relevance of this discussion to recycling issues becomes ap-
parent when we examine the methods used to make paper "bright." One way
in which paper is brightened is to bleach the wood pulp or waste paper
pulp prior to papermaking. However, this is frequently not sufficient and
chemicals may be added to the paper to further enhance its appearance.
These chemicals include brighteners such as titanium dioxide, but in some
cases dyes are used to change the color, but not necessarily the brightness.
54
-------
It is clear that to achieve high degrees of "whiteness" or
"brightness" is difficult. Wood pulps have an advantage in producing
bright and white paper because they can generally be raised to high
levels of brightness more cheaply than waste paper pulps. Thus, use
of lower brightness paper enhances the competitive position of recycled
papers. The color issue is also an important one, because recycled
paper may more easily reach color standards for "whiteness" than
brightness, and the color is a better measure of visual appearance.
Another facet of this problem is the cost and energy require-
ments associated with the manufacture of high brightness paper. It is
clear that less bright papers are generally cheaper to make and require
less energy than high brightness papers. Based on conversations with
paper mills, we estimate that a lowering of brightness from current
levels of 80 to 90 brightness, which are common in purchases of Govern-
ment printing and writing paper, by 5 to 10 percent could result in 5 to
10 percent overall energy savings. In addition, the untrained eye has
difficulty differentiating between two sheets of paper which differ in
5 percent brightness unless the two sheets are compared side by side.
On the surface, then, it appears that it would be desirable for
the Government to lower its standards. But it is not that simple. Re-
member that it is not feasible to set only minimum standards because of
matching problems in individual print shops. Recall also that the standard
sheets are selected from production runs from large companies serving
commercial markets. These sheets are consistent with current commercial
requirements. Thus, we see that if the Government specifies items not
now commonly used in the commercial markets, it is possible that competition
will go down and cost will go up.
It is clear that the brightness and color issue is a very complex
one, and no simple answers exist. While it is clear that it would be de-
sirable in some ways for the Government to use lower brightness paper,
there may be compensating disadvantages.
We recommend that localized experiments be performed for selected
depots. For those specific depots, the Government procuring agencies should
work with paper manufacturers to obtain sample sheets for selected paper
products with luminance values approximately 5 units below the current JCP
approved sample sheets. The experiments should then be monitored to see if
price, competitiveness, availability, and technical quality are consistent
with Government needs. After evaluation of at least three local experi-
ments of this nature, a decision can be made about wider implementation.
In some ways, state governments may be in a better position to
purchase low brightness papers. Their purchases are frequently much smaller
than ^ederal Government purchases, and the formal procedures are much less
extensive arid more flexible. In many states the decisions are made by a
single purchasing agent, and he has flexibility in working with the users
and can readily experiment with the low brightness papers. Thus, the states
may present an opportunity for leadership in this regard.
55
-------
Cleanliness. An important visual aspect of high grade bleached
papers is cleanliness in appearance. All papers have some specks visible
in the sheet which.are called dirt, They are usually small clumps of wood
fiber, bark or foreign materials. Dirt is a particularly troublesome
problem in recycled papers because of contaminants present in waste paper
which are difficult to remove completely.
The standard samples approved by JCP generally have dirt counts
of 10 parts per million as measured by a standard method of measure. GPO
personnel report few problems with demerits or rejections because of dirt
counts.
It has been surmised that because dirt is particularly trouble-
some for recycled paper, a relaxation of the specifications would make
recycled paper more competitive for Government bids. While the researchers
found no positive evidence that this is true, experiments in relaxing dirt
count specifications at a minimum of three depot locations in different
parts of the country would enable a determination to be made as to whether
such relaxation is consistent with Government needs.
Other Specifications. EPA should also request an examination of
other specifications. Industry sources report that the government could
save significantly if "off-the-shelf" products were used. Considerable
progress in the bleached paper area has been made, but the feeling is that
even more progress could be made. Use of standard case sizes and marking
as used for industrial sales are examples where specifications could be
improved. These changes might encourage more competition for government
bids and increase the ability of the government to affect industry operations.
Recovered Material Levels. If recovered material levels are set
too high, no bids will be received. If set too low, no stimulation of re-
covered materials can occur. A table showing the GSA levels of recovered
fiber for 1976 was presented on page 25. From that, we can see that the
levels of recovered materials are generally quite low, with no requirements
in the Part I category. Data presented in Chapter 2 show that on the
average, only 6.6 percent recycling of waste paper occurs in these paper
grades. The value would probably be far under 6.6 percent for the old GSA
definition of Part I recovered materials, which includes only postconsumer
wastes.
We recommend that the total requirements for recovered materials
used previously by GSA be retained in the guidelines. For waste paper, we
recommend a trial at the national average level of 7 percent. We further
recommend that suppliers be asked to report the level of recovered materials
actually supplied in order to have a better idea of what can be achieved
in specific products.
If bids are not received at the proposed levels, a follow-up ex-
amination of non-bidders should be carried out. If the recovered material
levels are too high, they can be lowered and the bidding process repeated.
When a workable level is found, EPA should require that a program of steady
increases of the levels be required as a means to stimulate the maximum use
of recovered materials possible. As a trial, the increase should be one
percentage point above the previous year's level.
56
-------
Sanitary Tissue Products
Description. This category includes primarily toilet tissue,
towels, napkins, facial tissues, doilies and industrial wipers. The
quantities of paper purchased in this category are substantially less
than for the previous category, amounting to only one-fifth to one-third
as much. The products purchased are generally of the commercial or
institutional variety as opposed to the consumer products seen in grocery
stores. Substantial quantities of waste paper are used in the manufacture
of these goods. On Table II-5 (page 18), we see that the average waste
paper use is 30 percent.
Tissue is manufactured in almost precisely the same manner as are
high grade bleached papers discussed previously. For virgin tissue, wood
is converted to bleached kraft and sometimes sulfite pulps. These pulps
are then processed and formed into tissue in the same way as previously
discussed. Tissue made from recycled waste paper is also made in a manner
similar to high grade bleached papers. In addition, waste paper pulps
are mixed with virgin pulps in many mills at levels which range from near
zero to near 100 percent. The raw materials differ from high grade bleached
papers slightly in that different grades of waste paper are used. Both
product classes utilize the premium grades of waste paper known as pulp
substitutes and deinking waste paper. But, in tissue manufacture, there
is also a significant use of old corrugated boxes, newspapers, and mixed
waste papers.
Technical Equivalency. For the tissue products purchased by the
Government, there can be no question of technical equivalency. Many com-
panies use substantial quantities of recovered materials and compete di-
rectly with virgin materials in the commercial market. EPA needs to make
no special provisions in this area.
Availability. As with high grade bleached papers, there is sub-
stantially less recycling in the south and west than in the remainder of
the country. These values are detailed in Table II-5 (page 18) and Ap-
pendix G. Consequently, recycled products are locally less available
in the south and west than they are in the rest of the country. However,
one recycled tissue manufacturer in the midwest is known to sell on com-
petitive bids on both coasts. In addition, the state of California, where.
little tissue is manufactured from waste paper, was successful in receiving
competitive bids under their purchasing program, as documented in Appendix K.
We conclude that tissue products made at least in part of recovered materials
are available at all locations in the U.S., although there may be more com-
petition in some areas. EPA needs to make no special provisions in this
regard.
Cost. Tissue products with recovered material content are common
in the commercial market place and are competitively priced. As tiientioned
previously, the industry average for waste paper use in all tissue products
is 30 percent. In addition, both state and Federal governments have had
experience in purchasing tissue products on a cost competitive basis. Thus,
the requirement of recovered material content in tissue products should not
result in higher prices to the Government.
57
-------
Performance Specifications. Industry sources felt that in most
cases, the Government is buying products appropriate for their intended
uses. But, frequent comments indicated that toilet tissue was being
specified at substantially heavier basis weight than the commercial
standard (11 to 11.5 pounds). We recommend that commercial standards
be adopted by the Government.
There is also the matter of non-performance-related specifi-
cations such as non-standard case sizes and markings. We recommend
that EPA urge an evaluation of the specifications in this area.
Recovered Material Levels. A review of the table on page 25
shows that substantially greater levels of recovered materials have been
specified for the tissue products than for the bleached papers. The
average use of waste paper (see page 18) is 30 percent, which compares
well with the Part I requirements listed on page 25. We recommend that
EPA adopt the most recent levels of Part I and total recovered materials
specified by GSA for the waste paper and total categories. However, an
examination of those categories at or below 30 percent for waste paper
should be made. It is possible that our recommended redefinition of
Part I wastes as waste paper could result in upgrading the specifications.
One way of doing this is to increase the percent specified levels of
recovered materials by one percent each year until maximum feasible
levels are found.
Unbleached Paper and Paperboard
Description. Direct purchases by the government in this area
are roughly equivalent in size to the tissue products category. Pri-
marily, the purchases are fiber boxes, which are mostly corrugated boxes,
although some solid fiber boxes and sheets are purchased. Lesser amounts
of "brown" paper are also purchased.
Paperboard* from which solid fiber boxes and sheets are made
and from which brown paper is made, is manufactured in the same way as the
high grade bleached kraft papers except the kraft pulp is not bleached.
Corrugated boxes are more complex, as they represent a union of two dif-
ferent grades of paperboard. Corrugated is composed of corrugating medium
and paperboard. Corrugating medium is the fluted interior, and the two
outer sheets, or liners, are linerboard; The two outer sheets of liner-
board and the corrugating medium are glued together to form the material
from which corrugated boxes are fabricated. Linerboard is unbleached kraft
paperboard, while corrugating medium is made from semichemical or recycled
paperboard. Semichemical paperboard is manufactured in the same way as
kraft paper and paperboard, except different wood species are used for
the raw material, and different chemicals are used in the digesters, and
the digestion process is not carried to completion.
* Paperboard is the term used by the paper industry to describe the heavier
and thicker grade of paper. This includes the materials popularly known
as cardboard.
58
-------
Technical Equivalency. Waste paper has long been used in the
manufacture of corrugated containers, especially for the corrugating
medium. Virgin and recycled fibers are not entirely equivalent in regard
to some measured qualities, so that in some cases recycled sheets may be
made heavier than virgin sheets to compensate. However, the finished
boxes are technically equivalent and compete directly in commercial markets.
Brown kraft paper is used because of its strength in a variety of
applications. One hundred percent recycled paper may contain sufficient
short fiber so that it is not technically equivalent to virgin paper. How-
ever, recycled fiber can be used at less than the 100 percent level to make
a technically equivalent sheet. Thus, for most applications, a sheet con-
taining some recycled fiber should be available in a form which is techni-
cally equivalent to a virgin sheet.
Solid fiber boxes are made from the same type of fiber as is
brown paper and linerboard. In fact, solid fiber paperboard and linerboard
is frequently made in the same mill and with the same wood pulp as brown
paper, differing only in thickness. Thus, the above statements are also
true for fiber boxes.
Availability. Semichemical paperboard is typically manufactured
with some fraction of the raw materials being waste paper. As shown in
Table II-5 (page I8)j the national average is 24 percent with significant
recycling in all areas of the country. The geographic areas where recycling
is greatest are the northeast and central sections of the country. In
addition, in 1976, 1.1 million tons of recycled corrugating medium was
produced, representing 21 percent of total production. Recycled corru-
gating medium contains a minimum of 80 percent waste paper fiber.
On the other hand, waste paper use in linerboard occurs at only
8 percent nationwide, with recycled linerboard (80 percent waste paper or
greater) accounting for only 2 percent of production in 1976. However,
there is a growing trend to use waste paper as a portion of the raw ma-
terials for linerboard. Thus, linerboard with some percentage of recycled
fiber is available in most areas of the country, but the level of waste
paper use is likely to be below 10 percent in any given area. The waste
paper content of solid fiber boxes and sheets is unknown, but probably
similar to linerboard.
Use of waste paper in the unbleached papers is less than 5 percent
nationally. Substantial use of waste paper in these grades is uncommon.
Therefore, we conclude that boxes containing recovered materials
are generally available in all sections of the country, although recycling
levels tend to be higher in the northeast and central sections. However,
availability of brown paper made with significant levels of waste paper
is generally not available.
59
-------
Cost. Llrierboard is produced at higher tonnage, levels than
any other production grade in the paper and paperboard industry. This
grade is produced in substantial Quantities by a large number of companies.
This helps to understand the fact that linerboard and its companion grade
of corrugating medium are widely available in large quantities and at
prices set by a highly competitive market. This coupled with, the fact
that corrugating medium generally contains some waste paper fiber implies
that procurement guidelines for corrugated boxes with levels of recovered
materials specified should not result in increased costs to the Government.
The same is also true for solid fiber boxes, although the level of recovered
materials may need to be lower than for corrugated boxes. However, similar
statements cannot be made for brown paper because of possible problems of
availability of products containing waste paper.
Performance Specifications. Corrugated and solid fiber boxes
are commonly manufactured to meet interstate commerce shipping package
regulations, whether they contain recovered materials or not. The Govern-
ment generally buys containers consistent with these regulations, except
where some special use is required. We recommend no changes in Government
procurement policies in this area.
Recovered Material Levels. At the present time, corrugated con-
tainers are an average 13 percent* waste paper. We recommend that the 10
percent level shown on page 25 be upgraded to 13 percent with the use of
our recommendation for an expanded definition of Part I to include all
waste paper, and that the total recovered material level be retained.
In the brown papers, we do no see much potential for improvement, but
recommend that the national average of 5 percent for waste paper be tried,
while retaining the listed total recovered material level on page 25.
COMBINATION PAPERBOARD
This report would not be complete without mentioning combination
(recycled) paperboard. This material is generally 90 percent or more waste
paper and EPA should encourage its use wherever possible. Combination paper-
board is used primarily as a packaging material and is not generally suit-
able for Government activities. However, tablet backs, memo pad backs,
and lunch boxes are three areas where combination paperboard is used by
the Government.
However, we recommend that agencies be made aware of the exis-
tence of this recycled waste paper product, so that they may be aware of
its possible use in other applications. Its use results in recovery of
materials from waste streams and it is one of the more commonly available
grades of paperboard. We recommend cooperation between the Government and
the American Paper Institute in determining new ways in which the Govern-
ment might expand its use of combination paperboard.
* See page 19 for discussion.
60
-------
We do recommend one change in the recovered material specif-
fications in Table III-l. Two products (pad backing and columnar pad
backing) are generally made from combination board. We recommend that
the waste paper specification be raised to 100 percent.
61
-------
Appendix A
AMOUNT OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS
PURCHASED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
INTRODUCTION
Attempts to increase the supply of a given commodity through
"demand-pull" changes, specifically by the Federal government, can be
successful only if several basic assumptions are realistic. One of these
is that the changes in demand must represent a significant fraction of
the total demand. Otherwise, the change in demand will have little effect
on total supply. Attempts to influence the type, amount and utilization
of paper stock fiber through changes in Federal purchasing practices in-
herently assumed that Federal purchases of paper products represent a
significant portion of the demand for these products.
Even though it is generally assumed* that the Federal and state
government bodies are significant consumers of paper and paper products,
especially writing paper, research indicates that this assumption is inac-
curate. As discussed later in this appendix, Federal government purchases
amounted to between 0.55 percent to 0.88 percent of the total U.S. produc-
tion of paper products during the seven years covered in this study, 1970
through 1976. Even when calculated on a grade-by-grade basis, Federal
purchases ranged from 0.67 percent to 3.99 percent of the total domestic
production of a given grade. Thus, while the Federal government may be one
of the largest single customers for paper and paper products, it does not
purchase the great percentages commonly assumed.
METHODOLOGY
This analysis is based upon historical statistics of Federal pur-
chases of various paper products. The General Services Administration (GSA),
the Government Printing Office (GPO), and the Defense Supply Agency (DSA),
were contacted to obtain these historical statistics and to solicit any
agency projections of future purchases which might have been made for planning
purposes. The GSA and GPO agencies responded with data for annual purchases
by grade for each year from 1970 through 1976 except as noted on the following
tables. No data were obtained from the DSA because most of the DSA purchases
are made through the GSA and GPO and are reported in their statistics.
A-l
* A casual survey of friends and associates suggested that many citizens be-
lieve the Federal government to consume between 40 and 85 percent of the
total of printing and writing paper produced in this country, and between
20 and 70 percent of all paper products consumed in this country.
-------
These data were analyzed in three principal ways. First, Federal
paper purchases were compared to domestic paper and paperboard production
for each year of the study, both in total and by selected specific grades.
Second, simple graphs were prepared to allow easier visualization of any
trends or obvious interrelationships between production and purchases.
Third, a statistical analysis was performed to investigate correlations
between selected independent variables versus Federal paper purchases.
All of these techniques were conducted in an effort to develop a predictive
tool to project future Federal paper purchases and to evaluate the impact
of Federal paper purchasing policies under various economic scenarios.
DISCUSSION
Comparison of Total Federal Paper Purchases to Total Domestic Production
As mentioned above, total Federal government purchases of paper
products represent about one percent or less of the total domestic production
of paper products. The calculations supporting this conclusion are straight-
forward and are shown in Table A-l.
Comparison of Federal Government Purchases to Domestic Paper Production by Grade
While Federal government purchases are a small part of total paper
production, such Federal purchases are not uniformly distributed across all
grades of paper and paperboard. Table A-2 is similar to Table A-l, but shows
the Federal purchases as a percentage of the production, broken down by selected
grades. The grades of paper shown in Table A-2 were chosen because both govern-
ment purchase data and U.S. production data were clearly defined and available.
These grades were also selected because of their potential for utilization of
significant percentages of recycled fiber. For example, tab cards (computer
cards) were not included in this analysis even though data were available,
since recycled fiber is considered technically unacceptable in computer tab
cards.
Caution is required in interpreting the data shown in Table A-2,
however. For example, the Federal government purchases of printing and writing
paper amount to between two-thirds and one and two-thirds percent of the total
U.S. production over the period of the study. For any year except 1976,
approximately half of these purchases were made through the GSA and the remain-
ing half were made through the GPO. The GPO purchases are heavily concentrated
in the grades of offset bulk and writing papers, which together comprise about
62 percent of the GPO purchases for a given year. In contrast, the GSA pur-
chases appear to be concentrated in the grades of No. 4 offset, Xerographic,
and writing papers.
A-2
-------
Table A-l
COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASES TO TOTAL U.S. PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTION
Government Purchases
(Thousand Tons)
-Paper I/ Paperboard 2J Total
U.S. Production
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976 3/
1977
314.9
299.3
307.2
304.5
322.5
306.3
237.9
236.7
103.7
138.1
128.5
85.6
99.0
81.5
83.6
71.7
418.6
437.4
435.
390.
421.
387.8
321.5
308.4
,7
,1
.5
(Thousand Tons)
Paperboard Total
23,371
23,736
25,371
26,796
26,898
23,305
26,611
27,381
25,383
26,037
28,502
29,572
28,915
24,756
28,440
28,953
48,754
49,773
53,873
56,368
55,813
48,061
55,051
56,334
Government Share
Paper
1.35
1.26
1.21
1.14
1.20
1.31
0.89
0.86
(Percent)
Paperboard
0.41
0.53
0.45
0.29
0.34
0.33
0.29
0.25
Total
0.86
0.88
0.81
0.69
0.76
0.81
0.85
0.55
>
Source: GSA and GPO Private Communication. American Paper Institute, "Statistics of Paper and Paperboard,
1978."
!_/ Paper category includes printing and writing papers, memo, columnar pads, mailing envelopes, sanitary
papers, teletype papers, carbon papers and Xerographic paper.
21 Paperboard category includes disposable mess equipment, miscellaneous converted items, boxes, tab cards
and index card stock.
3/ Adjusted for transition quarter.
-------
Table A--
COMPARISON OF COVER-N'ME!~ PAPER PURCHASES OF SELECTEE' CRAPES OF PATCT. TO TCCA1 V.S. PRODfCTlON
(Thousand tons and percent)
Printinr 4 Vritir.i^ Sanitarv
•Star
IS^C
197:
1572
1573
1974
1975
1976
1977
1,'
2/
3/
kl
Gcv ' t . L . £ . Gov ' t . Gov t .
Perch. Proc. Share Purch.
(00^ (OOC (Per- (000
tons) tons; cent) tons)
147.9 9,067.5 1.63 59.5
131.1 9,278.5 1.41 53.0
129.5 10,133.5 1.26 56.0
148.6 10,99i.2 1.35 4t.l
140.2 11,067.2 1.27 50.0
132.0 9,056.4 1.46 54.0
5/ 85.6 11,021.2 0.78 56.6
126.6 11,567.6 1.09 35.9
U.S.
Prod.
(000
tons)
3,494.0
3,604.3
3,746.2
3,771.8
3,823.2
3,771.9
3,954.6
4,069.0
Gov't.
Share
(Per-
cent)
1.70
1.47
1.49
1.22
1.31
1.43
1.43
0.88
Includes GPO and GSA purchases of printing and writing papers
Includes teletype and computer form bond papers and tab cards
Includes white wove and kraft envelopes.
Includes bleached and unbleached kraft papers and
industrial
Gov ' t .
Purch.
(000
tons)
15.5
50.2
53.0
45.0
43.0
48.5
27.4
37.4
except
vipers.
Conrout er—
•_ . s .
Prod.
(000
tons)
1,234.6
1.259.5
1.394.4
1,630.6
1,672.2
1,321.0
1,496.1
1,502.5
computer
Mailine Envelopes^'
Gov't.
Share
(Per-
cent)
1.26
3.99
3.80
2.76
2.57
3.67
1.83
2.49
form bond ,
Gov ' t .
Purch.
(000
tons)
43.5
43.6
50.0
37.5
33.5
31.9
28.1
14.3
envelopes
l-.S.
Prod.
(000
tons )
655.7
644.5
716.5
784.9
733.7
620.4
723.9
757.7
, and tab
Gov^ .
Share
(Per-
cent)
6.63
6.80
6.98
4.78
4.57
5.14
3.88
1.89
cards.
4 '
Coarse Papers—
Gov ' t .
Purch.
(000
tons)
37.5
39.1
33.7
40.8
40.1
42. B
40.9
24.6
U.S.
Prod.
(OOG
tons)
4,865.5
4,862.0
5,046.3
5.060.4
5,224.8
4,233.7
4 , 907 . 2
4,934.1
Gov t
Share
(Per-
cer.t )
0.77
0.80
0.6'
0.81
0.7?
1.00
0.83
0.50
5_/ Adjusted for transition quarter effects.
Source: OS* and GPO private coramir.ications and American Paper Institute, "Statistics of Paper and Paperboard, 197E."
-------
Caution is especially necessary in interpreting the data shown
for Federal purchases of mailing envelopes. While it would appear that
the Federal government purchases represent between 4 to 6 percent of the
total domestic production, it is suspected that this result is an artifact
of understated total domestic envelope production data. It seems likely
that significant amounts of bleached and unbleached kraft grades and un-
coated book grades of paper are sold to small converting plants where
they are subsequently converted into envelopes. In such cases the envelope
production might not be accurately traced. Unfortunately, the extent to
which envelope production is under-reported is unknown. The large number
of relatively small converting and printing plants having envelope manu-
facturing capacity greatly complicates accurate data collection of envelope
production.
Determining the Federal Government consumption of corrugated con-
tainers presents special problems. The Federal Government purchases con-
tainers in two ways. First, some are sold to the government directly.
Second, the government also purchases containers indirectly as packaging
for the various products purchased by the various Federal agencies. As
with the "direct" purchases of containers, these "indirect" purchases are
also principally of corrugated, although some solid fiber containers are
also purchased.
"Direct" corrugated container purchases by the Federal Government
are compared to total domestic container production in Table A-3, below.
For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all of the boxes pur-
chased by the Federal Government are corrugated containers. Note that the
Federal Government purchases represent between 0.16 percent and 0.28 percent
of the total domestic production over the years included in this study.
Table A-3
COMPARISON OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASES OF BOXES
TO U.S. CONTAINERBOARD PRODUCTION
Government Purchases U.S. Production* Government Share
Year (Thousand tons) (Thousand tons) (Percent)
1970 19.0 11,941 0.16
1971 25.3 12,426 0.20
1972 30.0 13,670 0.22
1973 32.5 14,801 0.22
1974 39.0 13,886 0.28
1975 24.0 12,578 0.19
1976 30.7 14,109 0.22
1977 38.6 14,818 0.26
Source: GSA and GPO, private communication. Fibre Box Association, "Fibre
Box Industry, 1977 Annual Report."
* Calculated from box plant consumption minus a 10 percent scrap allowance.
A-5
-------
It is suspected that the reported direct Federal Government pur-
chases of corrugated shown in Table A-3 understate the actual levels
of direct purchases. Discussions with Department of Defense and DSA pur-
chasing agents indicate that almost all of the DoD and DSA direct purchases
are small lots obtained from local converting plants. Essentially no
records of such small purchases are kept nor reported to any central agency.
In essence, these small purchases are "lost" to the totals considered in
this analysis. Further, considering the highly-specialized nature of most
packaging, it is quite likely that some GSA and GPO purchases are handled
in a similar manner. The degree to which these purchasing practices tend
to understate the actual direct purchases of corrugated containers is un-
known, but may be significant.
Determination of the indirect Federal purchases of containers pre-
sents special problems, but an estimation technique was developed by Franklin
Associates using data from the Fibre Box Association and from the 1970 census
input-output tables as published by Arthur D. Little, Inc. Virtually every
product manufactured in this country employs one or more grades of fiber
boxes such as corrugated as a packaging or shipping material. For purposes
of simplicity, this analysis assumes that corrugated containers is the
principal grade used to package the goods purchased by the Federal Government.
This seems a reasonable assumption considering the types of goods purchased
by the government, although folding boxboard is probably used extensively
as well.
The first step in this "Ifhalysis was to estimate the amount of corru-
gated used to package the many products produced in this country. This was
done with the aid of the Fibre Box Industry Annual Report, 1970, published by
the Fibre Box Association (FBA). In this annual report, the FBA shows the
percentage of containerboard shipments consumed in each of several selected
standard codes (SIC) categories, by category. The year 1970 was selected
because it is the most recent year of complete census data which will be
required in subsequent analyses.
These SIC categories were then assigned to a model service number
which corresponds to the appropriate sector in Arthur D. Little's (ADL) 147-
Industry Input-Output Model of the Economy. Occasionally more than one ADL
model sector was closely associated with one or more Fibre Box Association
categories. In these instances, subsequent calculations were based upon an
average weighted by the value of goods shipped from each sector to the Federal
Government. The FBA categories and associated SIC numbers are shown in
Table A-4, along with the ADL model service numbers assigned to each of
these categories.
The next step in this analysis was to convert both the defense and
non-defense government expenditures to a percentage of total domestic output
as determined by the ADL input-output economic model. These percentages
are also shown in Table A-4.
A-6
-------
lable A--
FIBER BOSS VEEP AS PACKAGING QT GOODS RECEIVED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS I?~C
Government Expenditures
Manufacturing
Inoustr
Heat Produc t £
Dairy Products
Canning & Preserving Fruits.
Vegetables & Seafoods
bakery Products
Confectionery
Beverage
Fresh Fruits & Vegetables
Other Food
Tobacco
Floor Covering Mills
Other Textile Mills
Apparel and Similar Products
Lumber and Wood Produces
Household furniture
Other Furniture & fixtures
Paper and Allied Products
Books
Other Printing, Publishing
FBA
Category
201
202
203
205
20?
206
950 2/
-
21
22?
-
23
:„
251
-
26
273
Percent
cf
J '
6.0
2.C
7.0
1.6
1.3
4.2
1.4
4.9
.8
•2 I
2.7 1
1.4
l.C
2.3
. 7
12.6
.-
j. . i
Model
Service ,
Number—
14
15
16
18
20
21
5/
17,19,22
23
24-25
26-27
28-35
36
37
38-4?
50
| 48-49 (
i 51-55 |
as a
Percentage
Percent of Fiber Boxes
of Domestic Outcut
Defense
.42
.69
.17
.13
.03
.09
.07
.27
.50
.63
.23
,.67
.22
1.19
1.22
(ion -Defense
.14
.67
.10
.07
.02
.03
.50
i/ \
.03
.18
.16
*»^
1.26
.22
(-.88)
(-.36)
Dei ense
.0252
.0138
.011?
.0023
.0004
.0038
-
.0034
-
.0078
.0070
.0063
.0053
.0047
.027'
.0048
.013.
Used bv Governner.:
Kon-Deiense
.0084
.0134
.0070
.0013
.0003
.0013
-
.0245
-
.009
.0025
.0016
.0062
.0086
.027?
(-.0035)
(-.0042)
ICtel
.0336
.0272
.0169
.0036
.0007
.0051
-
.0279
-
.0087
.0095
.0079
.0115
.013:
.0554
.0013
.0092
-------
Table A-4 (cor,'t)
FIBER BOXES USES AS PACKAGING OF GOODS RECEIVED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN 1970
Manufacturing
Industry
Plastics Materials, etc.
Drugs
Soap, Cosmetics, etc.
Faints
Other Chemicals
Paving and Roofing Materials
Other Petroleum
Miscellaneous Plastics Products
Other Rubber, etc.
Leather and Leather Products
Glass & Glassware
Potter;& Related Products
Nonoetallic Mineral Products
Other Stone, Clay & Glass
Primary Metal
Fabricated Metal Products, Except
Ordanance, Machinery, Cans and
Transportation Equipment
Metal Cant
Machinery, Except Electrical i
Service Industry
Service Industry Machinery
Government Expenditures
FBA
Category
282
283
284
285
_
295
307
-
31
322
326
329
-
33
34 except
3tl
341
358
Percent
°f 3/
Shipments—
1.1
.5
2.5
.5
1.6
:?}
2.7
1.2
.5
8.2
.3 }
•6
.9 )
1.2
3.1
1.!
1.9
.8
Model
Service^
Number— '
63-66
67-69
70-73
74
I 56-62 >
t 75-831
84
89
85-88
90-91
92
93
94-99
101-103
100
104-112
113
as a
Percentage
of Domestic Output
Defense
.58
.94
.29
.08
5.43
3.35
.53
1.27
.09
.28
.34
.25
.44
.29
2.75
1.08
Non-Dei ense
0
.88
.04
.04
.52
.31
.09
.il
W>2
.21
(-.07)
.06
.13
0
.50
.09
Percent
Used
of Fiber Boxes
bv Government
Defense Non-Defense
.0064
.0047
.0073
.0004
.0869
.0268
.0143
.0152
.0005
.0230
.0061
.0030
.0136
.0035
.0523
.0086
0
.0044
.0010
.0002
.0083
.0025
.0024
.0013
.0001
.0172
(-.0013)
.0007
.0040
0
.0095
.0007
Total
.0064
.0091
.0083
.0006
.0952
.0293
.0167
.0165
.0006
.0402
.0048
.0037
.0176
.0035
.0618
.0093
-------
Table A-4 (con't)
FIBER BOXES USED AS PACKAGING OF GOODS RECEIVED BY .THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN 1970
Manufacturing
Industry
Household Appliances
Electric Lighting & Wiring Equip,
Radio & IV Receivers
Communications & Electronics
Other Electrical Machinery,
Equipment, and Supplies
Motor Vehicles & M.V. Equip.
Other Transportation Equipment
Instruments
Toys & Sports Equipment
Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Total
FBA
Category
363
364
365
366-7
Percent
°f 3/
Shipments—
2.4
.8
.4 (
.8 1
Model
Servic|
Number—
115
116
117-118
Government Expenditures
as a Percentage
of Domestic Output
Defense Non-Defense
.16 .04
.37 .02
21.20 3.08
Percent of Fiber Boxes
Used by Government
Defense Non-Defense
.0038 .0010
.0030 .0002
.2544 .0370
Total
.0048
.0032
.2914
371
38
394
1.2
114,119 5.00
.89
.0600
.0107
.0707
1.9
.5
.7
1.8 I
7.8 >
120-122 1.59
123-124 28.91
125-126 5.65
127 .12
.16
4.89
2.16
(-.02)
.0302
.1446
.0396
.0115
.0030
.0245
.0151
(-.0019)
.0332
.1691
.0547
.0096
.9575
.2368
1.1943
I/ Source: Fibre Box Association, Fibre Box Industry Statistics, 1970. Most of the Fibre Box Association (FBA) categories are based on
~~ the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual.
21 FBA category 950 is not based on the SIC Manual.
3/ Based on square footage shipped to each end-use by FBA members in 1970. The 27 reporting companies accounted for 57.3 percent of fiber
~ box shipments in 1970.
4/ Source: Milgrom, J., Can Federal Procurement Practices Be Used to Reduce Solid Haste?, Arthur D. Little, Inc., report for Solid and
~~ Hazardous Waste Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati. The model service number designates the sector in Arthur D. Little's 147-
industry input-output model. Where there is more than one ADL sector to an FBA category, the government expenditure percentage is the
average weighted by the value shipped from each sector. The source of the values shipped is the U.S. Department of Commerce, Annual
Survey of Manufacturers, 1970.
5/ Not separately identifiable. Apparently a small part of ADL Sector 2.
^/ ADL Sector 23 was not included in Tables 4, 5, or 6 of the source in footnote 4.
-------
With the simplifying assumption that the cost of containerboard to
the government is constant across all uses and grades of corrugated, the
percent of fiber boxes used by the government for both defense and non-defense
purposes was obtained. These results are also shown in Table A-4, along with
the total percentage of fiber boxes used by the government for each of the
FBA categories.
The results of this series of calculations is shown at the end of
Table A-4. The percentage of corrugated used in each FBA category by the
Federal Government was totaled for both the defense and non-defense sectors.
The total government indirectly consumed approximately 0.96 percent of the
total domestic production of corrugated boxes for defense purposes, and
approximately 0.24 percent of the total domestic production of boxes for
non-defense purposes. Together the total indirect Federal Government con-
sumption of paper amounts to approximately 1.19 percent of the total domestic
production of corrugated containers.
Since the total indirect consumption of containers was approximately
1.19 percent of the domestic production in 1970, and since the reported direct
purchases of containerboard amounted to approximately 0.16 percent that same
year, it may be concluded that total Federal consumption of corrugated during
1970 was approximately 1.35 percent of the total domestic production that year.
Thus, it would appear that the total Federal purchases of containerboard, both
direct and indirect, represent about the same percentage of domestic production
as does the Federal Government purchases of paper.
Graphic Analysis
The second method of analysis employed in this study was to display
the historical Federal purchase data graphically. The reported paper purchases
were grouped into loosely-defined "families" of paper products and then graphed.
Figure A-l shows sanitary and office-use paper, Figure A-2 shows packaging-use
papers, and Figure A-3 shows miscellaneous papers. To facilitate "overlay"
comparisons, these graphs were prepared with coincident axes and identical
scales.
Since the GPO could not provide an annualized breakdown of purchases
by type of paper, only the aggregate GPO purchases are shown in Figure A-4..
Note that two measures are displayed in Figure A-4: tons and sheets. These
are not equivalent measures. The "sheets" is a physical count measure, and
it is not known how much the reported quantities might weigh. It is estimated
that sheet purchases total no more than three thousand tons per year, however.
Since fiscal year 1976 was followed by a, transition quarter 1976, the
reported 1976 data were multiplied by 12/15 to adjust the data for a 12-month
fiscal year 1976. No other adjustments to the data were made. The data shown
in Figures Ar-1 through A-4 are presented in tabular form in Table A-5.
A-10
-------
"E
> 8
70 -
60 -
50 -
g 40
o
30 -
20
10
Fine & Printing
Tab Paper
Memo Pads
19/0
1975
1980
198:
Figure A-l. GSA purchases oi selected paper products.
-------
70 -
60 -
50 -
I
1
40 -1
30 ~
20 -
10 -
Boxes
Mailing Envelopes
Figure A~--
I .... , ..
1970 1975
GSA purchases of selected paper products.
1980
19S5
-------
70
60
50
I
M
U>
VI
e
o
H
"S
re
to
D
C
40
30
20
Coarse Papers
Miscellaneous
Converted Papers
- 10
97C 1975
GSA purchases of selected paper products.
1980
1935
-------
70 -
60 -
50 -
Tons
•c
B
n
K
3
O
30 -
20 ~
1C
\
Sheets
1970
1975
1980
I
1985
Figure
GPO paper purchases.
-------
Table A-5
SELECTED FEDERAL PAPER PROCUREMENT PAIA
Federal Activity
GPO Purchases
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Expenditures
(109 1972 $)
220.8
223.0
232.0
233.2
231.4
251.9
264.4
278 (e)
Employ-
ment I/ Paper
ix 103) (xlO3 tons)
4,688
4,549
; 4,413
4,330
4,382
4,370
4,309
4,300 (e)
77.9
62.9
64.4
64.1
71.9
45.6
53.5 2J
52.2
Sheets
fa 106)
29.4
14.9
22.9
21.9
22.5
17.0
17.6 2J
14.8
Fine &
Printing '
70.0
68.2
65.0
63.7
64.1
68.0
17.4 2J
36.0
Sanitary
59.5
53.0
•56.0
46.1
50.0
54.0
56.6 21
35.9
Tab Memo Pads
15.5
20.0
23.0
25.0
30.5 25.0
37.6 8.4 .
18.7 2] 7.5 2J
26.4 10.2
Hailing
Boxes Envelopes
19.0 43.5
25.3
30.0
32.5
39.0
24.0
30.7 2J
25.5
43.8
50.0
37.5
33.5
31.9
28.1 21
14.3
Coarse
Papers
37.5
33.8
28.5
34.0
33.3
37.5
31.7 21
19.7
Misc.
Converted
38.0
45.6
39.0
12.7
27.0
25.8
20.5 11
17.1
I/ Consists of civilian and shore-based military personnel.
j[/ Adjusted for 1976 transition quarter effects.
Source: Statistical Abstracts, 1977; memorandums from GSA and GPO.
-------
Even casual inspection of Figures A-l through A-4 reveals rather
significant year-to-year variations in the Federal purchases of almost
every grade of paper. These wide variations contrast markedly with the
relatively smooth year-to-year changes in Federal employment and Federal
spending as shown in Figure A-5. It is apparent that Federal paper pur-
chases are much more erratic than might be indicated by changes in Federal
employment or spending.
Notably, during 1976 unusually dramatic changes in Federal pur-
chases of paper are apparent. Most of these fluctuations may be attributed
to the combined effects of a general economic recession and a "fiber shortage"
which occurred in the same year. The net effect of these two disruptive
influences was to seriously confound the GSA and GPO purchase requisition
systems. The sharp drop in Federal purchases of selected grades of paper
during 1976 resulted principally from inventory adjustments made that year
to correct for the effects of the recession and the "fiber shortage" of
the several years previous. Thus, the sharp fluctuations occurring in 1975
and 1976 may be considered aberrations to at least some degree. However,
since the annual fluctuations in government purchases are large even in
"normal" years, it is not possible to isolate the "abnormal" component of
these fluctuations from the "normal" component.
Correlational Statistical Analysis
The third method of anlysis might be considered an extension of
the graphic method discussed above. Just as the purpose of the graphic
analysis was to assist in revealing correlations and trends in Federal
paper procurement, the purpose of this analysis is to reveal such relation-
ships by statistical techniques. A curvilinear regression analysis technique
was used to "scout" for independent variables which might be predictors of
government paper purchases. Among the independent variables considered were
the U.S. population, gross national product,' real gross national product
(1974 $), Federal civilian employment, Federal military employment, the sum
of both Federal civilian and military employment, total non-foreign Federal
expenditures, and total Federal contribution to gross national product.
On the basis of these several analyses, it was found that total
Federal employment, consisting of both civilian and shore-based military
personnel, proved to be the most highly correlated predictor for certain
grades of paper, and total non-foreign Federal expenditures proved to be
the most highly correlated predictor for the .remaining grades of paper.
Unfortunately, even in the most highly correlated instances, the independent
(predictive) variable was found to explain novmore than roughly half of the
variations in the independent variables (paper purchases).
Even when the;regression analysis indicated a relatively high cor-
relation, it was found that the regression equation coefficients were fre-
quently unrealistic. For example, the regression line equations for total
Federal employment indicate that hiring each additional Federal employee
A-l 6
-------
6 4
5 -I
4 4
3 4
2 4
i 4
Federal Employment
(Civil service and shore-based
military, hundred thousand employees)
Federal Spending
(Hundred Billion 1972 $)
1970 1975
Figure A-5. Measures of Federal government activity.
I
1980
-------
results in a reduction in tabulating paper purchases of 79.6 pounds per
year. This does not seem to be a logical relationship. It would appear
that even the more highly correlated statistical relationships may be
the result of statistical artifacts rather than functionally correlated
relat ionships.
It is not easy to determine which regression line equations are
inappropriate when the statistical result seems reasonable. For example,
the regression line equations for total Federal employment indicate that
hiring each additional Federal employee is associated with an increase of
27.9 pounds of fine and printing paper purchased. This amounts to approxi-
mately 5-1/2 reams of common office paper, apparently a reasonable amount.
Of course, this regression equation may also be interpreted as saying that
for each 27.9 pound increase in fine and printing paper purchased by the
government, one additional Federal employee was required, apparently to
handle this additional paper work. In short, remember that correlation
does not imply causation.
As was discussed in the previous section of this appendix, the
relatively loose relationship between Federal employment or Federal spending
versus the Federal purchases of various grades of paper may be easily vis-
usalized by overlaying Figure A-5, showing measures of Federal Government
activity, over each of the Figures A-l through A-4, showing Federal pur-
chases of various grades of paper. As may be seen with this simple technique,
no readily-apparent relationship presents itself.
Time Series Statistical Analysis
Occasionally when two variables are compared to each other and
their correlation is found to be low, it may still be discovered that the
relationship between these variables may be changing in a consistent way
over time. Several statistical techniques are available to investigate such
complex relationships. The most commonly-used technique is known as an
analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the technique of a tri-variant factor
analysis is also available. Unfortunately, these relatively sophisticated
mathematical techniques make rather stringent demands upon the assumptions
of normalacy and distribution of the data set. In consideration of the
irregularities apparent in the data considered in this analysis, these
statistical methods were rejected in favor of a simpler method.
By converting the independent variables most closely associated with
paper purchases (as discussed in the previous section of this appendix), to
ratios, a relatively simple "least-squares" regression technique was employed
to reveal time-related trends in these ratios. While care must be used in
interpreting the results of this analysis, this method has the advantage of
making fewer demands upon the distribution of the raw data than do the more
sophisticated techniques. The first step in this analysis was to divide
Federal purchases of each grade of paper by Federal employment (including
A-l 8
-------
shore-based military) for each year of this study. These ratios are pre-
sented in Table A-6, along with projections for these ratios through 1985.
These projections were obtained with the multi-model curvilinear time series
regression analysis technique described earlier in this appendix. The func-
tional relationship showing the highest correlation is noted at the foot of
each column, along with the percentage of variation explained by the regression
equation coefficients. These data are presented graphically in Figure A-6.
In a similar manner, Table A-7 presents the ratios of Federal con-
sumption of each grade of paper per billion dollars of non-foreign Federal
expenditures in 1972 dollars. As in the previous table, the best functional
relationship is noted at the foot of the column along with the percentage of
variance explained by the regression equation. Figure A-7 presents these
data graphically.
As mentioned above, caution must be used in interpreting the results
of this technique. Correlation coefficients that are either very high or
very low are of interest and have been marked with an asterisk in the tables.
Extremely low coefficients (explaining less than 5 percent of the variations
in the dependent variable) suggest that time is a very small influence upon
the ratio being considered. This may be restated as suggesting that the ratio
is essentially constant over time. For example, the ratio of sanitary paper
consumption per Federal employee (shown in Table A-6) is essentially constant
over time, implying that the consumption of sanitary paper is principally a „
function only of Federal employment. (Note that the correlation coefficient, r
is only 0.027 in this instance.)
Correlation coefficients that are very high (explaining more than
about 80 percent of the variations in the dependent variable) are interesting
because they indicate that time is a significant factor in the relationship
between the variables. For examples, the ratio of printing and writing paper
consumption per billion dollars Federal spending demonstrates a very strong
linear time trend as shown in Table A-7. This ratio is decreasing dramatically
with time, implying that each incremental increase in Federal spending is asso-
ciated with a larger and larger incremental decrease in printing and writing
paper purchases. This might be restated as saying that less paper work is
now needed to spend more Federal dollars.' Indeed, it would seem likely that
the recent increasing rises in Federal spending (even adjusted for inflation)
may be principally responsible for these results.
Although Tables A-6 and A-7 present projections of these ratios
through 1985, extreme caution must be used in evaluating these projections.
They have been included in this analysis primarily to provide a "feel" for
how rapidly these ratios are changing over time. There is no clear logical
causality between time and these ratios. That is, there is no clear reason
to expect that future Federal employment and expenditures will be based upon
past Federal employment and expenditures. Both of these measures are largely
issues of political decisions and may change dramatically at political whim.
The graphic presentations discussed in an earlier section of this appendix
clearly demonstrate the volatility of governmental purchases of paper products
from year-to-year. It is most reasonable to expect that these gyrations will
continue into the future in an equally unpredictable manner.
A-19
-------
Table A-6
I/
PAPER CONSUMPTION PER FEDERAL EMPLOYEE.- BY SELECTED GRADE
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
> 1976
S 1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Best-fit
relationship:
2
r :
Printing
&
Writing
29.9
30.0
29.5
29.4
29.3
31.1
30.2
30.3
30.4
30.4
30.6
30.6
30.8
30.8
31.0
31.0
Linear*
0.169
Sanitary
Papers
25.4
23.3
25.4
21.3
22.8
24.7
26.3
24.7
24.8
24.8
25.0
25.0
25.2
25.2
25.4
25.4
Linear*
0.027
(Pounds
Tab Cards
6.6
8.6
10.4
11.6
14.0
17.2
11.6
12.0
15.0
15.6
16.2
16.6
17.2
17.6
18.0
18.4
Log-Log
0.729
per Employee
Envelopes
18.4
19.2
22.6
17.2
15.3
14.4
13.0
13.9
12.0
11.0
10.0
8.8
7.8
6.8
5.6
4.6
Linear
0.651
per Year)
Coarse Papers
15.8
14.8
12.8
15.7
15.2
17.2
14.7
15.8
15.8
16.0
16.0
16.2
16.4
16.4
16.6
16.6
Linear*
0.059
Boxes
8.1
11.2
13.6
15.0
17.8
11.0
14.3
11.8
15.0
15.4
15.6
16.0
16.2
16.4
16.6
17.0
Log-Log
0.369
Xerographic
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.6
1.9
8.4
6.8
17.9
15.4
17.6
19.8
21.8
24.0
26.2
28.4
30.4
Linear
0.343
!_/ Includes shore-based military.
* Most promising predictor.
Source: GSAMetnos, Statistical Abstracts, 1977, and FAL projections.
-------
a
&
t-l
0)
a.
10
co
to
1
o
cu
a
a;
70
60
50
30
20
10
Printing
Writing
^ — ••^••" •• ^ — «• — • Sanitary
Forn Bond
^
""
Xerographic
Envelopes
I
I
1970 1975
Figure A-6. Ratio of paper purchases to Federal employment.
I
1980
I
1985
-------
Table A-7
I/
PAPER CONSUMPTION PER REAL FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.- BY SELECTED GRADES
(Pounds per Million 1972
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
t 1978
K>
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Best-fit
relationship :
2
r :
Printing
&
Writing
63.4
61.2
56.0
54.6
55.4
54.0
49.2
46.8
45.4
43.2
41.0
38.8
36.6
34.6
32.4
30.2
Linear
0.925
Sanitary
Papers
53.8
47.4
48.2
3 9". 4
43.2
42.8
42.8
38.1
38.8
38.2
37.6
37.0
36.4
36.0
35.6
34.2
Log*
0.794
Tab Cards
14.0
17.8
19.8
21.4
26.4
29.8
18.8
18.7
24.2
25.0
25.6
26.0
26.4
26.8
27.1
27.6
Log-Log
0.395
Envelopes
39.4
39.3
43.1
32.2
28.9
25.3
21.2
21.6
18.8
16.8
15.2
13.6
12.2
11.0
9.8
8.8
Exponent al
0.891
Dollars)
Coarse Papers
34.0
30.3
24.6
29.1
28.8
29.8
24.0
24.5
25.0
24.6
24.2
23.8
23.6
23.4
23.0
22.8
Log
0.534
Boxes
17.2
22.6
25.8
27.8
33.7
19.0
23.2
18.2
23.2
23.2
23.2
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
22.8
Linear*
0.001
Xerographic
N/A
N/A
N/A
17.8
3.6
14.6
11.1
27.7
23.2
25.8
28.6
31.4
34.0
36.8
39.6
42.2
Linear
0.236
~Lj Total domestic expenditures, 1972 dollars.
* Most promising prediction.
Source: GSA Memos, Statistical Abstracts, 1977, and FAL projections.
-------
>
I
oo
c
•H
•o
g
a.
CO
o
c
•H
70
60 H
50
AO H
Hi
c.
•a
-------
In the absence of a clear functional basis for expecting future
government purchases to be consistent with historical government purchases,
it is likely that the higher correlations obtained in this statistical analysis
may be artifacts of the analysis procedure. Significantly, all of the trend
analyses considered in this report had to be smoothed somewhat by adjusting
the data for the years 1974 through 1976. Before the adjustments were made,
the raw data series resulted in clearly absurd statistical results. The
implication is that the projected values of these ratios may reflect the
"smoothing" more than the historical reality. Thus, the projected ratios
must be considered with the utmost caution.
CONCLUSION
The various analyses undertaken and described in this appendix have
investigated associations between Federal purchases of paper products and
a number of seemingly-related independent variables in an attempt to develop
a useful predictive tool for evaluating alternative policy decisions. The
raw data were considered as aggregates, graphically by grade, statistically
with respect to simple correlations, trends, and a simple multi-variant
analysis. Unfortunately, none of the techniques employed (nor even those
considered) exposed a definitely superior predictive measure.
Simply, the research discussed in this appendix indicates that the
Federal Government purchases a relatively small amount of paper products, both
directly and indirectly, with respect to total domestic production of paper
products. Further, Federal purchasing policies have historically resulted in
dramatic year-to-year fluctuations in purchases of various grades of paper
and paper products. These fluctuations are relatively uncorrelated with the
predictive measures investigated in this study. The most useful statistical
result was that the ratio of Federal paper purchases to Federal employment
and/or Federal non-foreign expenditures in real dollars occasionally demonstrated
some consistencies. These trends might be used to make rough estimates of
future ratios between these independent measures and Federal paper purchases.
Interestingly, the GSA did not furnish any projections for their
future purchases, and the projections offered by the GPO are highly suspect.
For example, the cover letter attached to the GPO data states that "production
demands for printing and binding by the Congress will continue to grow at
approximately 5 to 6 percent annually through 1984." This prediction is note-
worthy because the GPO purchases of paper have been shrinking by approximately
5.5 percent per year since 1970 (although it is not clear if dollar purchases
might have been intended as the basis of the statement in the cover letter).
Obviously, the projections offered in this appendix should be used only with
the utmost caution.
A-24
-------
Appendix B
AMOUNTS OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS PURCHASED
BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
INTRODUCTION
EPA guidelines will influence state and local government purchases.
It is a matter of law that the guidelines will apply to purchases in excess
of $10,000 when made with Federal funds, so to the extent that this will
apply to state and local governments, the guidelines will be honored. Per-
haps more important will be the voluntary use of the guidelines. Many state
and local governments have already expressed interest in the guidelines be-
cause of their desire to purchase recycled materials. As a result, it is
expected that there will be a ripple effect of the guidelines from the Federal
Government level to the state and local government level. Therefore, in order
to assess the impacts of the guidelines, it is necessary to determine the
potential amounts of paper and paperboard products purchased at these levels.
The research discussed in this appendix investigates the amounts of
paper and paper products purchased by state and local governments and local
school districts. Purchases of selected grades of paper at these governmental
levels is estimated and then compared to the corresponding Federal paper pur-
chases. The maximum potential "multiplier effect" is evaluated, assuming
that these lower levels of government would employ paper procurement policies
consistent with those of the Federal government.
Whether or not Federal procurement policies might actually be imple-
mented at lower levels of government is discussed more thoroughly in Appendix
C of this report. For the purposes of the present investigation, it is
assumed that paper procurement policies and procedures would be consistent
at all governmental levels.
METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION
State Government Paper Purchases
The first step in estimating the potential "multiplier effect" of
state government purchases of paper and paper products was to determine the
amounts of paper and paper products purchased by selected states. Thirteen
states were contacted by telephone or with a personal interview to solicit
their cooperation in providing historical records of state paper purchases
for a recent year. The states contacted include the following: Florida,
New York, Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Kansas, Missouri, California, Texas,
Washington, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Maryland.
B-l
-------
As discussed in detail in Appendix C of this report, not all of
these thirteen states were able to provide the requested data in a usable
form. In one instance, no records were kept. In four other instances,
the state data retrieval systems were so cumbersome as to make collection
of the data impractical. In one state the data were clearly erroneous,
and in two additional states the copying effort required was overwhelming.
Only five of the thirteen states contacted were able to provide
usable data: Washington, Maryland, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Minnesota. Each
of these states responded completely, providing copies of their estimated
and/or verified purchases for the current or immediately past fiscal or
calendar year. These data were stated in physical units of sheets, reams,
pounds, or cases. Sufficient physical description of each item was pro-
vided to allow an estimate of the item's weight to be made. The data are
summarized in Table B-l, showing the consumption of each of eight major
grades of paper products for each of the five responding states.
It was originally intended that the raw data for this analysis
would be obtained from a representative sample of all of the states. That
is, it was intended to solicit data from both large and small states as well
as states of medium size. Likewise, it was intended to solicit data from
states having many employees, fewer employees, and relatively few employees.
Unfortunately, all of the states responding with data for this analysis are
approximately the same size and have between 36,000 and 69,000 employees
.each. This narrow range of state employment does not present the extremes
of the range of state employment very well. For example, Wyoming has only
8,000 employees while California has 222,000 employees. However, at least
the responding states represent a good sample of the center range of the
state employment scale. At least in this sense, the responding states are
fairly "typical." (Discussion of some of the problems encountered in ob-
taining data from the larger and smaller states is discussed in more detail
in Appendix C of this study.)
On the basis of the data provided by the five responding states,
a simple regression analysis was performed on the purchases of each grade
of paper with respect to state employment. It was anticipated that a
relationship between state employment level and state purchases of paper
would be positively correlated to a significant degree. Unfortunately, no
satisfactory significant correlations were found with this technique.
The data from the state of Kansas are especially disconcerting.
The data indicate Kansas to be one of the largest consumers of paper and
paper products at the same time it is one of the smallest employers. This
inconsistency is apparently the result of the purchasing system employed by
the state of Kansas, one which has been used as the model for several other
state purchasing systems because of its superior performance. It seems
likely that the paper consumption reported by Kansas is not unusually high,
but rather that the consumption reported by the other states is significantly
understated due to "leaks" in their purchasing system.
B-2
-------
Table B-l
STATE PAPER PURCHASES. 1976
(tons)
w
co
State
Washington
Maryland
Wisconsin
Kansas
Minnesota
Mimeo
123
200
185
136
Duplicator Bond
210
108
132
117
1,097
132
1,982
298
240
Xerox
279
N/A
340
292
Form Bond
550
N/A
606
200
Offset Toilet Paper Towels
1,000
351
2,257
1,457
59
125
154
N/A
558
167
281
150
N/A
1,618
209
Total
3,665
1,095
4,239
5,194
1,420
Totals
Total Printing/Writing Grades: 12,351. Total Sanitary Grades: 3,262
15,613
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd., based upon private communications.
-------
When no significant statistical correlation between paper pur-
chases by grade versus state employment could be determined, an attempt
was made to statistically correlate total paper purchases to state em-
ployment. Unfortunately, this effort was also unsuccessful. As shown in
Table B-2 (below) there is no apparent relationship between state employ-
ment and total paper purchases by the state. These data are presented
as a scattergram in Figure B-l.
Table B-2
PAPER PURCHASES OF SELECTED STATES
State
Washington
Maryland
Wisconsin
Kansas
Minnesota
Total
3,262 tons sanitary paper
15,613 tons, total
Employment
63,000
69,000
53,000
36,000
51,000
275,000
Total Paper Purchased
3,665 tons
1,095 tons
4,239 tons
5,194 tons
1,420 tons
12,351 tons printing/w
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd. and Statistical Abstracts, 1977.
A final attempt to estimate the total amounts of paper purchased
by state governments was made by aggregating the reported data into two broad
categories: printing and writing paper, and sanitary paper. The purchases
in each of these categories was totaled for all five states and then divided
by the total number of employees for all five states. This calculation re-
sulted in a consumption of 90 pounds of printing and writing paper per employee
per year, and 30 pounds of sanitary paper per employee per year, averaged
across the five states reporting.
Using these estimated consumption ratios and the total state employ-
ment for the nation (2,799,000 employees), the total consumption of printing
and writing paper is estimated at 125,955 tons. Similarly, the total state
consumption of sanitary paper is estimated at 41,985 tons per year.
Since a total of 13,149,500 tons of printing and writing paper were
produced in 1976, the state consumption of these papers represents approxi-
mately 0.95 percent of the total. Correspondingly, since 4,186,200 tons of
sanitary papers were produced in 1976, the state consumption represents 1.00
percent of the total U.S. production that year.
B-4
-------
70
• M/ir viand
hi.chigan
50
30 -
20 •
10 •
Washington
Minnesota
Kansas
i 2 ') ^ 5 6 7 8 9 10
Total Paper Purchased
(Thousand Tons)
Figure B-l. Comparison of employment to paper purchases for five states.
B-5
-------
Local Governmental Paper Purchases
Estimation of the amounts of paper and paper products purchased
by local governmental units is complicated by the fact that some 78,000
local governmental units were identified by the 1972 Census of Governments.
These local governmental units range in size from towns which are barely
more than crossroads in the country to mammoth bureaucracies such as New
York City. Further, the size of local governmental units is not distrib-
uted evenly throughout this range. For sociological and economic reasons,
local governmental units are more likely to be of certain sizes than of
others. Thus the sampling technique used to estimate state purchases would
be difficult to implement for the local government level.
In consideration of these difficulties, a macro-economic approach
was used. While this methodology may seem simplistic, even a moderate error
in these calculations is insignificant, as discussed in Appendix C of this
study. For the purposes of this analysis, it is first assumed that the
estimates of paper consumed at the state level (as discussed above) are
reasonably accurate. Second, it is assumed that for local governments to
spend a dollar of revenue, only 25 percent of the paper required at the
state level is needed. While this second assumption is somewhat arbitrary,
it is based upon an interview with a local government official in Kansas
City concerning the relationship between paper purchases and total budget.
Third, it is assumed that local governments purchase principally writing
papers, notably for office photocopying equipment.
As determined in the first section of this appendix, it is estimated
that approximately 126,000 tons of writing paper were consumed at the state
governmental level during 1976. Although total state government expenditures
for 1976 are not yet available, such expenditures amounted to $156,171 million
in 1975. Correspondingly, total local governmental expenditures totaled
$162,320 million during 1975, including an indeterminant number of transfer
payments between state and local governmental levels. Disregarding whatever
degree of double-counting may be involved, local governments were apparently
responsible for about 1.04 times the expenditures made for the state level.
It may be concluded that the level of activity in the local govern-
mental level is roughly the same as in the state governmental level. By ap-
plying the 25 percent "efficiency factor" to the total state consumption of
writing paper determined above (126,000 tons), it is estimated that approx-
imately 32,000 tons of writing paper are consumed annually by all local
governmental units in the United States. Using the simple calculation des-
cribed in the previous section of this appendix, this local governmental
consumption of paper and paper products represents approximately 2/10 of
one percent of the total domestic production of printing and writing paper
during 1976.
Purchases of sanitary paper by local governments is probably most
closely related to employment. A total of about 7.3 million people were
employed at the local government level in 1976, compared to about 2.8 mil-
lion at the state level. This is a ratio of about 2.6:1. Since state con-
sumption of sanitary paper is about one percent of total production, total
local government use is probably about 2.6 percent of the total domestic
production.
B-6
-------
School District Purchases
Local school districts represent the third level of governmental
organization which might be considered to "multiply" the effect of Federal
paper procurement policies and procedures. In the absence of suitable
macro-economic data concerning the expenditures of local school districts,
this analysis undertook a survey of local school district administrators to
determine the amounts of paper products which were purchased. First, in the
Greater Metropolitan Kansas City Area, a complete census of the 17 different
school districts was conducted. Second, telephone interviews were held with
purchasing agents of the St. Louis public school districts, and finally, data
were solicited from selected school districts in other states, notably
Washington and Florida.
In each interview, inquiries were made as to the physical quantities
of mimeo and duplicating grades of writing paper, and toilet paper and paper
toweling grades of sanitary paper which were purchased by the district in
anticipation of the current school year. Additionally, the anticipated en-
rollment was obtained for each school district. While this data collection
procedure ignores inventory carryovers and potential overages/shortages, it
still represents a reasonable approximation. The grades of paper selected
for analysis represent the four largest grades of paper consumed in the
greatest quantities by school districts. (Tablet and notebook papers are
purchased by individual students at local retail outlets.)
Table B-3 presents a summary of the data obtained. In several
cases, separate accountings for mimeographing and duplicating papers were
not available and a combined total is presented instead. Perhaps the most
interesting aspect of these figures is the wide range of variation between
the districts. Enrollment ranged from a low of about 4,000 to a high of
about 45,000. Annual consumption ratios of mimeographic papers ranged from
0.05 reams per student to 0.40 reams per student, and were found to have
insignificant statistical correlation with enrollment. The consumption of
duplicating papers was more closely correlated with enrollment, but ranged
from 0.84 reams per student to 2.20 reams per student.
As with the data obtained from the state level survey discussed in
the first section of this appendix, it was found that the best overall indi-
cator of school district consumption was obtained by aggregating the totals.
It was found that these aggregate totals were satisfactorily correlated with
enrollment in a linear relationship, as would be expected. The regression
analysis technique described in the first section of this appendix was used
for this investigation as well, and indicates that for each additional
stodent enrolled, the school districts consumed a little over 2.1 additional
reams of printing and writing paper. Further, each school district consumed
an average of about 32,000 reams per year per district.
B-7
-------
Table B-3
KANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN
SCHOOL DISTRICT PAPER PURCHASES
District
North K.C.
ratio:
Raytown
ratio :
Shawnee Mission
ratio:
Kansas City, Mo.
w ratio:
00
Kansas City, Ks.
ratio:
Park Hill
ratio:
Independence
ratio:
Grand view
ratio:
Center
ratio:
Hickman Mills
ratio:
Turner
ratio:
Enrollment
19,514
13,756
39,000
45,250
27,700
6,693
13,060
5,910
3,926
11,493
5,000
Mimeo Duplicator
(reams) (reams)
28,000
1.43
17,770
1.29
15,740 64,191
0.40 1.64
2,400 100,000
0.05 2.20
3,290 23,200
0.11 0.84
14,340
2.14
1,680 18,100
0.12 1.38
10,000
1.69
N/A N/A
16,900
0.68
4,050
0.81
Toilet Tissue
(8-oz rolls)
24,000
1.22
15,360
1.12
19,296
0.49
57,600
1.27
28,800
1.03
8,640
1.29
14,400
1.10
9,600
1.62
5,280
1.34
30,720
2.67
6,528
1.30
Towels
(cases)
1,500
0.077
975
0.071
1,272
0.033
3,096
0.068
3,000
0.108
525
0.078
1,225
0.094
500
0.085
375
0.096
786
0.068
335
0.067
-------
To estimate the market share represented by school district pur-
chases of printing and writing paper, the number of students enrolled in
grades K through 12 was multiplied by the average per capita consumption
for each of the three grades of paper considered in this analysis. It is
unlikely that Federal policy mandates would influence the purchasing pol-
icies of parochial schools, so the public school enrollment for 1975 of
45,053,000 was used for the purposes of this analysis. Use of this figure
ignores consumption by school faculty and staff, but this omission does not
appear to substantially distort the result.
Since the survey conducted in Kansas City indicates that 2.1 reams
of mimeo and duplicating papers were consumed per student per year, it is
estimated that 94.6 million reams of paper were consumed in 1975. Assuming
that each ream of paper is of "20 substance" and thus weighs approximately
five pounds, it is estimated that approximately 236.5 thousand tons of mimeo
and duplicating papers were consumed in public school districts nationally
during 1975. This is equivalent to roughly 92 percent of the total domestic
output of mimeo and duplicator papers.
It would seem that a unique situation exists with respect to the
consumption of mimeo and duplicating papers by school districts. As discussed
above, this investigation indicates that school districts consume approximately
92 percent of the total domestic output of mimeo and duplicating papers. This
result is most unusual, considering the relatively small market shares repre-
sented by school district purchases in other grades.
This estimate may be reasonably accurate, however. The mimeo and
duplicator grades of paper are specially formulated and calendared for good
results in relatively specialized duplicating equipment. They are not gen-
erally satisfactory for most other purposes. A casual survey of secretaries
and ex-teachers in our office building indicated that most spirit duplicating
and mimeographic equipment is found in and used by schools. While churches and
a few groups such as Boy Scouts occasionally use such equipment, the vast
majority of businesses employ photocopying and Xerographic copiers exclusively.
This seems to be especially the case for spirit duplicating ("Ditto") equipment,
which is found almost exclusively in schools. Thus it may be that the unusually
high estimate of school district consumption of mimeo and duplicating grades of
paper may be understandable after all.
The estimate of sanitary paper consumption by school districts was
determined in an analogous manner. The Kansas City census indicated that each
study consumes approximately 1.25 rolls of toilet paper each year, each roll
weighing about 8 ounces. Using this ratio, it is estimated that 14.1 thousand
tons of toilet tissue were consumed by school districts during 1975. This is
equivalent to approximately 0.3 percent of the total domestic production of
toilet paper that year. While this estimate may appear somewhat low, it is
quite probable that students arrange their bowel habits so as to'minimize their
use of school restrooms. Especially in the secondary schools, the appeal of
using school sanitary facilities for sanitary purposes is low.
B-9
-------
The analysis of paper towel consumption was confounded by the fact
that some districts purchased towels in roll form while other purchased
towels in folded form and others purchased towels in both forms. To derive
a common denominator, case counts were used for all districts regardless of
the type of towel actually purchased. The consumption of paper towels was
more highly correlated with enrollment than was the consumption of toilet
paper, but less so than the consumption of printing and writing papers.
The consumption ranged from a low of 0.03 cases per student to a high of
0.11 cases per student per year. On the average, the districts surveyed
consumed approximately 0.08 cases per student per year. It was not possible
to state this estimate as a percentage of total production of paper towels
because of the wide variation of towel types encountered) which prevented
assessment of a reasonable weight estimate.
CONCLUSION
As determined by the procedures described above, it is estimated
that the state share of printing and writing paper consumption is approxi-
mately 0.95 percent of total annual domestic production. Similarly, it would
appear that the market share represented by local governmental units is
approximately 0.2 percent of total production, while the market share repre-
sented by school districts is approximately 1.8 percent. Totaling these
provides the conclusion that the total market share of printing paper pro-
duction represented by consumption for state, local, and school district
activities represents approximately 3 percent of total production. Since the
consumption of printing and writing papers for Federal level activities
represents approximately 1.25 to 1.50 percent of the total production (as
determined in Appendix A of this report), it may be concluded that the state-
local government purchases are approximately double the size of Federal
purchases.
In an analogous manner, the multiplier effect for sanitary papers
may be estimated. The consumption of sanitary papers at the state govern-
ment level was estimated at 1.0 percent of total domestic production. Use
at the local government and school district levels is estimated at 2.6 per-
cent and 0.3 percent, respectively. These total about 3.9 percent of the
total annual domestic production of sanitary papers. Since the Federal
consumption of these grades is approximately 1.5 percent, it may be con-
cluded that the "multiplier effect" for sanitary grades may be as high as
2.6.
B-10
-------
Appendix C
PURCHASING POLICIES OF STATE GOVERNMENTS,
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS
INTRODUCTION
It is frequently assumed that the influence of Federal policies
and programs will be magnified as state and even local governments follow
the Federal example. This assumption is basic to the presumption of the
economic "multiplier effect" discussed in Appendix B of this report. How-
ever, unless the "modeling effect" of policy emulation occurs, whatever
additional economic impact that might exist may not be directed towards
enhancing the effects of Federal action. This appendix investigates the
potential "modeling effects" which may be associated with Federal paper
purchasing policies. Also, the relationship between policy "modeling
effects" and economic "multiplier effects" will be explored.
Policy emulation, or "modeling effects," may result from either
or both of two substantially different causes. First, lower governmental
units may voluntarily emulate the policy decisions of the Federal Govern-
ment. Second, the Federal Government may employ economic or political
coercion to force lower levels of government to adopt specific Federal
policies. Since compliance with any policy frequently depends upon whether
or not the policy was adopted willingly, it seems likely that the impact
of potential "modeling effects" at lower governmental levels may depend
upon whether or not the policies were adopted voluntarily.
Voluntary policy emulation may occur if it seems that the Federal
Government has the resources to more thoroughly investigate certain policy
issues than the state of local governments do. The policy decisions imple-
mented at the Federal level may appear to reflect the best judgment avail-
able on a given issue. State and local governments, unable to support such
policy decisions on their own, might voluntarily model their own policies
after the Federal policy in these instances. Such voluntary modeling pre-
sumes that what is good for the Federal Government level for a specific
issue is also appropriate and good for the lower governmental level.
Voluntary "modeling effects" also presume that lower governmental units
are politically and organizationally amenable to change.
The existence of involuntary "modeling effects" presumes that the
Federal Government has the ability to coerce policy decisions at lower
governmental levels. Clearly, the Federal ability to coerce exists For
C-l
-------
With respect to paper procurement policies, it is expected that
both voluntary and involuntary factors may be employed to encourage the
"modeling effects" at the state, local,'and school district levels. The
voluntary factor which would enhance the degree of Federal policy emula-
tion would primarily be those of' economic benefits. If Federal paper
procurement policies were to allow lower levels of government to obtain
equivalent-quality products at a lower price, almost certainly there would
be significant voluntary "modeling effect." Another factor which would
enhance voluntary "modeling effects" would be the public support which
might accrue to socially worthy policies. For example, if the Federal
Government were to adopt a paper procurement policy which had great emo-
tional appeal to the general public, the degree to which such policies
would be adopted by lower governmental levels would be significantly
enhanced.
Involuntary "modeling effects" will probably also occur with
respect to Federal paper procurement policies. For example, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, PL94-580) provides that Federal pro-
curement policies must be employed at lower governmental levels if Fed-
erally-supported expenditures for certain materials exceeds a minimum
limit. Unfortunately, since such policy emulation is involuntary, it may
be expected that some degree of non-compliance will occur. To the degree
that such non-compliance exists, the effectiveness of the apparent "modeling
effect" is reduced. Thus it may be that while "modeling effects" are
necessary for the "multiplier effect" to exist, they are not by themselves
sufficient.
METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION
The research for the investigation reported in this appendix was
conducted through personal and telephone interviews with various state
government, local government, and school district administrators. These
interviews were initiated principally to obtain data concerning the amounts
of paper and paper products purchased by the various agencies, but also
included questions about the size, structure, and operation of the pur-
chasing departments responsible for acquiring paper and related items.
Frequently, conclusions about the effectiveness and efficiency of such
purchasing operations were suggested by the amount, form, and apparent
accuracy of the numerical data provided in cooperation with this analysis.
State Government Purchasing Policies and Procedures
As mentioned briefly in Appendix B of this report, thirteen states
were contacted to solicit their cooperation in providing data for this study.
The states contacted include the following: Florida, New York, Ohio, Minne-
sota, Wisconsin, Kansas, Missouri, California, Texas, Washington, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, and Maryland.
C-2
-------
These interviews made apparent that state purchasing policies
and procedures varied widely. For example, the state of Ohio has no
central purchasing office or record keeping for paper purchases whatso-
ever. Supplies for the various agencies in the state of Ohio were pur-
chased locally and without the aid of a central office. In contrast,
the state of Kansas has a full-time paper procurement officer who
specializes in purchasing paper and related products for almost every
state agency, including universities. This agent has access to a great
deal of historical data of great detail. The remaining states contacted
for this analysis seemed to fall between these two extremes with respect
to sophistication in purchasing procedures and systems.
Even when formal purchasing departments were established, it was
not uncommon for the record keeping to be unable to supply even one year
of historical paper and paper product purchase data. For example, the data
provided by the state of Missouri would seem to indicate that the entire state
government consumes about as much paper as is needed to conduct the business
of a single large urban school district.
Frequently historical data were available, but not in an easily-
accessed form. For example, the states of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, and
Florida reported maintaining archives of records which supposedly contained
the data requested, but to locate and copy these data was virtually impos-
sible. It seems that the filing systems and staffs changed with each
election, and little continuity was maintained.
In two instances, California and New York, the records presented
an overwhelming copying task to the staff of the purchasing divisions. The
data were not available in aggregate form, and the detail data were volum-
inous. Hence, no numerical data were provided by these states, either.
It seems that state purchasing activities tend to be more different
than similar. The state purchasing administrators have widely differing
levels of expertise with respect to paper products. As mentioned earlier,
while one state employs a full-time paper specialist, most other states pur-
chase paper products more as an auxiliary function to some other responsibility,
For example, in one state sanitary papers are purchased by the Director of
Building Services, who is principally concerned with custodial personnel, not
paper. It would seem that the potential for both voluntary and involuntary
"modeling effects" is at least partially dependent upon the organization of
the state purchasing agencies. It seems likely that as the complexity of
the Federal procurement policies becomes greater, the degree of "modeling
effect" at the state level would decrease as less-sophisticated state pur-
chasing systems become frustrated or overloaded. The wide range of dif-
ferences found between various state purchasing systems suggests that the
degree to which both voluntary and involuntary "modeling effects" occur will
probably vary widely.
C-3
-------
Voluntary "Modeling Effects." As was mentioned earlier, vol-
untary modeling may occur when the Federal Government is perceived to
have researched a policy issue thoroughly when state governments cannot.
To the degree that the policy is economically beneficial to the state,
it would seem that "modeling effects" would be evident. While this is
probably true, it may not always seem so. For example, in 1971 the GSA
began to change their purchase specifications in such a way as to encourage
the use of recycled fiber in paper and paper products. The development of
these revised purchasing standards was generally publicized, and about 30
states and some large cities approached the GSA for copies of these revised
procurement specifications. This was initially interpreted as indicating a
pronounced voluntary "modeling effect." However, of the 13 states contacted
and interviewed for this study, including nine which had requested copies of
the new GSA specifications, not one of these states had implemented the new
spec if ications.
In exploring why the apparent enthusiasm for emulating the Federal
specifications was not actualized, it was found that, generally speaking,
the state purchasing systems not only lack the expertise and resources to
develop sophisticated policies, they also lack the necessary resources to
implement and monitor such sophisticated specifications. Thus, the potential
modeling of the Federal procurement specifications required a realignment of
manpower and budget which was not structurally feasible, even if economic
benefit would result in the long run.
Voluntary "modeling effects" may also result from public support
for a given Federally-implemented policy. Environmental and ecologically-
sensitive policy decisions are examples of this type of motivation for
voluntary "modeling effects." However, states vary widely in sophistication
and sensitivity to environmental issues involving paper. For example, several
states purchase only virgin grades of paper as a matter of tradition or policy.
In contrast, at least three states (Maryland, Missouri and California) maintain
special agencies for the purpose of encouraging resource conservation practices
in state government. Just as the sensitivity to ecological issues and desire
for public support vary from state to state, it seems likely that the degree
of voluntary "modeling effect" for paper procurement policies will also vary.
In those states which are generally sensitive to resource and ecology issues,
it seems likely that voluntary modeling would occur to a large degree if
Federal policies were to generate public support for those issues. Corres-
pondingly, the degree of modeling would be less in those states which are
not especially sensitive to those issues.
Involuntary "Modeling Effects." Federal paper procurement policies
may be modeled involuntarily as well. The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) (PL-94-580) includes provisions requiring the adoption of Federal
procurement policies if Federal money is used to purchase paper products in
amounts in excess of $10,000. It is difficult to estimate how much "modeling
effect" will result from this provision, since relatively few state paper or
paper products purchases involve amounts larger than a few thousand dollars
at a time. Frequently, as discussed above, state purchasing procedures are
so decentralized that paper purchases which may aggregate to above this limit
may not be recognized because they are so widely distributed as small purchases,
C-4
-------
Certainly In some states, extensive auditing and monitoring efforts would
have to be implemented to verify compliance with regulations as included
in RCRA. In addition, involuntary emulation of Federal policy is likely
to be seen as something to be thwarted, not supported, by state adminis-
trators.
Local Government Purchasing Policies and Procedures
The potential "modeling effect" at the local governmental level
for Federal paper procurement policies was evaluated through a series of
personal and telephone interviews with officials of the various municipal-
ities comprising the Greater Kansas City Metropolitan Area, which consists
not only of the twin cities of Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City,
Kansas, but also 112 local jurisdictions, including counties. These smaller
governmental units represent from 100 to approximately 100,000 residents
each. Kansas City, Kansas has an estimated 1975 population of 168,000,
while Kansas City, Missouri has an estimated 473,000 inhabitants.
It was found that only the Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City,
Missouri municipalities purchase their paper and paper products through a
contract bid process. These contracts are awarded every two years for most
paper products, and only those vendors located within the respective muni-
cipalities are considered for award. Apparently the allegiance of local
government to local vendors is strong, not only in the Kansas City area but
also in other cities generally. It seems likely that the smaller the
municipality, the stronger this allegiance may be.
Indeed, in municipalities having fewer than 100,000 inhabitants,
purchases of paper and paper products are frequently handled without formal
contract/bid procedures. Of the 18,517 cities incorporated in the United
States (1975 census), 99.1 percent of these served fewer than 100,000 in-
habitants, and 97.9 percent of these served fewer than 50,000 inhabitants.
Thus it seems that the vast majority of municipalities purchase paper and
paper products exclusively from local vendors without formal purchase
agreements. In the Kansas City Metropolitan Area, for example, not one
of the several jurisdictions surveyed had formal paper procurement policies.
All of the municipalities surveyed except Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas
purchased paper as needed from local stationery stores within their re-
spective city limits. Such "hand-to-mouth" paper procurement procedures
suggests that essentially no "modeling effect" of Federal policy is likely
to occur at local governmental levels.
The cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants, comprising less than
one percent of the cities in the United States, may have purchasing procedures
capable of emulating Federal paper procurement policies. It seems unlikely
that even cities would adopt Federal procurement policies voluntarily, however.
Even if Federal policies were imposed upon these largest cities, the magnitude
of their paper purchases would remain an insignificant share of the total paper
market. Hence, the potential economic "multiplier effect" which might be ob-
tained from local governments seems insignificant.
C-5
-------
School District Purchasing Policies and Procedures
To assess the potential "modeling effect" which might occur at the
school district level, a census of school districts in and around the Greater
Metropolitan Kansas City Area was conducted. In addition, telephone inter-
views were conducted with purchasing agents of the St. Louis Public School
District and the King County Directors Association in the state of Washington.
As in the interviews with state purchasing officials, discussed earlier in
this appendix, information about the size, structure, and operation of the
purchasing operations at the school districts was solicited as well as the
numerical data reported in Appendix B of this study. This census included
all of the 17 different school districts in the Greater Metropolitan Kansas
City Area, serving from 4,000 to 45,000 students each.
The first finding of these interviews is that school district pur-
chases are made by full-time purchasing personnel only in the very largest
school districts. Only three of the 17 districts interviewed employed
formally-titled purchasing agents. The remaining 14 districts assigned
purchasing responsibilities to various teachers and staff throughout the
district, frequently on a volunteer basis.
Second, in all but one case, the people contacted for assistance
with this study were extremely cooperative and equally busy. However, pro-
viding even the minimal amount of information requested for this study
clearly imposed a significant administrative burden upon these people in
many cases. It seems that any Federal policy which would increase the work
load upon these individuals will not be "modeled."
Third, it was found that (with the exception of the three largest
districts) paper products were purchased by the principal users of the pro-
ducts as opposed to a paper purchasing specialist. That is, sanitary papers
were most commonly purchased by the director of custodial services, while
ditto, mimeo, and Xerographic papers were purchased by staff in the super-
intendent's office,and specialty papers were purchased by individual teachers
through their local school office procedures. In short, there were no cen-
tralized purchasing procedures in any but the largest three districts. It
would seem that the likelihood of "modeling effects" is correspondingly
diminished in such decentralized purchasing systems.
Of the 88,695 public schools in the United States (1975 census),
the vast majority serve fewer than 150 students each. Correspondingly, the
smaller the staffs of these numerous smaller schools, the less likely it is
that "modeling effects" will occur.
Multi-district purchasing cooperatives have spontaneously been
organized as budgets have decreased, prices have increased, and purchasing manage-
ment resources have been fixed. In the census conducted for this study,
three cooperative purchasing arrangements were discovered. One, in the
Greater Kansas City Area, includes 13 rural and semi-rural school districts
of suburban Jackson County, Missouri. A second cooperative outside of St.
Louis, Missouri, serves some 40 independent school districts, and a third,
much larger and more elaborate cooperative, has been established in the
state of Washington and serves about 80 percent of the non-metropolitan
C-6
-------
districts in the state. Communication between these three districts was
non-existent, and no national federation or central organization of such
cooperatives was discovered. Although the Kansas City cooperative knew
of the St. Louis cooperative, the reverse was not true. Neither of the
two Missouri cooperatives knew of the Washington cooperative. Each coop-
erative took great pride in having originated the cooperative purchase
concept.
Without some central coalition and communication between such
grassroots cooperatives, it is difficult to guess how many other such
spontaneous cooperative arrangements have been organized. If there were
to be a central administration, or even communication organ, it might be
expected that some degree of voluntary "modeling effect" of Federal pol-
icies might occur, providing that they were economically beneficial to the
local districts. Without such a central focal point for policy formulation,
it seems unlikely that purchasing cooperatives will experience significant
amounts of "modeling effect."
This conclusion is supported by the wide range of sophistication
observed between the three purchasing cooperatives discovered in this study.
On one hand, the Kansas City area cooperative met approximately twice a
year to loosely organize the work of the cooperative. All work for the
cooperative was done on a spare-time basis by volunteers working through
their local chapter of the NEA. With respect to paper procurement, the
principal achievement of this cooperative was the negotiation of an open-
ended purchase agreement with a local paper vendor for mimeo, duplicating,
and sanitary papers. The contract negotiated most recently was at a price
only marginally improved over retail.
In contrast, the cooperative in the state of Washington is incor-
porated as a not-for-profit organization and maintains warehouse and trans-
portation facilities. A small percentage markup is added to the price of
the goods handled to cover the administrative costs incurred, and the price
to the local school districts is close to that of volume wholesale purchases.
This agency supplies varying amounts of paper products to about 80 percent of
the school districts in the state. Significantly, the largest school dis-
tricts do not participate in this organization. The larger school districts
in the state of Washington, as elsewhere, maintain their own independent
purchasing systems.
Cooperative purchasing agreements of a different kind were also
explored with respect to paper procurement for school districts. Some states
allow lower governmental units to purchase through state purchasing agree-
ments and procedures. To estimate the extent of such state-district coop-
eration, purchasing administrators for 10 states in addition to the state
of Washington, discussed above, were interviewed either in person or by
telephone. It was found that the states of Florida, Ohio, Kansas, Missouri,
Texas, Washington, and Maryland have no provisions for local school district
purchases through state facilities or contracts. The states of Minnesota,
C-7
-------
Wisconsin, and California allow the local school districts the option of
purchasing through state facilities, but keep no records of purchases
made by local school districts. California, for example, requires that
such purchases be only in lots of a carload or more, although certain
sanitary products could be purchased in smaller lots. New York and
Maryland seem unique in that local governments and school districts
(excluding New York City) use between 35 to 50 percent of the paper pur-
chased by the state. Records of shipments to such local agencies are
not maintained, however.
CONCLUSIONS
The degree to which potential economic "multiplier effects" will
be aligned with Federal policy decisions depends upon the extent of "model-
ing effects" resulting from emulation of Federal policy at lower levels of
government. It would appear that voluntary modeling of Federal policy
would be more effective than involuntary or economically coerced adoption
of Federal policy. The likelihood of voluntary policy emulation is a
function of the perceived economic benefit to the lower governmental unit
of adopting the Federal policy, as well as the political and organizational
feasibility of such apparent cooperation with the Federal Government.
At the state level, the wide differences in organizations, exper-
tise, and policy would suggest that the extent of "modeling effects" would
vary widely. Generally, the more centralized and sophisticated the central
purchasing system, the greater the likelihood that Federal paper procurement
policies will be emulated. In addition, the more the state is sympathetic
to resource conservation and ecological issues, the greater the likelihood
that resource-conservative Federal paper procurement policies will be adopted.
It seems unlikely that significant state level "modeling effects" will result
from the fiscal incentives and constraints included in the RCRA act with
respect to paper procurements.
At the local level, most such governmental units are so small that
voluntary emulation of Federal policy seems highly unlikely. Paper purchases
by most such small bureaucracies are apparently exclusively on a "hand-to-
mouth" basis from local paper merchants in political favor.
At the school district level, as at the state level, a wide range
of sophistication was encountered. The larger and more sophisticated the
central purchasing operation, the more likely that "modeling effects" will
occur. However, most school districts are very small and purchase paper
products almost incidentally.
Even the cooperative purchasing agreements which involve many such
small districts were found to be relatively unable to influence paper pro-
curement policies of the constituent districts. It would seem that even
with these cboperatives, the likelihood of school district "modeling effects"
is nil.
C-8
-------
Some states allow school district purchases of paper products to
be made through the state purchasing facilities. In these instances, it
seems more likely that Federal policies might be emulated at the school
district level, providing that the states themselves model the Federal
policies.
In summary, it appears that significant "modeling effects" at
state, local, and school district levels of government are unlikely.
Correspondingly, it is unlikely that the potential economic "multiplier
effects" of Federal paper procurement policies will be realized.
The likelihood that lower governmental units will emulate any
Federal paper procurement policy is apparently determined by the degree
that such policies were economically beneficial to the states. That is,
if a Federal policy were to lower the cost of paper products to the lower
governmental units, the policy would be more likely to be adopted. Second,
if a Federal policy generated widespread public support for a specific
policy, then lower governmental units are more likely to adopt that policy.
The ability to adopt any new policy is limited by the ability to restructure
and change existing policies.
Finally, it seems likely that measures to force lower governmental
units to adopt Federal paper procurement policies involuntarily will be
unsuccessful for several reasons. First, the great majority of state,
local and school district administrations are small, unsophisticated, and
broadly diverse with respect to policies, procedures, and internal in-
formation systems. Monitoring Federal policy implementation across these
organizationally and geographically widespread units would be overwhelming.
Second, even in the larger, more sophisticated state, local, and school
district administrations, the likelihood that additional Federal inter-
vention into the present system and procedures is likely to be resisted
for political and philosophical reasons.
In conclusion, not only is the economic "multiplier effect" small,
as discussed in Appendix B of this study, but the likelihood that this
economic "multiplier effect" would be aligned with Federal paper procurement
policies is even smaller.
C-9
-------
Appendix D
ENERGY REQUIRED TO MANUFACTURE VIRGIN AND
RECYCLED PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
The mandate for EPA to prepare guidelines which are the subject
of this report is contained in RCRA. The act also clearly states that
overall resource conservation is a major goal. Thus, the possible energy
impacts of the guidelines must be carefully considered.
The energy analysis here focuses on fossil energy, which excludes
the energy derived from wood wastes which are generated and consumed on
site during the manufacture of some kinds of paper and paperboard (self-
generated energy). This source of energy is relatively fixed as to lo-
cation, amount and potential utilization, and should not be viewed as part
of the nation's general energy "reservoir." It is also renewable to the
extent that trees used in paper and paperboard manufacture are renewable.
If not used as an energy source by the paper arid paperboard plants, this
material would most likely be wasted. Thus, it seems to us that use of
wood wastes in this fashion is a characteristic of a single industry, un-
like fossil fuels such as gas, oil, and coal which are generally usable
(and of finite extent).
The exclusion of energy from wood wastes is logical for policy
analysis such as this. For example, the nation's best interests are
served if a paper mill would substitute increased efficiency in use of wood
wastes for use of natural gas. The so-called "black liquor" is not avail--
able for others to use. However, inclusion of the wood waste energy in this
type of analysis would not show any advantage of the tradeoff of energy from
that source for some fossil fuels. Thus, we have elected to focus only on
fossil energy in this report.
In a recent report, the fossil fuel requirements of virgin and
recycled paper products were studied.* The results of that study are used
as the base for energy values derived here. Three basic methods of manu-
facture of products were considered. One method is to manufacture pulp
from virgin materials and then transfer the pulp in a slush form to the
paper manufacturing machinery nearby. Another option is to first dry the
pulp and make it in to a product called market pulp. Market pulp can be
stored indefinitely and shipped to remote lo"'1008^0".^1"*^^11
water to form the slush pulp to be used in paper making. The third method
is to use waste paper as the raw material to make a slush pulp for making
paplr. Drying ofrecycled slush pulp to make market pulp is almost never
done.
pared for Marion Thompson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Waste, Washington, D.C., 1976.
D-l
-------
The three sequences described are shown in Figure D-l. Virgin
paper products are made primarily by the slush pulp method, and some grades
of recycled paper are made entirely from recycled slush pulp. However,
some important grades of paper—notably printing and writing paper—are
routinely made of a blend of recycled slush pulp and market pulp in re-
cycling mills. However, some virgin mills must also supplement their
self-manufactured slush pulp with market pulp in order to achieve the
needed pulp characteristics for certain products.
In order to calculate the energy required for recycled and virgin
paper manufacture, Table D-l was prepared. The table lists fossil fuel
energy for 100 percent virgin and 100 percent recycled products. Also
shown is the energy for market pulp manufacture.
At the present time, paper products—especially printing and
writing papers—may or may not be manufactured with some market pulp, al-
though light weight grades of printing and writing papers frequently re-
quire market pulp. This has important energy consequences, because use
of market pulp introduces an extra energy-intensive drying stage in the
paper manufacture sequence. This can be seen in Table D-l.
In order to assess this situation, Figures D-2 and D-3 were pre-
pared. They show the energy intensity of paper products at various blends
of market pulp.
It is apparent, ther, that in the status quo situation, the se-
lection of recycled paper products can result in either more or less energy
consumption, depending on the particular situation. However, if recycled
paper use increases over the status quo, there is always an energy savings.
This is shown in Figure D-4, where the data derived from Table D-l are
plotted. The figure shows that energy savings as high as 30 million Btu per
ton of product are possible by replacing virgin fiber in the status quo
with recycled fiber. This would amount to a 50 percent savings for the
tissue products presently made from market pulp. However, increases in re-
cycling that great are highly unlikely, with near term potential for energy
savings more likely in the range of zero to 5 percent.
D-2
-------
v
i
R
G
1
N
M
A
•T^
E
R
I
A
L
Virgin
Slush Pulp
Paper
Manufacture
Transport
Virgin
Slush Pulp
a
t
OJ
W M
A A
5 i
T '
E L
Recycled
Slush Pulp
Market Pulp
Manufacture
(Pulp Drying)
C-,
V
/
^T
^-~ " *
Repulping to
Slush Pulp
Paper
Manufacture
Paper
Manufacture
P
A
P
E
R
P
R
0
D
U
C
T
S
"igure D-l. Simplified flow diagrams of paper product manufacture by three methods.
-------
Table D-l
ESTIMATES OF FOSSIL FUEL REQUIREMENTS
FOR VIRGIN AND RECYCLED PAPER
AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCT MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS
(10 Btu/ton)
Corrugated Containers
Packaging Paperboard
Paper Packaging
Printing Paper
Tissue
Newspapers
Printing Paper from
Market Pulp
Tissue from Market Pulp
Virgin
20
47
24
49
40
30
Recycled
20
43
24
44
29
20
Difference
0
4
0
5
11
10
70
61
Source
(1)
(4)
(1)
(5)
(7)
(5)
(8)
(9)
Note: In addition to the fossil energy listed here, self-generated
power derived primarily from process wastes was used at an
estimated rate of 18 x 10*> Btu/ton for the manufacture of the
following virgin grades: packaging paperboard, paper packaging,
printing paper, tissue, and the two market pulps listed. For
virgin corrugated containers, the value is 12 x 10*> Btu/ton.
No self-generated energy is used in the manufacture of newspapers.
See text for a discussion of the self-generated energy.
D-4
-------
TABLE D-l NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. Page 174, reference 2, was used for virgin values, with difference
in virgin and recycled from p. 25, reference 3.
2. Welch, Richard, Ron Fellman, May Simister, Dennis Viscek, William
Franklin and Robert Hunt, "Resource and Environmental Profile
Analysis of Five Milk Container Systems, With Selected Health and
Economic Considerations, Volume I, Final Draft Report," prepared
by Midwest Research Institute and Franklin Associates, for the
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Washington,
D.C., June 18, 1976.
3. Hunt, Robert G. and William E. Franklin, "Environmental Effects of
Recycling Paper," presented to the 73rd National Meeting of the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, August 27-30, 1972,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (Revised July 9, 1973).
4. Virgin packaging paperboard values were approximated by using values
for gallon milk containers, from pages 4 and 176, reference 2. The
difference between virgin and recycled is from p. 25, reference 3.
5. The virgin values are estimated from p. 15, reference 6, with the
recycled value from reference 7.
6. Love, Peter, "Net Energy Savings from Solid Waste Management Options—
Summary," prepared by Middleton Associates for Solid Waste Management
Branch, Environment Canada, Toronto, Canada, September 1976.
7. Franklin Associates estimates.
8. Market pulp must be dried, shipped and subsequently recycled before-
being fabricated into paper products. It was assumed that the manu-
facture of printing paper from slush pulp is 49 x 10^ Btu/ton (as
shown in the table) with the added steps of using market pulp being
pulp drying (16 x 10^ Btu/ton, reference 7) and repulping (5 x 106
Btu/ton, reference 3). Transportation energy for the market pulp
transport contributes only a small amount and was omitted from this
analysis.
9. The same 21 x 10 Btu/ton increment above virgin products used in
reference 8 was assumed to be valid for tissue.
D-5
-------
c
e.
=u
~"c
60
50-
40-
30-
20-
10'
Virgin slush pulp/market pulp
Deinked pulp/market pulp
10
90
30
—T-
40
T~
50
—T~
60
70
—T"
80
Virgin 0
Market Pulp
' DeinV-.ed or 100 90 f>r: 70 60 50 AO 30 20
virgin slusM Figure D-2. Fossil fuel recuirenicr.t.s -for manufacture ci" printing paper Tsacu- from virgin slush pulp,
PU^P- virgin market pulp end deinked waste paper pulp.
100
0
-------
o
kl
01
o.
&
o
H
0)
eu
01
£
to
CO
70
60 -
50 -
40
30 -
20 -
10 -
Market pulp/virgin slush
pulp tissue
Market pulp/deinked pulp tissue
% Virgin Market 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Pulp
% Deinked or .100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
virgin slush
pulp. Figure D-3. Fossil fuel requirements for manufacture of tissue made from virgin slush pulp, virgin market px^lp
and deinked waste paper pulp
-------
30 -
20 -
c
I
00
00 «
e P-
> c
03 C
10
Tissue from Market Pulp S
Printing Paper from Market Pulp
Tissue from Slush Pulp
Printing Paper from Slush Pulp
Figure D-4.
30 40 50 60 70
Postconsumer Waste as a Percent of Paper
Energy savings from postconsutner waste recycling.
-------
, . i In addition to the values in Table D-l, a set of energy numbers
just released by the American Paper Institute (API) to the Department of
Energy (DoE) are included in this appendix as Table D-2. These numbers
are drawn from the API energy monitoring system and the annual capacity
survey. They are actual mill operating data and include the energy con-
sumed on site by the papermill. A comparison of the values in Table D-2
to Table D-l reveals that the API numbers are much lower than the FAL
values in Table D-l. The basic reason is that the FAL numbers are much
more inclusive than the API. Included in the FAL numbers and not in-
cluded in the API values are as follows: (1) energy to harvest, procure,
and transport raw materials, including chemical additives, (2) energy re-
quired to mine, procure, refine, and transport fuels, (3) energy losses
incurred in generation and delivery of electricity, and (4) energy to
convert paper and paperboard into products. Thus, it is clear that these
numbers cannot be directly compared, but an analysis of the API numbers
is very revealing.
The FAL values reflect typical, or model, mill values. In some
cases they show energy savings from recycling, while in some cases they
do not. As new mills are constructed, virgin and recycling mills built
under similar circumstances might be expected to show the energy relation-
ship in Table D-l. However, the differences in existing mills are nothing
short of astounding, as revealed in the API data. It is not uncommon for
mills manufacturing identical products to differ in energy requirements
per ton of output by more than 100 percent. This wide range of values is
caused by many differences between mills, such as climate, operational
skill, and availability of capital to Implement energy conservation. Other
reasons are also given in the notes preceding Table D-2.
This wide range of energy values in all mills leads to the situ-
ation as shown in Table D-2--that recycling mills for the grades for which
data are available may require comparatively little energy, or comparatively
large amounts of energy. Correlations run on the data show very low cor-
relation between recycling rates and energy.
The policy implications of this are quite important. It means
that if the Government buys paper from a recycling mill, there is no way
of knowing if that paper purchase resulted in less or more energy con-
sumption than if virgin paper had been purchased. Thus, if the values in
Table D-2 are accepted, there is no basis for assuming that purchases of
recycled paper from the existing industry will result in energy conservation,
although the possibility remains that new recycling capacity may be energy
saving.
The indications are that government actions could bring about either
an increase or decrease in energy consumption. If government actions merely
substitute products from existing recycling mills for virgin products, then
the energy consumption may either go up or down, depending on the particular
situation. On the other hand, if government action brings about an increase
in overall recycling, then energy conservation will result.
Our long term projections are that government action will stimulate the
growth in use of waste paper at a very slow rate. The probable result is a small
decrease in energy consumption. However, any changes in energy consumption from
the guidelines over the next ten years will most likely be insignificant.
D-9
-------
Table D-2
EXPLANATORY NOTES
The following are excerpts from explanatory notes submitted by
API to DoE on April 13, 1979.
"Attached are tables showing the energy, both gross and net,
and the percent of waste paper used at mills producing paper
and paperboard. The data were calculated using API's energy
monitoring system and annual capacity survey.
It is important to note that the energy data is only the
energy used in the paper mill. In order to calculate total
energy, the energy used by supplier companies in producing
the raw materials used by paper mills, and the energy con-
sumed in transporting the material to the mill, and shipping
the finished product to a consumer, must also be included.
Although data for gross energy and net energy are provided,
the only valid measurement is net energy which is equivalent
to the mills' purchased energy.
The paper industry is unique in its utilization of energy in
that a substantial percentage currently comes from recovered
materials.
In 1978, 47% of the paper industry's energy requirements were
internally generated by burning process wastes such as spent
pulping liquors, bark and waste wood. In 1972, 42% of the
industry's energy requirements were internally generated. As
the data indicates a number of mills generate a very high
percentage of their energy requirements making them almost
independent of purchased energy.
In 1978, 60% of the fiber used to make paper and paperboard
was from recovered materials (24% waste paper, 35% waste wood
and 1% other waste fibers). In 1972, 51% was recovered ma-
terials (22% waste paper, 27% waste wood and 2% other fibers)."
The mills included in this survey were single product mills re-
porting energy consumption to API. Excluded were mills producing a variety
of products, in which case there was no allotment to allocate energy con-
sumption to individual products.
D-10
-------
Table D-2
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION
1. Ambient air and water temperature
Mill location is important; northern mills have cooler incoming
air and water than southern mills, therefore more energy is required.
2. Steam pressure
Mills use different steam pressures in drier drums. The higher
the pressure of the generated steam, the more energy required.
3. Yield
When comparing some products made from virgin fiber paper or
paperboard, the yield in square feet per ton produced can be
10% to 30% higher than a product made from waste paper.
D-ll
-------
Table D-2
ENERGY USAGE FOR 100% TISSUE MILLS
PAPERMAKING ONLY. 1977 DATA
Gross
Energy
Btu/Ton
25.8
12.6
13.1
13.6
29.6
14.7
42.8
15.9
16.0
16.8
16.9
17.0
17.0
17.6
17.4
17.6
17.7
17.8
18.0
20.6
19.5
20.3
19.9
20.1
20.4
20.2
20.3
28.4
21.6
23.4
26.8
24.0
24.5
32.0
29.6
29.6
32.6
34.7
Btu/Ton
8.9
12.6
13.1
13.6
14.3
14.7
15.3
15.9
16.0
16.8
16.9
17.0
17.0
17.2
17.4
17.6
17.7
17.8
18.0
18.2
19.5
19.8
19.9
20.1
20.1
20.2
20.3
20.3
21.6
23.4
23.7
24.0
24.5
25.0
25.3
29.6
32.6
34.7
Net Energy
Percent Internally
Generated
65
52
64
2
9
3
6
2
28
12
20
15
Percent
Waste Paper
5
100
16
21
50
50
46
55
100
97
44
91
32
100
45
19
60
40
11
7
11
14
8
100
100
90
39
16
100
61
40
39.2 39.2 100
D-12
-------
Table D-2 (con't)
ENERGY USAGE BY GROUNDWOOD PRINTING PAPER
AND NEWSPRINT HELLS
(Papers with groundwood fiber content over 40%)
Net Energy
Gross Energy Percent Internally Percent
Btu/Ton Btu/Ton Generated Waste
26.44 9.41 64.4
21.13 13.16 37.7 1.9
16.04 13.40 16.5
14.10 14.01 0.6
15.07 15.07 0
15.98 15.98 0
25.94 16.24 37.4 0.3
42.88 17.40 59.4
29.14 19.31 33.7
21.45 20.10 6.3
31.64 21.03 33.5 38.2
21.14 22.47 6.3 5.0
42.30 22.53 46.7
D-13
-------
Table Dr2
ENERGY USAGE BY BLEACHED CHEMICAL WOOD PULP
PRINTING-WRITING PAPER MILLS
(Integrate*})
Net Energy
Gross Energy ' Percent Internally Percent
Btu/Ton Btu/Ton .* Generated Waste ' C or U
35.18 12.90 63.3 - U
36.73- 15.17 58.7 4.5 C&U
22.52 16.33 27.5 - C&U
29.13 17.45 40.1 24.1 U
28.55 18.15 36.4 6.0 U
37.08 18.18 51.0 - C&U
37.40, 19.87 46.9 7.4 U
39.19 ; 20.03 48.9 - U
39.85 20.51 48.5 13.2 U
39.77^ 21.10 46.9 10.4 U
28.68, 22.39 21.9 28.4 U
42.86 23.12 46.1 4.7 C&U
48.1J:: 24.80 48.5 - U
45.45, 30.30 33.3 - C&U
41.85 30.38 27.4 - C&U
45.84; : 30.94 32.5 - C&U
C = coated
U = uncoated
D-14
-------
Table IJ^2 (con't)' -
ENERGY USAGE BY BLEACHED CHEMICAL WOOD PULP
PRINTING-WRITING PAPER MILLS
(Non integrated)
Net Energy
Gross Energy
Btu/Ton
10.93
12.18
12.85
14.83
17.06
17.84
17.92
18.06
20.72
20.96
22.18
22.99
24.06
27.31
29.20
29.80
39.19
Btu/Ton
10.93
12.18
12.47
14.83
17.06
17.84
17.92
18.06
20.72
20.96
22.18
22.99
23.89
27.31
29.20
29.80
39.19
Percent Internally
Generated
0
0
3.0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
Percent
Waste
2.6
15.5
17.9
16.4
20.1
35.7
14.8
-
2,1
4.3
C or U
U
U
U
U
U
U
y
u
u
u
12.9
24.7
10.9
29.6
U
C&U
U
U
C«J
C = coated
U = uncoated
D-15
-------
Table D-2 (con't)
ENERGY USAGE FOR SEMICHEMICAL PAPERBOAKD
1977
SOUTHERN
Gross
Energy
Btu/ton
15.66
14.77
19.60
19.39
17.74
Btu/Ton
5.00
12.79
14.09
15.49
15.85
Net Energy
Percent Internally
Generated
68.1
13.4
28.1
20.1
10.7
Percent
Waste Paper
27.7
25.3
16.5
23.8
1.9
NORTH CENTRAL
20.27 13.36 34.1 15.2
14.68 13.89 5.4 45.7
14.87 14.87 29.2
17.56 17.56 34.5
22.28 19.28 13.5 9.9
31.12 27.96 10.2 24.2
D-16
-------
Table D-2 (con't)
ENERGY USAGE FOR UNBLEACHED KRAFT PAPERBOASD - SOUTHERN
1977
Gross Net Energy
Energy Percent Internally Percent
Btu/Ton Btu/Ton Generated Waste Paper
26.10 7.25 72.2
30.43 7.74 74.6
29.98 9.02 69.9 1.5
29.22 9.41 67.8
27.23 9.45 65.3 15.0
25.57 9.46 63.0 0.2
25.34 9.70 61.7 8.3
33.68 11.49 65.9
35.41 12.06 65.9
27.40 12.24 55.3
34.84 12.51 64.1
33.20 13.06 60.7
28.92 13.12 54.6 10.2
30.73 15.11 50.8 10.5
37.45 15.86 57.7 14.3
31.20 16.61 46.8 6.3
D-17
-------
Table D-2 (con't),
ENERGY USAGE FOR SOLID BLEACHED PAPERBOARD
1977
Gross Net Energy
Energy Percent Internally Percent
Btu/Ton Btu/Ton Generated Waste Paper
40.31 19.70 51.1 0.8
42.14 23.11 45.2
50.90 23.49 53.9
44.49 23.72 53.3 8.4
47.25 24.62 52.1
D-18
-------
Table D-2 (con't)
ENERGY USAGE FOR
RECYCLED PAPERBOARD
1977
NORTH REGION
Gross
Energy
Btu/Ton
8.63
10.93
11.56
11.69
12.40
12.64
13.01
13.40
13.89
14.25
15.12
15.81
17.03
17.92
18.56
19.51
20.46
Btu/Ton
8.41
10.93
11.56
11.69
12.40
12.64
13.01
13.40
13.67
14.25
15.12
15.81
17.03
17.92
18.56
19.51
20.46
Net Energy
Percent Internally Percent
Generated Waste Paper
2.5 100.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1.6 100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
NORTH CENTRAL
7.68
9.31
11.48
11.72
12.21
12.65
13.32
13.68
14.16
14.63
14.67
14.68
14.77
15.19
16.34
19.76
20.57
21.66
22.70
23.81
7.68
9.31
11.48
11.72
12.21
12.65
13.32
13.68
14.16
14.63
14.67
14.68
14.77
15.19
16.34
19.76
20.57
21.66
22.70
23.81
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
loo
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
D-19
-------
Table D-2 (con't)
ENERGY USAGE. FOR. /
RECYCLED PAPERBOARD
1977
PACIFIC COAST
Gross
Energy
Btu/Ton
10.56
10.78
10.90
11.33
12.32
12.89
14.72
14.98
Btu/Ton
10.56
10.78
10.90
11.33
12.32
12.89
14.72
14.98
Net Energy
Percent Internally Percent
Generated Waste Paper
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
9.44
9.78
10.14
11.06
12.58
12.70
12.89
13.19
13.46
14.08
14.13
14.90
9.44
9.78
10.14
11.06
12.58
12.70
12.89
13.19
13.33
14.08
14.13
14.90
SOUTH
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1.0 100
100
100
100
D-20
-------
ENERGY USAGE-FOR
RECYCLED CONTAINERBOARD - TOTAL
1977
Gross Net Energy
Energy Percent Internally Percent
Btu/Ton Btu/Tpn Generated Waste Paper
11.53 11.53 100
11.89 11.89 100
11.94 11.94 100
13.25 13.25 100
13.49 13.49 100
16.00 16.00 100
18.97 18.97 100
19.20 19.20 100
D-21
-------
Appendix E
HEALTH RELATED ISSUES FOR VIRGIN AND RECYCLED PAPER
AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS
INTRODUCTION
It might be assumed that if the use of either recycled or virgin
fiber in paper products were proven more healthful to the user, demand for
the product would increase. Unfortunately, the healthfulness of a given
product is frequently difficult to determine, especially regarding products
that are not obviously injurious or beneficial. Most paper and paper pro-
ducts fall into this category. Nonetheless, even a general determination
of health hazards and/or benefits resulting from the use of one type of
fiber in paper and paper products would be helpful in policy formulation.
Two different forms of health hazards associated with paper and
paper products are investigated in this appendix. First, potential health
hazards resulting from the use of recycled fiber in paper and paper products
are investigated. These hazards are generally associated with the unknown
and potentially hazardous contamination of the postconsumer waste (PCW)
portion of the fiber furnish. Second, a potential health hazard associated
with the use of virgin fiber in paper and paper products is considered.
Specifically, the eyestrain resulting from exceptionally high-brightness
printing and writing papers is investigated.
In the course of this investigation, 15 paper manufacturing
companies were contacted for telephone or personal interviews. These
companies,were selected to represent a broad spectrum of product lines,
using both recycled and virgin fiber in varying percentages as furnish,
and representing a wide variety of product lines. The interviews included
questions concerning health-related issues which had been or might be en-
countered as a result of using significant amounts of recycled fiber in
paper and paper products. In addition, an extensive search of the literature
was conducted to specifically investigate the health hazards associated with
high brightness printing and writing papers. Significant cooperation was
also obtained from the staff of the Library of Congress on this issue, as
well.
This appendix is not a definitive exposition of these issues, but
raises some of the important health-related questions.
DISCUSSION
Potential Hazards Associated with the Use of Postconsumer Waste in Paper Products
In the interviews with paper company representatives, it was noted
that manufacturers using exclusively virgin fiber sources mentioned possible
health effects of the use of recycled fiber for products of a sanitary or food
E-l
-------
contact end-use. Several concerns about the use of recycled fiber, espec-
ially PCW were raised. Apparently it is not uncommon for young children
and infants to ingest a variety of paper products such as napkins, plates,
cups, toilet paper, etc. Several manufacturers reported receiving occas-
ional inquiries from doctors or distressed parents inquiring about the
composition of a specific product in order to prescribe a remedy. However,
no documented instances of acute toxemia resulting from the ingestion of
paper or paper products were discovered. But, if the product were to
contain a high level of a hazardous substance, the health implications
might become significant. While the virgin mill representatives frequently
mentioned this potential health hazard, representatives of mills using PCW
as a fiber source had had experience with these sources of fiber for a
number of years and state that no significant health hazards exists. Again,
no documented instances of hazard were presented by any person interviewed.
A significant portion of paper and paperboard is used to package
food products, approximately 37.7 percent of the domestic production of
paperboard in 1977. This figure includes folding boxboard and similar grades
of paper, but excludes corrugated. Although much of this food-related paper-
board does not actually come in physical contact with the food itself because
an interior liner is used, some of this paperboard does contact the food
product it contains.* Concern has been expressed, primarily by the virgin
mills, that hazardous substances may migrate from contaminated fiber in the
paperboard to the food product. The magnitude of this hazard has not been
determined insofar as this study could discover. As with the ingestion
hazard mentioned above, representatives of PCW-using mills minimized the
potential of this hazard, while the virgin-mill representatives tended to
stress it.
There is no doubt that the possibility of receiving contaminated
PCW at a paper mill exists, but the long history of its use by some paper
mills implies that a significant health hazard can be avoided.
Potential Hazards Associated with High Brightness Printing and Writing Papers
It has been suggested that the high brightness typical of most vir-
gin printing and writing papers may be hazardous or at least tiring to the
human eye. It has also been suggested by some that paper using significant
percentages of recycled PCW fiber are generally lower in brightness than
virgin grades, so that recycled grades do not pose whatever health hazard
might be associated with higher brightness papers.
Research on the issue of eyestrain (asthenopia) resulting from over-
bright paper was conducted at Linda Hall Scientific Library, The University
of Missouri at Kansas City Library, and The University of Kansas Medical
Center Library. In addition, the "Medline" on-line medical literature search
service of Index Medicus was used. Index Medicus itself was also employed
in the search, and the National Library Service for the Blind Physically
Handicapped was contacted at the Library of Congress.
E-2
* This includes raisins, spaghetti, and other dry foods. Wet or oily foods
are generally not found in contact with boxboard.
-------
Of the hundreds of articles, books, and textbooks on the subject
of eyes, eye hygiene, industrial opthomology, industrial eye hygeine, eye
pathology, and eye hazards, references to asthenopia were found in ten books
and eight articles. A bibliography of these sources is provided at the end
of this appendix. Key-word references to asthenopia, eyestrain, eye fatigue,
eye discomfort, and the effects of brightness (reflective) upon the eye
were sought. Although the index of the ten volumes listed asthenopia or
related term, none of these books made definitive statements of causality.
The references were essentially definitional, although one volume (Heaton,
J. M.) cited some very old (circa 1900) research suggesting that eyestrain
was in fact exclusively psychological in origin.
The literature search using Index Medicus and "Medline" indicates
that since 1940, relatively little interest has been shown in asthenopia.
While some research was conducted around the turn of the century, these
investigations were of questionable quality and were conducted by experi-
mental psychologists interested in learning, reading, and pattern recog-
nition rather than in eyestrain.
During the next 30 to 40 years, virtually no research was done, but
at the advent of World War II, eyestrain once again drew some experimental
interest. Prior to about 1940, research on asthenopia was limited principally
to intuitive observations that eyestrain occurred under poor lighting con-
ditions when doing relatively close work for long periods of time. The pre-
scribed treatment was also intuitive: add more and better light and work
shorter hours. During World War II, research investigated the effects of
wartime "blackout" conditions upon industrial workers who were forced to do
relatively fine work under conditions of near total darkness. The research
concluded that eyestrain did result after a period of time in most, but not
all, workers. Further, a brief period of rest was found to alleviate the
symptoms substantially. Notably, no research was conducted during this
period upon the effects of having too much light.
The next phase of asthenopic research apparently occurred during
the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the issue of television-induced eyestrain
was addressed. While there were several short journal articles published
which dealt with this question, the research was rather deficient. There
was an apparently unanimous conclusion, however, that television did not
induce serious eyestrain.
Recent research considers eyestrain as symptomatic of other path-
ologies of the eye, and apparently does not consider eyestrain to be a proper
subject for treatment in and of itself. The recent studies consider the
sensation of eyestrain as an aid in differential diagnosis of other eye path-
ologies. Eyestrain itself is not considered pathological; that is, a condition
to be treated, per se.
E-3
-------
None of the references to asthenopla and related topics mentioned
paper-induced eyestrain, or eyestrain resulting from exaggerated contrast
ratios or excessive ambient lighting. In an interview with the staff of
the eye-optholmology department of the University of Kansas Medical Center
in Kansas City, none of the doctors in that department could offer further
information concerning the etiology of asthenopia. It would appear that
medical research has not investigated the effects of over-bright paper upon
the eye.
Although the medical literature is notably devoid of asthenopic
research involving high brightness paper, a small amount of study has been
done on the effects of over-bright paper upon the ability of visually handi-
capped people to read comfortably. Asterisks mark the seven studies dealing
with this aspect of asthenopia in the Bibliography at the end of this appendix.
These citations were located with the extensive cooperation of the National
Library Service for the Blind Physically Handicapped, at the Library of
Congress.
The information found in these seven sources may be summarized
briefly. First, no data, information, or recommendations of any kind were
located which addressed the issue of paper brightness or color with respect
to eyestrain in normally-sighted individuals. The literature dealt only
with the needs of visually handicapped. Second, most of the references to
paper color were limited to instructions concerning the publication of books
in large type face for the visually handicapped. The most relevent statement
found among these large-type recommendations was from the National Braille
Association, "Standards for Large Type Transcribing" which recommended, "Use
white, off-white, or very light tint; avoid 'bright white1 papers. The finish
of the paper should be dull, vellum, or non-glare that can provide a maximum
of contrast without glare. Opacity of at least 91 percent is required."
An additional reference was located in "Guidelines for the Produc-
tion of Material in Large Type," published by the National Society for the
Prevention of Blindness, Inc. This publication admonishes, "It is particu-
larly important that there be no show-through, especially when both sides of
the paper are used, specify paper as follows: color: white (avoid such
designations as "high white" or "blue white"); quality: vellum (dull finish,
non-glare); opacity: 0.91 to 0.92." This publication was the most recent
citation located, and was dated 1965.
In the interviews done to gather the information for this study, an
occasional mention was made about a study which recommended the use of buff
colored or off-white paper in preference to bright white paper. Apparently
this recommendation was understood to refer to all printing and writing papers.
It would seem that this reference is to a study reported in Education of the
Blind, "Legibility of Ink and Paper Color Combinations for Readers of Large
Type." This article, written by Carson Y. Noland, reported some simply-designed
studies conducted in 1932 and 1938. In these experiments, combinations of
blue and black ink on white, off-white, buff, and canary-colored papers were
tested for legibility by the visually impared. The study concluded that all
E-4
-------
combinations of ink and paper were equally legible, but that some combi-
nations required greater effort on behalf of the visually handicapped
reader. The study did not indicate that any one combination of color and/
or ink was significantly better than the others, but did recommend that
the use of blue ink on buff-colored paper was most suitable for albino
readers who were visually handicapped. These few readers found the highly
reflective white paper uncomfortable after prolonged periods of reading.
This study was done in the Cleveland public schools, apparently using
fewer than ten subjects. The study was not statistically controlled, nor
has any replication study been found in the literature. Significantly, the
study specifically avoids suggesting that its findings apply to normally-
sighted people.
CONCLUSIONS
While certain potential hazards may exist to some degree in th'e
use of PCW-containing paper for sanitary and food packaging uses, there have
been no documented instances of injury revealed by this investigation. In
addition, there is essentially no medical basis for suggesting that high-
brightness paper is a factor contributing to eyestrain in normally-sighted
people. Rather, paper brightness is apparently irrelevent to eye pathology,
although glare may be a minor factor in legibility for some visually handi-
capped people. In summary, it appears that there is insufficient basis for
either encouraging or discouraging the use of recycled fiber in paper for
health reasons.
E-5
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ASTHENOPIC RESEARCH
*American Library Association, "Print Study," (unpublished), no date available.
Atkinson, D. T., External Diseases of the Eye, Lea & Fibiger, Philadelphia,
1934.
*Babola, J., "The Facilitation of Reading in Partially-Sighted Persons,"
British Journal of Physiological Optics. Vol. #18, p. 220-234, 1938.
Ballantine, A. J., Textbook of the Functions of the Eye, Williams and Williams,
Baltimore, 1970.
Campbell, D. A., Eyes in Industry, Longmans, Green & Co., London, 1951.
Esterman, B., The EyeBook, Great Ocean Publishing, Arlington, Virginia, 1977.
Geeraelts, W. J., Ocular Syndromes, Lea & Fibiger, Philadelphia, 1965.
Heaton, J. M. , The Eye-Phenominology and Psychology of Function and Disorder,
Lippincott, London, 1968.
Henderson, D. G., Good Eyes for Life, Appleton Century Crofts, New York, 1933.
Kuhn, H. S., Eyes and Industry, C. V. Mosky & Co., St. Louis, 1950.
*Luckiesh, M. and Moss, F. R., "Visibility & Readability of Print on White
and Tinted Paper," Publication 271, National Society for the Prevention of
Blindness, Reprinted from "Sight Saving Review." Vol. #8, pp. 123-134, June
1938.
*National Braille Association, "Standards for Large-Type Transcribing," no date.
*National Society for the Prevention of Blindness, "Guidelines for the Production
of Material in Large Type," 1965.
*Noland, Carson Y., "Legibility of Inks and Paper Color Combinations for Readers1
of Large Type," Education for the Blind, Vol. 10, No. 3., p. 82-84, March 1961.
Resnich, L., Eye Hazards in Industry, Columbia University Press, 1941.
*Royal National Institute for the Blind (United Kingdom), "Accounts of Studies,"
(unpublished) 1928, 1938.
* Located with the cooperation of the National Library Service for the Blind
and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress.
E-6
-------
Appendix F
USE OF RECYCLED PAPER IN OFFICE COPIERS
INTRODUCTION
Office photocopiers represent one of the largest single end-uses
for cut and wrapped writing papers. These machines are most often used for
general office memorandums, short report copying, and duplicate record keep-
ing. Before the introduction of these machines, these office needs were met
largely through the use of mimeograph and "ditto" spirit duplicators. While
these latter copying methods are still used (mostly in churches and schools),
use of the modern electromechanical photocopier offers significant savings in
time and effort. As photocopying technology has improved, machines have be-
come more reliable and copy quality has improved. Purchase and leasing cost
of the photocopying machines has fallan, and the net result of these factors
is that most offices employ one or more such machines.
This appendix investigates the technical feasibility of using re-
cycled-fiber paper in modern photocopying equipment.
METHODOLOGY
Information for this appendix was obtained through telephone and/or
personal interviews conducted with representatives of Xerox Corporation, IBM
Corporation, Savin Corporation, and Royal/SCM Corporation. The interviews
discussed whether the company had conducted research concerning the use of
recycled-fiber papers in their respective copiers, whether the company had
developed a formal policy statement concerning the use of such papers, and
if the company knew of successful or unsuccessful use of such papers by their
customers/clients.
Royal/SCM reported that they had not conducted research upon this
issue specifically, but had designed their machines to use a wide range of
paper grades and quantities. They reported that while their machines were
generally somewhat slower than the machines of their competitors, the Royal/
SCM machines were very tolerant of paper irregularities and should experience
no difficult in using paper containing recycled fiber. They reported that
they did not have a formal policy statement concerning the use of recycled
fiber paper, but their Kansas City office was aware of at least one client
who was successfully using recycled paper in their machines. Royal/SCM does
function as a paper merchant to its clients, but does not require an ac-
counting of the fiber source used for the paper which it buys wholesale
from several large mills.
F-l
-------
Savin Corporation reported that they did not maintain a research
and development department of their own for paper products, but rather depend
upon Great Northern-Nakoosa Paper Company to develop their papers. Savin
reported that their machinery requires an unusually smooth (highly calendared)
paper because their machines employ a liquid toner process which does not work
well with rougher papers. In a follow-up interview with a representative of
Great Northern-Ndkoosa, it was confirmed that about 40 percent of all of
Nakoosa's paper" was made of secondary fiberf but virtually none of it was
made from postconsumer waste. Savin Corporation reported that they did not
have a formal policy statement concerning the use of recycled fiber papers
in their machine's, and did not know if their customers and clients were using
paper containing recycled fiber successfully or unsuccessfully. It was sug-
gested by Northern-Nakoosa that it was highly unlikely that recycled fiber
papers could be successfully used in the Savin equipment because of the
relatively tight finish requirements. Savin Corporation agreed that although
they do not require that their clients use only Savin paper in their machines,
both the Savin and Northern-Nakoosa representatives pointed out that there was
probably no technical reason why paper using recycled fiber might not be used
successfully in Savin equipment if it were finished properly. It was empha-
sized that it is impossible to identify postconsumer fiber from secondary fiber
from virgin fiber in a finished product when the fiber is cleaned and bleached
in the same way as virgin fiber would be. (While groundwood fiber can be
identified from chemical fiber in a finished paper product, the different
sources for chemical fiber cannot be differentiated in the finished product
if the paper process is properly controlled.)
IBM Corporation does not develop their own paper, but does maintain
a quality control department for the paper which they purchase for resale to
their customers. IBM has not formulated an official policy statement concerning
the use of recycled fiber paper in their machines, but since most IBM machines
employ roll-fed paper, most IBM machine users purchase their paper through IBM.
All of the paper merchanted by IBM is of virgin stock, apparently for reasons
of quality control. Apparently no research has been conducted nor is planned
concerning the use of recycled fiber paper in IBM copiers. However, one com-
pany reports successfully marketing recycled paper for use in the IBM copier
II.
In contrast to the interviews discussed above, the interview with
Xerox Corporation was more encouraging concerning the use of recycled fiber
paper. Between 1974 and 1975, Xerox Corporation investigated the technical
and economic feasibility of using recycled-fiber paper in their machines.
At that time Xerox found that there were no technical limitations to the amount
of recycled fiber which could be used, but that variations in curl due to
changes in batch mix were a continuing problem. Xerox decided that these
problems could be adequately handled through careful manufacturing and quality
assurance controls. Xerox then developed plans to market two separate grades
of recycled fiber papers to its customers.
* Secondary fiber here used as generally defined in the paper industry to
include wood and forest residues as well as converting wastes.
F-2
-------
These plans were abandoned when it was found that only one mill
could meet Xerox's specifications with sufficient precision, and that this
mill (Bergstrom) could not supply even a significant fraction of Xerox's
needs at that particular time of high paper demand. Xerox reported that
an official policy had been formulated which encouraged the use of paper
containing recycled fiber in its copiers, and that policy statement was
issued about the time the research was conducted four years ago.
Since the time of the 1974-1975 study, Xerox Corporation has intro-
duced a new line of high speed office copiers. These new machines have fuser
stages employing much higher temperatures than did previous copier models.
These high temperatures cause all regular paper to curl excessively. To
compensate for this situation, Xerox specifies that all of the paper used
with these machines must be manufactured with a "reverse curl" which serves
as a pre-compensation for the curl induced by the new copiers. Since this
"reverse curl" paper also works satisfactorily in the older, slower models,
it is the only grade of paper which Xerox sells to its customers.
There are no technical qualities of recycled fiber which prevent
its use in blends with virgin fiber for the manufacture of reverse curl paper.
The absence of reverse curl paper containing recycled fiber is the result of
the policies of the two companies which manufacture such papers.
Furthermore, there are no technical reasons why recycled fiber could not be
used for most copiers now in use (excluding the new high speed models) as
long as the paper is manufactured to accepted quality standards. These same
caveats also apply to virgin fiber paper.
F-3
-------
Appendix G
PAPER AND PAFERBOARD INDUSTRY CONSUMPTION OF WOOD RESIDUES
AND WASTE PAPER BY END-USE AND REGION
INTRODUCTION
It might seem that the massive generation of urban solid waste
could supply more than enough waste paper to make all the recycled paper
and paper products which could be needed. Of the 135.5 million tons of
residential and commercial postconsumer net solid waste disposed of in
1976, approximately 30.3 percent of that amount, or 41 million tons, con-
sisted of various paper and paper products. This is indeed quite a lot
of waste paper.
However, one of the principal constraints to the use of recovered
fiber in paper manufacture is the availability of such fiber within an
economical distance to the paper mill. For postconsumer waste, the points
of generation are large metropolitan areas, principally those which can
support waste paper dealers. In contrast, most paper is manufactured at
mills located at a great distance from such metropolitan areas. Even when
baled, transportation of postconsumer waste paper is problematic and expensive.
In contrast, wood and forest residues enjoy a much better situation.
First, wood residues are usually generated at essentially the same locations
as the roundwood fiber sources. For harvest residues, this is obviously the
case. Sawmill residues are produced at sawmills, which in turn are generally
located as close to the roundwood supply as are paper mills. Second, the
use of wood residues alleviates disposal problems both at the harvest location
and at the sawmill. Third, wood residues are essentially uncontaminated, un-
like postconsumer was_te paper.
However,just as the generation of postconsumer waste paper varies
from city to city, the generation of forest residues varies from region to
region. For example, pulp wood forests produce relatively less sawdust than
do forests harvested principally for dimension lumber. Thus both the avail-
ability of postconsumer waste paper and forest residues vary as a function
of the geographic location of the mill.
In addition, the amount of wood residue or postconsumer waste paper
used in the manufacture of a given grade of paper also depends upon the tech-
nological constraints associated with the manufacture of that grade of paper.
For example, certain types of wood residues may be used xn high Percentages
of sanitary papers but in only relatively small percentages in printing and
writing papers. Likewise, the utilization of postconsumer waste papers
depends upon1 the grade of paper being made.
G-l
-------
This appendix investigates the current utilization of both forest
wood residues and waste paper as fiber sources for various grades of paper.
These utilizations are analyzed on a regional basis as well as aggregated.
The purpose of this appendix is to highlight the differences in recovered
fiber consumption for the manufacture of different grades of paper in dif-
ferent regions of the country.
METHODOLOGY
Data presented in this appendix were obtained from the American
Paper Institute, Capacity Department. These data are presented both in
tabular and graphic form. The graphical presentations present percentage-
of-total data in two forms: discrete range percentage and cumulative per-
centage. The data are presented as national aggregates in the first part
of this appendix, and as regional totals in the second part.
Note that caution must be used in interpreting the graphic figures
in this appendix. The purpose in using two graphic methods for each set of
data is to reduce the confusion which might arise from using one graphic
method alone. An attempt has been made to anticipate confusions which may
result from the figures, and these are discussed in the text associated with
each table and figure.
DISCUSSION
Aggregate National Data for Forest and Manufacturing Residues
Table G-l presents the American Paper Institute (API) capacity sur-
vey data for the consumption of forest and manufacturing residues in the
manufacture of wood pulp during 1976. For each five percent range of forest
and manufacturing residues used, the total amount cf wood pulp produced is
stated in thousands of tons. The wood pulp production in each range is also
stated as a percentage of the total wood pulp production, both for each
individual range as well as cumulatively.
The relative "evenness" of the steps of this cumulative presentation
suggests that wood residue utilization in wood pulp manufacture occurs approx-
imately uniformly across the entire range from zero to 100 percent utilization.
Note that the steps between 35 and 40 percent residue content and 95 to 100
percent residue content are slightly larger than the remaining steps. These
two "steps" correspond to the maximums displayed in Figure G-l for these same
respective ranges. That is, relatively more wood pulp is manufactured using
either between 35 and 40 percent wood residue or 95 to 100 percent wood residue
than any other range of wood residue content.
National Aggregate Data, Consumption of Waste Paper by End-use
Fot each utilization range of waste paper, Tables G-2 through G-6
show the amounts of five grades of paper produced in 1976. One table each
has been prepared for printing/writing, tissue, bleached and unbleached
kraft paperboard, semichemical paperboard, and kraft and special industrial
paper production. Each table is similar with respect to the information
presented, except that the waste paper utilization ranges vary from table
to table.
G-2
-------
Table G-l
FOREST AND MANUFACTURING RESIDUES
CONSUMED IN THE MANUFACTURE
OF WOOD PULP IN 1976
U.S. TOTAL
Percent 1 ,
Residues—
0 - 5%
5-10
10 - 15
15 - 20
20 - 25
25 - 3C
30 - 35
35 - 40
40 - 45
45 - 50
50 - 55
55 - 60
60 - 65
65 - 70
70 - 75
75 - 80
80 - 90
90 - 95
95 - 100
TOTALS
AVERAGE
UTILIZATION
RATIO
I/ Residues
Source : API
Residues
Consumed
(OOP cords)
13.2
198.9
409.9
362.5
1,501.2
1,259.6
1,639.9
3,028.4
2,621.7
2,146.9
2,891.2
1,285.3
1,136.2
790.5
1,108.9
1,156.8
2,341.9
1,472.0
7,973.2
33,338.2
Wood Pulp
Produced
(OOP tons)
505.4
1,771.2
2,196.8
1,525.2
4,099.9
2,752.9
3,397.7
5,042.5
4,089.7
2,834.2
3,473.7
1,619.4
1,272.9
780.8
1,044.8
828.8
1,498.0
904.1
5,034.8
44,672.8
0.746 cords per ton
consumed as a percent of total pulpwood
Capacity Survey,
Percent
1.1
4.0
4.9
3.4
9.2
6.2
7.6
11.3
9.2
6.3
7.8
3.6
2.8
1.7
2.3
1.9
3.4
2.0
11.3
consumed.
September 1977, and Franklin Associates
Cumulative
Percent
1.1
5.1
10.0
13.4
22.6
28.8
36.4
47.7
56.9
63.2
71.0
74.6
77.4
79.1
81.4
83.3
86.7
88.7
100.0
, Ltd.
G-3
-------
o
70
60
50
O iH
•H nj
4J 4J
O O
,3 H
•O
• O «-l
•t-i O
P-!
3 O
O. l-l
•O 4)
O P^
30
20
10
20 30 40 50 60
Wood Residue Content (Percent of Furnish)
70
80
90
100
Figure G-l. Wood residue consumption in wood pulp production.
-------
JOO
10
20
30 40 SO 60
Wood Residue Concent
(percent of furnish)
70
80
90
100
Figure G-2. Cumulative wood residue consumption in total wood pulp manufacture.
G-5
-------
Table G-2
WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
IN PRINTING/WRITING PAPERS
RANKED BY PERCENT OF WASTE TO TOTAL PRODUCTION IN 1976
Percent-
Waste
0 - 5%
5 - 10%
10 - 15%
15 - 20%
20 - 25%
25 - 35%
35 - 45%
45 - 70%
70 - 90%
90 - 100%
TOTALS
AVERAGE
Waste
Paper
Consumed
(OOP tons)
33.8
60.7
55.0
82.5
24.7
132.5
127.2
98.1
59.4
195.1
869.0
Paper &/or
Paperboard
Produced
(OOP tons)
10,059.7
833.6
459.6
508.2
106.8
450.1
319.1
172.2
69.1
170.6
13.U9.0
Percent
76.5%
6.3%
3.5%
3.9%
0.8%
3.4%
2.4%
1.3%
0.6%
1.3
6.62
Cumulative
Percent
76.5%
82.8%
86.3%
90.2%
91.0%
94.4%
96.9%
98.1%
98.7%
100.0
a/ Waste paper consumed by mills as a percent of production.
Source: American Paper Institute and Franklin Associates, Ltd.
G-6
-------
Table G-3
WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
IN TISSUE MANUFACTURE
RANKED BY PERCENT OF WASTE TO
a/
Percent-
Waste
0 - 5%
5 - 10%
10 - 15%
15 - 20%
20 - 30%
30 - 40%
40 - 50%
50 - 65%
65 - 90%
90 - 100%
TOTALS
AVERAGE
Consumed
(000 tons)
3.9
31.9
95.6
25.7
31.7
61.1
80.1
18.4
36.2
884.7
1,269.3
Paper &/or
Paperboard
Produced
(OOP tons)
1,525.8
391.0
759.2
144.7
136.2
182.1
172.6
30.0
48.9
795.5
4,186.0
TOTAL PRODUCTION IN 1976
Percent
36.4%
9.3%
18.1%
3.5%
3.3%
4.4%
4.1%
0.7%
1.2%
19.0%
30.3%
Cumulative
Percent
36.4%
45.8%
63.9%
67.4%
70.6%
75.0%
79.1%
79.8%
81.0%
100.0%
a/ Waste paper consumed by mills as a percent of production.
Source: American Paper Institute, Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-7
-------
Table G-4
WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
IN BLEACHED AND UNBLEACHED KRAFT PAPERBOARD
RANKED BY PERCENT OF WASTE TO TOTAL PRODUCTION IN 1976
a/
Percent-
Waste
0-5%
5 - 10%
10 - 15%
15 - 100%
TOTALS
AVERAGE
Waste
Paper
Consumed
(OOP tons)
94.7
135.7
139.0
141.3
510.4
Paper &/or
Paper board
Produced
(OOP tons)
13,508.5
1,871.8
1,173.7
622.0
17,176.0
Percent
78.6%
10.9%
6.8%
3.6%
3.0%
Cumulative
Percent
78.6%
89.5%
96.4%
100.0%
a/ Waste paper consumed by mills as a percent of production.
Source: American Paper Institute, Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-8
-------
Table G-5
WASTE .PAPER CONSUMPTION
a/
Percent-
Waste
0 - 10%
10 - 20%
20 - 25%
25 - 30%
30 - 40%
40 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
IN
RANKED BY PERCENT
Waste
Paper
Consumed
(OOP tons)
27.1
106.6
148.3
264.1
183.7
100.3
SEMICHEMICAL
OF WASTE TO
Paper &/or
Paper board
Produced
(OOP tons)
686.0
674.0
666.4
934.3
477.3
215.2
PAPERBOARD
TOTAL PRODUCTION IN 1976
Percent
16.7%
16.4%
16.2%
22.8%
11.6%
5.2%
Cumulat ive
Percent
16.7%
33.1%
49.4%
72.1%
94.8%
100.0%
978.6 4,105.0
23.8%
a/ Waste paper consumed by mills as a percent of production.
Source: American Paper Institute, Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-9
-------
Table G-6
WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
IN KRAFT
AND SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL PAPERS
BANKED BY PERCENT OF WASTE TO TOTAL PRODUCTION IN 1976
a/
Percent-
Waste
0-5%
5 - 10%
10 - 15%
15 - 30%
30 - 35%
35 - 45%
45 - 65%
65 - 90%
90 - 100%
TOTALS
AVERAGE
Waste
Paper
Consumed
(000 tons)
30.6
21.2
15.4
9.3
26.0
14.1
25.0
90.7
37.5
269.8
Paper &/or
Paper board
Produced
(OOP tons)
4,628.3
377.5
142.2
35.5
80.6
34.8
44.8
123.5
33.8
5,501.0
Percent
84.1%
6.9%
2.6%
0.6%
1.5%
0.6%
0.8%
2.2%
0.6%
4.9%
Cumulative
Percent
84.1%
90.9%
93.6%
94.2%
95.6%
96.3%
97 . 1%
99.3%
100.0%
aj Waste paper consumed by mills as a percent of production.
Source: American Paper Institute, Capacity Division and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-10
-------
Printing and Writing Papers. Figure G-3 shows the consumption
of waste paper in the manufacture of printing and writing papers, stated
as a percentage of total printing and writing paper production for each
range of waste paper utilization. Note that over 75 percent of all
printing and writing paper is made from a furnish containing 5 percent
or less waste paper. Even though some printing and writing paper pro-
duction is reported at all levels of waste paper utilization, these
levels are relatively small with respect to the zero to 5 percent cate-
gory. Less than 10 percent of the total printing and writing paper
produced during 1976 used more than 20 percent waste paper. This implies
that specifying more than 5 percent waste paper in printing and writing
papers may severely restrict the number of qualifying suppliers. Note
that the waste paper used amounts to only 6.6 percent of the total
production.
Figure G-4 portrays this same data as a cumulative percentage.
The cumulative percentage starts at 76.5 percent, indicating that 76.5
percent of the total printing and writing papers produced during 1976
utilized from zero to 5 percent waste paper as a fiber furnish. The
extremely small steps seen in Figure G-3 at ranges above approximately
50 percent imply that correspondingly little paper is produced using
waste paper in percentages of 50 percent or higher.
Tissue. Figure G-5 presents the data found in Table G-3, showing
waste paper utilization in tissue manufacture. As in Figure G-4, Figure
G-5 presents this information cumulatively. Figure G-6 presents this in-
formation discretely. Figures G-4 and G-5 are presented on the same page
with corresponding axes in order to highlight the differences in waste paper
utilization between these two grades. Note that while Figure G-4 has a very
large initial step as discussed above, the initial step of Figure G-5 is
less than half as large. This indicates that more than twice as much print-
ing and writing paper uses zero to 5 percent waste paper than does the pro-
duction of tissue. Note also that the steps of Figure G-4 are very small,
especially at the upper waste paper utilization percentages. In contrast,
the largest step in Figure G-5 is at the 90 to 100 percent range. This
implies that very significant amounts of tissue are manufactured with between
90 and 100 percent waste paper. The total amount of waste paper consumed in
tissue manufacture represents 30.3 percent of total production, compared to
6.6 percent for printing and writing papers.
These comparative interpretations may be confirmed by inspecting
Figure G-6, showing the discrete range distribution of waste paper content
as a percent of total tissue production. Figure G-6 is directly analogous
to Figure G-3, and comparison of these two figures will aid in understanding
the differences between Figures G-4 and G-5.
G-ll
-------
§
t»
o
v «
ex. «
« o
PH H
-------
100 ,
« 90 -
3
O i-t
fl n)
3 0
O
(U 4J
0. C
tt) (1>
fi. U
M
C 0.
•H
*-i (U
•H >
0)
3
•H U
•H
Figure
to
4_l
O
4-J
IU
M M-l
3 O
U *J
« C
>« 01
Tissue Man
ulative per
E
u
80 •
70 '
60 '
50 "
40 •
30 •
20 •
10 •
G-4.
100 -I
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 •
50 "
40
30
20 '
10 '
r^
r_r^
J
•HHMwi
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Waste Paper Content
(percent of furnish)
Cumulative waste paper consumption in printing and writing paper manufacture
|
1
_1
—
101 20 3b 4b 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure G-5.
Waste Paper Content
(percent of furnish)
Cumulative waste paper consumption in tissue manufacture.
G-13
-------
o
£
O CO
•H 4J
4J O
OK
•g^
>j
80
70
60
50
40
01 CD
3 O
10 Ij
W CU
^ p"
H^ 30
20
10
! 1 1 \ 1 I | 1-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waste Paper Content (Percent of Furnish)
80
90
100
Figure G-6. Waste paper consumption in tissue manufacture.
-------
The bi-modal distribution of waste paper utilization seen in Figure G-6
may be compared to the uni-modal distribution seen in Figure G-3. Figure
G-6 shows that significant amounts of tissue are produced using either
less than 15 percent waste paper as furnish, or_ 90 or more percent waste
paper as furnish. In contrast, virtually all of the printing and writing
paper uses less than 5 percent waste paper as furnish. Note that in tissue
production there is relatively little production using intermediate ranges
of waste paper. This situation is even more apparent on a regional basis,
as will be discussed later in this appendix.
Bleached and Unbleached Kraft Paperboard. Table G-4 presents the
consumption of waste paper in bleached and unbleached kraft paperboard.
This information is presented as a discrete range distribution in Figure
G-7, and as a cumulative distribution in Figure G-8. The potential for
confusion in interpreting the graphic presentations of these data is more
pronounced than in the earlier figures. Note that almost 80 percent of the
kraft paperboard production uses 5 percent or less waste paper, and all but
3.6 percent uses less than 15 percent. Note also that only four ranges of
waste fiber utilization are provided. Inspection of Figure G-7 clearly
shows that most of the kraft paperboard production uses between zero and
5 percent waste paper as furnish.
Note that the total amount of waste paper consumed represents only
3.0 percent of the total production in this grade, although it may be mis-
takenly concluded that a sizeable percentage of kraft paperboard production
uses more than 15 percent waste fiber as furnish. This incorrect impression
may seem to be supported by the relatively large "arm" representing the 15
percent-100 percent range of waste paper content. Inspection of Figure G-8
more clearly presents the actual situation. Figure G-8 shows that all but
about 4 percent of the kraft paperboard produced employs 15 percent or less
waste paper as furnish. This example has been emphasized to clearly describe
how to interpret the different graphical presentations of the data.
Semichemical Paperboard. Figures G-9 and G-10 present the data
found in Table G-5, and show the consumption of waste paper in the manufacture
of semichemical paperboard. The utilization of waste paper in the manufacture
of this grade of paperboard presents a sharp contrast to that of kraft paper-
board manufacture. As is evident from comparing Figure G-9 to Figure G-8,
only about 17 percent of the semichemical paperboard produced in 1976 used
less than 10 percent waste paper in its furnish. At the same time, only
about 5 percent of the semichemical paperboard manufactured that year used
more than 40 percent waste paper in its furnish.
This relatively narrow range of waste paper utilization may be seen
by inspection of Figure G-10, showing the discrete range of distribution of
the same data shown in Fugure G-9. The amount of waste paper consumed in the
manufacture of this grade represents 23.8 percent of the total amount pro-
duced in 1976. It may be inferred that specification of semichemical paper-
board containing 40 percent or less waste paper would probably not encounter
significant supplier resistance.
G-15
-------
u
3
•§
I*
OL.
1
J
hi ^-.
4) f-l
O. «
eg **
P. O
,
«
•o
01
u
80
70
60
50
30
20
10
10 20 .30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Waste Paper Content (Percent of Furnish)
Figure**"'• Waste paper consumption in bleached and unbleached kraft paperboard manufacture.
100
-------
3
4-1
U
"W «*">
3 rH
B n)
Is o
4J
•a
M M-l
CO O
n a
D Q)
0. 0
oj H
a* oi
a
j|i j jy
2 -S
O
•a
CO C
O 01
•0 0
1-. l-i
OI 01
o. a
n)
P-. 01
r-f -H
tQ 4J
u ia
•H rH
J3 §
u o
•H v-.
a
0)
cn
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 *
50 -
40 -
30 '
20 '
10 "
/- ' —
1' 1 1 | 1 III!
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Waste Paper Content
(percent of furnish)
G-8. Cumulative waste paper consumption in bleached and unbleached kraft
paperboard manufacture.
100
90 -
80-
70.
60 .
50-
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 •
p1
1
•MWWM
10 20 30 40 50 60 fo So 90 100
Figure G-9.
Waste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Cumulative waste paper consumption in semichemical paperboard manufuctun
G-17
-------
o
3
•g
M
PK
x~s
-a <~i
M ^
Rj *J
o o
43 H
-------
Kraft and Special Industrial Papers. Table G-6, showing the
utilization of waste paper in the production of kraft and special indus-
trial papers, is presented graphically in Figures G-ll and G-12. As with
Figure G-7, which was easily misinterpreted, Figure G-ll is also subject
to such misinterpretation, but to a lesser degree. As explained in the
discussion of bleached and unbleached kraft paper manufacture, comparing
the discrete interval distribution presentation (Figure G-ll) to the
corresponding cumulative presentation (Figure G-12) should aid in avoiding
confusion. The utilization profile of these grades is even more pronounced
than any discussed so far, and indicate that specification of more than 10
percent waste paper as furnish in these grades would exclude over 90 percent
of the production. The total amount of waste paper consumed in this grade
represents 4.9 percent of the total 1976 production.
DISCUSSION OF REGIONAL DATA
Forest and Manufacturing Residues
Table G-7 presents a more detailed break down of the information
shown as an aggregate in Table G-l. For each of the four regions of the
country (northeast, central, south, and west), the forest and manufacturing
residues consumed in wood pulp manufacture are shown, ranked by percent of
residues consumed. In a manner analogous to that of Figure G-l, Figures
G-13 through G-16 show the percentage of total wood pulp production using
each range of manufacturing and forest residue consumption. These data are
presented in a cumulative presentation in Figure G-17, showing all four
regions juxtaposed for ease of comparison.
The first section of Table G-7, showing data for the northeast
region and depicted in Figure G-13, may be considered a standard for com-
parison for other regions. In the northeast, the consumption of forest
manufacturing residues is spread approximately uniformly throughout the
range of residue consumption from zero through 80 percent. The average
utilization ratio in this region is 0.601 cords per ton, only slightly
below the national average utilization ratio of 0.746 cords per ton. This
implies that paper made with roughly average percentages of wood residue
fibers are likely to be available in the northeast section of the country.
This is represented in Figure G-17 as steps of approximately equal size in
the cumulative graphic presentation for the northeast region.
Approximately the same situation as found in the northeast exists
in the central region, as shown in the second section of Table G-7 Figure
G-14,and the corresponding section of Figure G-17. Only 0.511 cords of wood
residue are used per ton of pulp on the average in this region. As may be
seen in Figure G-14, the utilization rate distribution is mostly lumped
between 30 percent and 70 percent.
G-l 9
-------
0
N>
O
80 -
70 _
o 60 -
4J
(J
3
1
04
fc 50 -
M i-l
Ou n)
4J
iH O
•rl
So 40 '
•SS
C 0)
I-l O
w p-
•H- 30 -
Figure G-ll. Waste paper consumption in kraft and special industrial paper production.
-------
01
3
td
*3
Jl "«
4-1
}-i O
(U *->
a.
Oj *4-l
eu o
•H U
nj C
•H 0)
t-4 U
(fl CU
3 O.
C 0)
l-t >
•H.
r-t U
to a)
,4 -| J
U 3
0) E
!/l O
"3
*J
to
>-i
100-
90"
80'
70"
60"
50-
40-
30*
20"
10"
JMHMHMMHBMM^
. r-
1
10
20
80
90 100
Figure G-12.
30 40 §0 60 70
Waste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Cumulative waste paper consumption in kraft and special industrial
paper manufacture.
G-21
-------
Table G-7
FOREST AND MANUFACTURING RESIDUES CONSUMED IN 1976
IN WOOD PULP MANUFACTURE
Percent 1 /
Residues—
0 - 30%
30 - 35%
35 - 50%
50 - 80%
80 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
UTILIZATION
RATIO
RANKED BY PERCENT
Residues
(OOP cords)
241.2
354.9
384.8
585.3
257.6
1,814.8
0.601
Cords
Per Ton
OF RESIDUES IN PULPWOOD CONSUMED
Northeast
Wood Pulp
(000 tons) Percent
894.0 29.6%
664.2 22.0%
499.4 16.5%
787.4 26.1%
173.5 5.8%
3,018.5 100.0%
Cumulative
Percent
29.6%
51.6%
68.1%
94.2%
100.0%
!_/ Residues consumed as a percent of total pulp wood consumed.
Source: American Paper Institute,Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-22
-------
Table G-7 (con't)
FOREST AND MANUFACTURING RESIDUES CONSUMED IN 1976
IN WOOD PULP MANUFACTURE
Percent , /
Residues—
0 - 10%
10 - 15%
15 - 30%
30 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 70%
70 - 95%
95 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
UTILIZATION
RATIO
RANKED BY PERCENT
Residues
(OOP cords)
A6.4
9816
155.7
220.6
286.5
358.9
84.4
226.0
1,477.1
0.511
Cords
per Ton
OF RESIDUES
Central
Wood Pulp
(OOP tons)
456.8
503.9
263.3
476.8
566.8
342.9
89.2
193.4
2,893.1
IN PULPWOOD
Percent
15.8%
17.4%
9.1%
16.5%
19.6%
11.9%
3.1%
6.6%
100.0%
CONSUMED
Cumulat ive
Percent
15.8%
33.2%
42.3%
58.8%
78.4%
90.3%
93.4%
100.0%
I/ Residues consumed as a percent of total pulpwood consumed.
Source: American Paper Institute,Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-23
-------
Table G-7 (con't)
FOREST AND MANUFACTURING RESIDUES CONSUMED IN 1976
IN WOOD PULP MANUFACTURE
Percent .. ,
Residues—
0 - 10%
10 - 15%
15 - 20%
20 - 25%
25 - 30%
30 - 35%
35 - 40%
40 - 45%
45 - 50%
50 - 55%
55 - 60%
60 - 65%
65 - 75%
75 - 95%
95 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE UTILI
UTILIZATION
RATIO
RANKED BY PERCENT
Residues
(OOP cords)
145.1
199.1
362.5
1,334.0
1,129.8
1,204.0
2,759.8
2,451.8
1,893.7
1,821.5
1,173.6
646.1
1,073.3
655.3
983.8
17,833.4
0.579
Cords
per Ton
OF RESIDUES IN PULPWOOD CONSUMED
South
Wood Pulp
(OOP tons)
1,626.2
1,195.1
1,525.2
3,659.6
2,551.8
2,456.9
4,681.5
3,799.0
2,545.7
2,118.2
1,393.2
925.4
1,006.2
526.6
793.7
30,804.3
Percent
5.3%
3.9%
5.0%
11.9%
8.3%
8.0%
15.2%
12.3%
8.3%
6.9%
4.5%
3.0%
3.3%
1.6%
2.5%
100.0%
Cumulative
Percent
5.3%
9.2%
14 . 2%
26.1%
34.4%
42.4%
57.6%
69.9%
78.2%
85.1%
89.6%
92.6%
95.9%
97.5%
100.0%
JY Residues consumed as a percent of total pulpwood consumed.
Source: American Paper Institute,Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-24
-------
Table G-7 (con't)
FOREST AND MANUFACTURING RESIDUES CONSUMED IN 1976
IN WOOD PULPMANUFACTURE
Percent .. ,
Residues—
0 - 25%
25 - 55%
55 - 65%
65 - 75%
70 - 80%
80 - 95%
95 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
UTILIZATION
RATIO
RANKED BY PERCENT
Residues
(OOP cords)
32.9
487.5
518.0
341.0
766.6
3,347.5
6,719.4
12,212.9
1.535
Cords
per Ton
OF RESIDUES IN PULPWOOD CONSUMED
West
Wood Pulp
(OOP tons)
175.5
459.5
394.5
310.7
549.2
2, 05,. 5
4,010.0
7,956.9
Percent
2.2%
5.8%
5.0%
3.9%
6.9%
25.9%
50.3%
100.0%
Cumulative
Percent
2.2%
8.0%
13.0%
16.9%
23.8%
49.7%
100.0%
I/ Residues consumed as a percent of total pulpwood consumed.
Source: American Paper Institute,Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-25
-------
80
70
60
5 50
§£
o
NJ
3 g
•85
M M
O
w
C
40
30
20
10
10 20 30 40 50 60
Residues Consumed (Percent of Furnish)
70
80
90
100
Figure G-13. Forest and manufacturing residues consumed, Northeast Region, 1976.
-------
o
ro
c o
O H
U 0)
3 C
•O O
O t-l
M 00
"•.£
a.
r-< >M
3 O
80
70
60
50
40
§ g 30
20
10
20 30 40 50 60 70
Residues Consumed (Percent of Furnish)
80
90
100
Figure G-14. Forest and manufacturing residues consumed, Central Region, 1976.
-------
NJ
00
c o
O H
o a)
a e
tJ O
o -H
M eo
(Vi HI
OS
o.
•o e
o o>
o o
is ^
-------
£
is
•§.3
H 00
£
0)
04
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
10 20 30 40 40 60
Residues Consumed (Percent of Furnish)
70
80
90
100
Figure G-16. Forest and manufacturing residues consumed, Western Region, 1976.
-------
O
r-t
V
0
*J
t-t
£§
3 «H
4J 46
U V
« U
tw
c o
0.1
!•
*:i
3
1
AUV
90"
80 '
70 "
60 "
so -
40-
30
20 '
10 "
1
I""""""*
10 20 30 40 SO 60
Wood Residue Content
(percent of furnish)
northeastern Begion
70
80
90 100
*-4
AJ
O
•H
« C
It
e o
0.1
fc «^
II
«
U
100 •
90 *
80 '
70 '
60
50
40 •
30 '
20 '
10 '
r
i
i
_]
25
u afl
10 20 30 40 50 60
Wood Residue Content
(percent of furnish)
Centrel Region
70
80
90 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
10
20
30 40 50 60
Wood Residue Content
(percent of furnish)
Southern Region
70
80
90 100
10 20 30 40 50 60
Hood Residue Content
(percent of furnish)
Western Region
70
80
90 100
Figure G-17. Cumulative forest and manufacturing wood residue content in pulpwood manufacture, by region, 1976.
-------
However, in the southern region the situation is somewhat different.
As shown in the third section of Table G-7 and in Figure G-14, the bulk of
the wood pulp production in this region uses less than 55 percent wood residue
waste. This is shown in Figure G-17, the southern section, as relatively
small steps in the cumulative graph above about 70 percent residue content.
The regional average wood waste utilization ratio is 0.579 cords per ton,
compared to 0.746 cords per ton nationally. Specification of.high percentages
of manufacturing and forest residue in paper made in this part of the country
may meet with supplier resistance.
This situation is largely reversed in the western portion of the
country, as shown in the last part of Table G-7 and Figure G-16. In this
region, over 50 percent of the wood pulp manufactured uses 85 percent or
more forest and manufacturing residues. Almost 98 percent of the wood pulp
produced uses more than 25 percent forest and manufacturing residues. This
may be seen in Figure G-17, showing cumulative distribution, as extraordi-
narily large steps at high levels of wood residue content in the western
region. In contrast to other regions, the wood waste utilization ratio in
this region is 1.535 cords per ton. This is almost three times as large
as the central and southern regions, and more than twice as large as the
national average. Thus, in the western portion of the country, there would
be little difficulty in obtaining paper containing very high percentages of
wood residue.
Inspection of Figure G-16 emphasizes the regional differences in
wood residue utilization in wood pulp manufacture. Since transportation is
a significant expense in the distribution of paper and paper products, it
seems likely that specification of wood residue percentages in excess of
those locally available may result in significant purchasing difficulty.
Conversely, if paper and paper products having wood waste utilization rates
which are fairly typical in the region in which the purchase is made, it is
likely that suppliers may be more easily located than otherwise.
Regional Consumption of Waste Paper by End-Use
In a manner analogous to that of Tables G-2 through G-6, Tables
G-8 through G-12 show the regional differences in the utilization of waste
paper in the manufacture of the various grades of paper. For each grade of
paper considered, discrete utilization distributions are shown for each
region. A cumulative distribution, showing all four regions, is included
to highlight regional differences, as well.
Printing and Writing Paper. Table G-8 is presented as a discrete
utilization distribution in Figure G-18 and shows the utilization of waste
paper in printing and writing paper manufacture in the northeast region.
This same information is presented as a cumulative distribution in the
corresponding section of Figure G-21. As is apparent, over three-fourths
of the printing and writing paper made in this region uses 5 percent or
less waste paper in its furnish. There is a slightly larger than average
amount of printing and writing paper produced in this region using 25 to
45 percent waste paper in its furnish, representing about 9 percent of the
total printing and writing paper production in this part of the country.
It seems likely that this is the result of the large number of relatively
G-31
-------
Table G-8
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
IN PRINTING & WRITING
PAPERS, 1976
Northeast
Percent-
Waste
0 -
5 -
10 -
15 -
20 -
25 -
45 -
TOTAL
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
45%
100%
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
9.3
22.5
17.0
16.7
24.2
140.7
50.8
281.2
Production
(OOP tons)
3,322.4
386.6
133.7
89.0
104.6
387.4
56.3
4,380.0
AVERAGE
Percent
75.9%
6.5%
3.1%
2.0%
2.4%
8.8%
1.3%
100.0%
6.4%
Cumulative
Percent
75.9%
82.4%
85.5%
87.5%
89.9%
98.7%
100.0%
JL/ Waste paper consumed as a percent of printing/writing papers produced.
Source: American Paper Institute,Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-32
-------
Table G-8 (con't)
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
IN PRINTING & WRITING PAPERS, 1976
Percent-
Waste
0-5%
5 - 10%
10 - 20%
20 - 45%
45 - 90%
90 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
3.6
16.3
42.3
90.7
113.6
188.2
454.7
Central
Product ion
(OOP tons)
2,721.0
247.9
349.8
291.7
191.3
164.3
3,966.0
Percent
68.6%
6.3%
8.8%
7.4%
4.8%
4.1%
100.0%
11.5%
Cumulative
Percent
68.6%
74.9%
83.7%
91.1%
95.9%
100.0%
I/ Waste paper consumed as a percent of printing/writing papers produced,
Source: American Paper Institute,Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-33
-------
Table G-8 (con't)
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
IN PRINTING & WRITING PAPERS, 1976
Percent-
Waste
0-5%
5 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Percent-
Waste
0 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
19.0
65.0
84. 0
Waste Paper
Consumpt ion
(000 tons)
49.1
49.1
South
Production
(000 tons) Percent
3,235.9 84.7%
585.1 15.3%
3,821.0 100.0%
2.2%
West
Production
(000 tons) Percent
982.0 100.0%
982.0 100.0%
5.0%
Cumulative
Percent
84.7%
100.0%
Cumulative
Percent
100.0%
100.0%
T7Waste paper consumed as a percent of printing/writing papers produced,
Source: American Paper Institute, Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-34
-------
§
•H
4J
o /-s
3 r-l
TJ «8
O *J
M O
eu H
«) CO
O. C
-------
e
o
U *-v
3 i-l
•o n)
o u
M o
P- H
l-i r-l
o> u
V4
o,
80 -
70 .
60 -
50
AO -
30
20
10
10
20
30 40 50 60 70 80
Waste Paper Consumption (Percent of Furnish)
90
100
rigure G-19. Waste paper consumption.in printing & writing paper, Central Region, 1976.
-------
o
o
•83
M O
O- H
oi «
CX C
tu o
0. -ri
OD
00 gj
C OS
•O 01
C 01
c
1-1
0-
SO
70 -
60
50 -
30 -
20 -
10
30 40 50 60 70 80
Waste Paper Consumption (Percent of Furnish)
90
100
Figure G-20. Waste paper consur.j'ticn in printing & writinp paper. Southern Region, 1976.
-------
Jfs
u>
00
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
I-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Northeastern Region
80
90 100
13
*J O
S"
si
P- O
i< tc
ftl ft!
O. W
(C
O
t*>
C *a
« £
O.
*e
m
« _>
c -<
SI
u
100 -
90 -
80 "
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 '
20 "
10 "
1
1
• '
__P
10
30 40 50 60 70
Waste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Central Region
80 90
100
100 _,
90
80
70 •
60
50
40
30
20
10
100'
90'
80'
70'
60
SO"
40
30
20-
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Southern Region
80
90 100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Western Region
80
90
100
Figure G-2l. Cumulative consumption of waste paper in printing and writing paper manufacture, by region,
-------
small recycling mills which typically use roughly 30 percent waste fiber
with about 70 percent market pulp as furnish for their specialty products.
The total waste paper consumption in this region represents only 6.4 per-
cent of the regional production, however.
The data in the second section of Table G-8 is presented in Figure
G-19 and the corresponding section of Figure G-21. Notice that in these
data for the central region the utilization of waste fiber at roughly the
30 percent level as discussed above is not present. The total amount of
waste paper consumed is much greater, however, representing 11.5 percent of
the total regional production. This average utilization rate is more than
five times greater than that of the southern region.
The data for the southern regionare shown in the third section of
Table G-8, in Figure G-20, and in the corresponding section of Figure G-21.
Note that Figure G-20 is easily misinterpreted since there are only two
ranges of waste paper utilization shown. As plotted in Figure G-20, it
might appear that the majority of printing and writing paper produced in
the southern region uses about 15 percent waste paper in the furnish.
This is an erroneous conclusion, however. Rather, Figure G-20 should be
interpreted as indicating that only 15 percent of the total printing and
writing paper production in the southern region uses more than 5 percent
waste paper in its furnish. This may be more clearly visualized in the
corresponding section of Figure G-21, showing the cumulative distribution
of these data. Note that the total waste paper consumption in this region
represents only 2.2 percent of total regional production. This is about
one-third the rate in the northeast, one-half the rate in the west, and
only one-fifth the rate in the central region.
The data for the western region are shown in the fourth section
of Table G-8. No discrete utilization distribution is provided for this
region since only one range of waste consumption is listed. The cumu-
lative distribution of waste paper utilization for this region is shown
in the corresponding section of Figure G-21. As may be seen, when only
one range of utilization is provided, the graphic portrayal is relatively
meaningless. It is likely that a very few mills are involved in the pro-
duction of printing and writing papers using waste paper as furnish in
this region, and the data are presented by the API in such a way as to
provide non-disclosure of the individual mill data.
Note that the 49.1 thousand tons of waste used in this region
represent only 5 percent of the total production of all mills in the
region. This implies that very few mills use significant amounts of waste
paper as supplemental furnish in this region. Specification of higher
levels of waste paper in printing and writing papers produced in this
region would probably result in purchasing difficulties.*
G-39
* Interviews with procurement officials for the state of California indicate
that this is, in fact, the case. Even though California has a legislative
mandate to use printing and writing papers containing at least 50 percent
waste paper, the state has encountered great difficulty in locating vendors
within their own geographic region.
-------
Tissue. Table G-9 presents the regional waste paper utilization
data for the production of tissue-. The tabular data shown in the four
sections of Table G-9 are presented in Figures G-22 through G-25 as dis-
crete utilization distributions, and in Figure G-26 as cumulative utili-
zation distributions. Interpretation of these figures is analogous to
those discussed above for printing and writing papers.
As may be seen from these data, the utilization of waste paper in
the manufacture of tissue is generally larger than in the production of
most other grades of paper, and the regional differences are about the same.
For example, all of the regions use an average of more than 10 percent waste
paper as compared to regional production. In printing and writing paper
manufacture, one region obtained only 2.2 percent of its furnish from waste
paper. As with printing and writing papers, there is a five-fold difference
between regions in waste paper utilization for tissue production. Waste
paper use in the central region represents 52.0 percent of the regional
total production, while the utilization in the southern region amounts to
only 10.4 percent. Differences between other regions are less pronounced.
The regional differences may be seen in Figure G-26, showing the
cumulative utilization function for all four regions juxtaposed for easy
comparison. For example, the waste paper consumption profile for the
northeast region demonstrates the bi-modal distribution discussed earlier.
That is, roughly half of the tissue produced in the northeast region uses
10 percent or less waste paper as furnish, and approximately a fifth of
the tissue produced in that region uses more than 75 percent waste paper
as furnish. Figure G-22 demonstrates this situation clearly as well.
The central region evidences a somewhat different kind of bi-modal
distribution, one with approximately half of the tissue production using
30 percent or less waste paper, while roughly 40 percent of the tissue
production uses 90 percent or more waste paper in its furnish. This
distribution is roughly the opposite of that found in the northeast region.
This may be seen by comparing Figures G-22 and G-23, or by inspecting the
northeast and central sections of Figure G-26, where the size of the "steps"
indicates the differences in the distribution.
The last two sections of Table G-9, showing data for the southern
and western regions, show markedly different waste paper utilization pro-
files. As shown in Figures G-24 and G-25, respectively, the majority of
tissue produced in these regions uses relatively little waste paper. For
example, almost three-fourths of the tissue produced in the southern region
uses 10 percent or less waste paper as furnish, and only 2 percent of the
tissue produced in this region uses more than 35 percent waste paper. This
is evident in the corresponding section of Figure G-27.
G-40
-------
Table G-9
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
IN TISSUE, 1976
Percent-
Waste
0 - 10%
10 - 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 75%
75 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Percent-
Waste
0 - 10%
10 - 30%
30 - 90%
90 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
12.4
32.7
25.8
56.0
356.8
483.7
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
4.3
66.9
38.6
480. ,6
590.4
Northeast
Production
(OOP tons)
727.0
263.3
75.6
106.5
317.6
1,490.0
Central
Production
(OOP tons)
244.0
383.5
64.5
444.0
1,136.0
Percent
48.8%
17.7%
5.1%
7.2%
21.2%
100.0%
32.5%
Percent
21.5%
33.8%
5.7%
39.0%
100.0%
52.0%
Cumulative
Percent
48.8%
66.5%
71.6%
78.8%
100.0%
Cumulative
Percent
21.5%
55.3%
61.0%
100.0%
I/ Waste paper consumed as a percent of tissue produced.
Source: American Paper Institute,Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-41
-------
Tabxe G-9
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
Percent--
Waste
0 - 10%
10 - 35%
35 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Percent-
Waste
0 - 20%
20 - 50%
50 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
18.7
44.0
25.4
88.1
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
37.7
47.5
21.9
107.1
IN TISSUE,
South
Production
(OOP tons)
628.3
203.0
18.7
850.0
West
Production
(000 tons)
595.5
99.3
15.2
710.0
1976
Cumulative
Percent Percent
73.9% 73.9%
23.9% 97.8%
2.2% 100.0%
100.0%
10.4%
Cumulative
Percent Percent
83.9% 83.9%
14.0% 97.9%
2.1% 100.0%
100.0%
15.1%
j_/ Waste paper consumed as a percent of tissue produced.
s
:: American Paper Institute, Capacity Departuent and l-'rankl in
Associates, Ltd.
G-42
-------
o
C
o
O H
•O r->
O <8
M 6
Pi O
•H
l-i 00
01 0)
80 .
70 -
60 '
50 -
(X
-------
o
e o
OH
JJ T-i
§ g
"8.3
W CO
01 W-l
«
c
ft) QJ
g a
to a)
£&
80
70
60 •
50 '
40
30
20
10 •
20
40 50 60 70 6-:
Waste Paper Consumption (Percent of Furnish)
90
Figure G-23. Waste paper consumption in tissue, Central Region, 1976.
-------
C IB
O 4J
•H O
4J H
U
3 r-l
•o «
o c
u o
CU -H
ec
ki O
0) C£
D.
nj
Cu O
01 u
•3 C
at at
0) O
•H n
H 0)
IX
o
Ul nj i«
70 -
60 -
50
40
30
20
10
20 30 40 50 60 70 60
Waste Paper Consuir.pt ion (Percent of Furnish)
90
Figure G-24. Waste p;i;>cr consunra ion i:i tissue, Scuthern Region, 1
-------
o
c a
O JJ
•H O
*J H
U
3 .-I
*O
O
C
Q
Px -rl
6C
M 01
01 CS
a.
18 <-,
a, o
.
-------
W Irt
8..
1°
•?
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
100
90
80
8 5 70
60
50
40
30
20
10
I I I I I I I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Northeastern Region
80
90
100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
V**tc Paper Consumption
(percent of furniih)
Central Keg ion
80
90 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waste Paper Consuaption
(percent cf furnish)
Southern Region
80
90 100
£-
c
o
4J
u
1
£
v i
s
•JC
'
u
100 -
90 -
80 *
70 -
60 -
50 '
40 -
30 •
20 -
10 •
IT) 20 30 CO SO tO 10
Uaate Paper Conauaptlon
(percent of furnish)
Western Region
To 90 100
Figure G-26. Cumulative consumption of waste paper in tissue manufacture, by region, 1976.
-------
Figure G-25, showing the data in the fourth section of Table G-9
for the western region, is similar to the profile for the southern region.
More than four-fifths of the tissue produced in the western region uses
20 percent or less waste paper as furnish, and only about 2 percent of the
tissue produced in this region uses 50 percent or more.
Inspection of Figure G-26 shows the similarities between the
southern and western regions, the differences between the northeastern
and central regions of the country, and the marked contrast between the
northeast and central regions versus the southern and western regions. It
may be concluded that in the southern and western regions of the country,
which represent the majority of the virgin forest areas, specifications and
acquisition of tissue using large percentages of waste paper may be exceed-
ingly difficult. It is quite likely that even in the smallest range "of
waste paper utilization, 0 to 5 percent, the majority of the mills in these
regions use no waste paper whatsoever since forest residues are so abundant.
It is known, for example, that in the western region at least one mill makes
its entire tissue production from sawdust, mill wastes, and stump residues.
In contrast, in the northeast and central regions of the country, little
difficulty should be encountered in obtaining tissue manufactured with sub-
stantial percentages of waste paper as furnish.
Bleached and Unbleached Kraft. Table G-10 presents the regional
utilizations of waste paper in the manufacture of bleached and unbleached
kraft paperboard. Both the northeast and western regions have only one
range of waste paper utilization listed, and the central region has none
at all. No discrete utilization distributions are provided for these
regions, therefore. It seems likely that the data are presented in this
way to insure non-disclosure of individual mill data. Note that the pro-
duction in both these regions is a small share of the national total.
The northeast region produces less than one percent of the national total,
the western region produces less than 17 percent of the total, and no pro-
duction is reported in the central region.
The southern region of the country, shown in the third section
of Table G-10 and in Figure G-27, manufactures more than 83 percent of the
total production of these grades. More than 78 percent of the bleached
and unbleached kraft paperboard produced in this region utilizes 5 percent
or less waste paper in its furnish. Less than 9 percent of the total pro-
duction of kraft paperboard produced in this region uses more than 10 per-
cent waste paper in its furnish. Note that the total waste paper consumption
in this region represents only 2.6 percent of the total production of these
grades.
As with similar figures showing only a few ranges of waste paper
utilization, Figure G-27 may be easily misinterpreted for the reasons
previously discussed. Figure G-27 should be seen as showing that only about
9 percent of,the total production uses 10 percent or more waste paper as
furnish. Figure G-22 presents the cumulative utilization profiles for all
four regions. The lack of detail in the raw data is evident. The souhern
section figure should help clarify the correct interpretation of Figure 27,
nonetheless.
G-48
-------
Table G-10
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
Percent-
Waste
0 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Percent-
Waste
Percent-
Waste
0-5%
5 - 10%
10 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Percent-
Waste
0 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
IN BLEACHED AND
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
9.4
9.4
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
72.8
135.7
162.4
370.9
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
130.1
130.1
UNBLEACHED KRAFT
Northeast
Production
(OOP tons)
30.0
30.0
Central
Production
(OOP tons)
None
South
Production
(OOP tons)
11,164.9
1,871.8
1,244.3
14,281.0
West
Product ion
(OOP tons)
2,865.0
2,865.0
PAPERBOARD ,
Percent
100.0%
100.0%
31.3%
Percent
Percent
78.2%
13.1%
8.7%
100.0%
2.6%
Percent
100.0%
100.0%
4.5%
1976
Cumulative
Percent
100.0%
Cumulat ive
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
78.2%
91.3%
100.0%
Cumulative
Percent
100.0%
I/ Waste paper consumed as a percent of kraft paperboard produced.
Source: American Paper Institute, Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-49
-------
I
O
-e
o
•S3 <—.
V* «-i
f3 1C
O 4J
.O O
u H
0<
CC CO
c- c
o
4J -H
>— CC
a o
•o o
0)
.w 4J
U C
a
-------
u
•5 *-*
o *-*
ft. 2
o
11!
||
O. M
«M O
U C
V
IB
% *
« V
II
ll
, u
•1
o
1
H-»
c
& .
u
g
o i-i
£ 2
o
V i-H
O «
W C
O. bC
0. 1-
V ' ,
'fig
•O U
(U hi
JS W
s "•
51
B *J
- "
ll
o
90 "
80 "
70 "
60 "
50 •
40 '
30 •
20-
10 •
'
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Haste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Northeastern Region
100 •
90 '
80 •
70 -
60 -
50 •
40 •
30 '
20 •
10
,
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Uaate Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Central Region
80
90 100
0«
XI C
tj u
.ss
O IX
90'
80"
70"
60'
50"
40"
30-
20"
10-
100
90 -
80
60 -
50 -
40 •
30
20
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Southern Region
80
90 100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waste Paper Conaumptlon
(percent of furnish)
Western Region
80
90
100
Figure G-28. Cumulative consumption of waste paper in bleached and unbleached kraft paperboard production,
by region, 1976.
-------
Considering the small amount of waste paper consumed for the
production of bleached and unbleached kraft paperboard, it would appear
that attempts to obtain large amounts ,of these grades containing more
than 5 percent recycled fiber would be difficult. Even in the southern
region of the country where the waste paper utilization in this grade is
the greatest,it still represents less than 3 percent of the total regional
production of these grades.
While the waste paper utilization rate in the northeast region
of the country is about 31 percent, the total production of this region
represents only 0.2 percent of the total national production of these
grades of paper. Hence, the northeast region of the country represents
a relatively insignificant source of recycled kraft paperboard even though
the data presented in Table G-5 might seem to indicate otherwise.
Semichemical Paperboard. Table G-ll presents the waste paper
consumption data for semichemical paperboard manufacture for the four
regions of the country. In the northeast and western regions> only one
range of waste paper utilization is given. Hence, there are no discrete
utilization profile figures provided for these two regions. As with other
such instances, non-disclosure of individual mill data is the probable
reason for this lack of detail.
Note that in the northeast region, the total use of waste paper
represents 29.2 percent of the total regional production. In the western
region, waste paper utilization represents 19.1 percent of the total pro-
duction in that region. The utilization of waste paper in the central and
southern regions falls between these two figures. Thus, overall, there
are apparently few regional differences in waste paper utilization. It
seems likely that technical reasons may account for this apparent uniformity.
The data for the central region, shown in the second section of
Table G-ll, are portrayed as a discrete distribution profile in Figure
G-29. Only two ranges of waste paper utilization are provided in the data,
and Figure G-29 is potentially confusing as the result. While it would
appear from Figure G-29 that more waste paper is recycled in the central
region than in other regions, this is an erroneous impression. As may be
seen more clearly in the appropriate section of Figure G-31, showing the
cumulative utilization profile for all four regions, the data indicate that
only roughly half of the semichemical paperboard produced in the central
region uses less than 30 percent waste paper, and roughly half uses more
than 30 percent waste paper. The misleading appearance of Figure G-29
results from only two ranges of waste paper consumption being provided,
and the production in each of those ranges coincidentally being roughly
equal.
G-52
-------
Table G-ll
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
IN SEMICHEMICAL PAPERBOARD, 1976
Percent-
Waste
0 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Percent-
Waste
0 - 30%
30 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Percent-
Waste
0 - 10%
10 - 25%
25 - 30%
30 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Percent-
Waste
0 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
47.9
47.9
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
117.2
183.7
300.9
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
27.1
148.7
174.9
169.3
500.0
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
109.8
109.8
Northeast
Production
(OOP tons)
164.0
164.0
Central
Production
(000 tons)
647.2
511.8
1,159.0
South
Production
(000 tons)
503.3
687.4
618.3
397.0
2,206.0
West
Production
(000 tons)
576.0
576.0
Percent
100.0%
100.0%
29.2%
Percent
55.8%
44.2%
100.0%
25.7%
Percent
22.8%
31.2%
28.0%
18.0%
100.0%
22.7%
Percent
100.0%
100.0%
49.0%
Cumulat ive
Percent
100.0%
Cumulative
Percent
55.8%
100.0%
Cumulative
Percent
22.8%
56.0%
82.0%
100.0%
Cumulative
Percent
100.0%
T7Waste paper consumed as a percent of semichemical paperboard produced,
Source: American Paper Institute, Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-53
-------
?
Ul
o
O IT
3 *J
"O C
O H
is
"2 g
«S -H
O DC
A Oi
l-i B!
01
P. <4-i
IB O
tH e
is v
u u
r! t-
e v
-------
o
Ui
o
u to
a *»
•O O
O H
PM 1-1
•O §
t-i O
<8 -H
O OC
^ a)
M f^i
« o
t-i e
« oi
o u
T-t t-
g oj
(U Pw
80 -
70 '
60 -
50 '
40
30 -
20
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Waste Paper Consumption (Percent of Furnish)
Figure G-30. Consumption of waste paper in semichemical paperboard, Southern Region, 1976.
90
100
-------
^
S IT
o *•>
•rt O
u
3 r-l
•g s
ki O
ft. -H
oc
w v«
V
1°
Is
fi- U
V*
i-t V
m a
Jw
5
*J
II
U
O
1
0\
T-t
§2
•H O
11
w o
flw *H
H)
|£
•O O
II
« D.
U
^ u
It •
U
100 '
90 -
80 "
70 "
to -
50 "
40 "
30 "
20 "
10 "
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Waste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Northeastern Region
100 "
90 '
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 '
40 "
30 '
20
10
I i
UJ 3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Central Region
BO
90 100
100 '
90 '
80 "
70 '
60
50
40
30 '
20
10 •
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Haste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Southern Region
80
90 100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Vaste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Western Region
80
90 100
Figure G-3 X Cumulative consumption of waste paper in semichemical paperboard production, by region, 1976
-------
_ Semichemical paperboard production for the southern region is
found in the third section of Table G-ll and is portrayed in Figure G-30.
The bulge occurring between the 10 and 30 percent waste paper utilization
levels probably reflects the technically optimum concentration of waste
paper in the furnish for semichemical paperboard. Note that only 18 per-
cent of the semichemical paperboard produced in this region uses more
than 30 percent waste paper.
Kraft and Special Industrial Papers. Table G-12 presents the
waste paper utilization data for the production of kraft and special in-
dustrial papers for the four regions of the country. Figures G-32 through
G-34 display the discrete utilization profiles for the northeast, central,
and southern regions, respectively. There is no profile shown for the
western region since only one range of waste paper utilization is listed.
The cumulative utilization profiles for all four regions are presented
in Figure G-35.
As may be seen in Figure G-32, approximately 65 percent of the
kraft and special industrial paper made in the northeast region uses 10
percent or less waste paper. Approximately 15 percent of the production
in this region uses between 25 and 40 percent waste paper, but less than
2 percent of the production uses more than 80 percent waste paper as furnish
in this region. The total use of waste paper represents 15.4 percent of the
regional total production.
Although only two utilization ranges are shown for the central
region of the country, approximately three-fourths of the total production
in this region uses 35 percent or less waste paper. That is, only one-
fourth of the total production in this region uses more than 35 percent
waste paper. This is apparent from inspection of Figure G-35, although
interpretation of Figure G-33 alone may be somewhat confusing.
The relatively small use of waste paper in the production of kraft
and special industrial papers is even more pronounced in the southern region
of the country, where almost 90 percent of the production uses 5 percent or
less waste paper, and only 2 percent of the production in this region uses
more than 25 percent waste paper. This may also be clearly seen in Figure
G-35, as well as in Figure G-34.
In the western region of the country, note that only about 0.3
percent of the total production of kraft and special industrial papers
consists of waste paper as furnish, although the utilization range is not
specified. About 18 percent of the total production of these grades comes
from this region.
It may be concluded that in the northeast and central regions,
kraft and special industrial papers are produced in sizeable quantities
using up to approximately 35 percent waste paper. In sharp contrast, in
the southern and western regions of the country, very little of these
grades of paper use more than 5 percent waste paper as furnish. It is
entirely likely that most of the mills in the 0 to 5 percent utilization
range may be closer to 0 percent than to 5 percent, especially in the
western region.
G-57
-------
Table G-12
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
IN KRAFT AND SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL PAPERS, 1976
Percent-
Waste
0 - 10%
10 - 25%
25 - 40%
40 - 85%
85 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Percent-
Waste
0 - 35%
35 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
4.2
4.2
23.9
33.5
8.0
73.8
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
21.7%
102.4
124.1
Northeast
Production
(OOP tons)
313.4
30.8
71.3
56.3
7.2
479.0
Central
Production
(OOP tons)
373.2
128.8
502.0
Percent
65.4%
6.4%
14.9%
11.8%
1.5%
100.0%
15.4%
Percent
74.3%
25.7%
100.0%
24.7%
Cumulative
Percent
65.4%
71.8%
86.7%
98.5%
1QO. 0%
Cumulative
Percent
74.3%
100.0%
G-58
-------
Table G-12 (con't)
REGIONAL WASTE PAPER CONSUMPTION
IN KRAFT AND SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL PAPERS, 1976
Percent-
Waste
0 - 5%
5 - 25%
25 - 100%
-TOTAL
AVERAGE
Percent-
Waste
0 - 100%
TOTAL
AVERAGE
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
26.7
18.8
23.7
69.3
Waste Paper
Consumption
(000 tons)
2.6
2.6
South
Production
(OOP tons)
3,142.8
328.9
52.3
3,524.0
West
Production
(OOP tons)
996.0
996.0
Percent
89.2%
9.3%
1.5%
100.0%
2.0%
Percent
100.0%
100.0%
0.3%
Cumulative
Percent
89.2%
98.5%
100.0%
Cumulative
Percent
100.0%
V Waste paper consumed as a percent of tissue produced.
Source: American Paper Institute,Capacity Department and Franklin
Associates, Ltd.
G-59
-------
8G
70
s
g 60 •
•H
4J
O
3
0
1-1 /-»
P* lH
n2 so -
01 O
Industrial Pa
: of Regional
*•
o
i i i
»•«
M v 30
•HO u
u >^
01
-------
o
c
c
o
3
T3
O
41 O
O.H
« O
•H -H
kd DC
4J «
-«
TJ «M
CO
r-l C
ca at
•H u
u v>
ai ai
(X P»
80 -
70 '
60
50 •
40
30
20
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waste Paper Consumption (Percent of Furnish)
80
90
100
Figure G-33. Consumption of waste paper in kraft and special industrial paper, Central Region, 1976.
-------
a
•g
•-I C
ot o
•a <«
e o
•-I C
a cu
•H O
U iJ
01 01
P.P,
CO •—'
60 -
70 1
60
50 -
40
30
20 "
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waste Paper Consumption (Percent of Furnish)
80
90
100
Figure G-34. consumption of waste paper in kraft and special industrial paper, Southern Region, 1976.
-------
£
«
' *J
O
C
C
•3
«C
•>
IM
O
44
C
"O V
B u
3*
ss
a •»
n «
-1
21
£
O
100 "
90 -
80 -
70 •
60 '
50 '
40 '
30 "
20 "
10 "
I
i — -u uniMiml
10* 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Haste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Northeastern Region
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
10
20
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waite Paper Concuaption
(percent of furniih)
Central legion
80
90
100
100
90 1
80
70
60
50 1
40
30
20
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Waite Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Southern Region
80
90 100
f4
•J .«-*
a **
y «
•So1
h* *J
e-
M *
£g
a *M
ft- tc
v
<*4 U*
f 0
« u
3 C
2s
"s.
V
* «
15
v> •
•* g
'*-' U
5"
100 •
90 '
80 "
70 •
60 •
50 •
40 '
30 -
20 •
10 •
10 20 30 40 SO 60 70
Uaste Paper Consumption
(percent of furnish)
Western Region
80
90 100
Figure G-35.
Cumulative consumption of waste paper in kraft and special industrial paper production,
by region, 1976.
-------
While kraft and special industrial papers are relatively less
interesting to the purposes of this study than are the grades of printing
and writing papers or sanitary papers, the regional differences shown by
these papers clearly demonstrate the type of problem which may be en-
countered in specifying waste paper content in specific grades of paper.
CONCLUSION
From the data presented in this appendix, it can be seen that
significant amounts of forest and manufacturing residues are incorporated
in virtually all wood pulp production, and hence in most paper and paper
products. Amounts vary from 0 to 100 percent. Further, the utilization
of forest and manufacturing residues is spread relatively uniformly across
all utilization ranges. It may appear that little difficulty would be
encountered in procuring papers containing high levels of wood residue.
Although this conclusion may appear correct based upon national
aggregate data, regional data indicate that some difficulty may be encount-
ered if exceptionally high wood residue levels are specified in certain
regions of the country. While less extreme in degree than for waste paper
utilization, wood residue utilization varies from region to region. This
implies that it may be easier for paper products purchased in some regions
to meet a specified level of industrial and manufacturing waste fiber
utilization than if purchased in other regions.
It may be concluded that the current utilization levels of waste
paper in the manufacture of various grades of paper and paper products are
very low, with the exceptions of tissue paper and semichemical paperboard.
However, in the tissue category, utilization of waste paper tends either
to be very high or to be very low, depending upon the region in which the
tissue is made. For the production of semichemical paperboard, the utili-
zation of waste paper tends to be more uniform. The principal difference
between regions is the degree to which mills deviate from the average of
about 30 percent waste paper utilization.
Further, there are marked regional differences in the utilization
of waste paper between various grades of paper. These differences must be
considered in specifying papers made in these regions, since difficulty may
be encountered in meeting waste fiber utilization percentages in some cases.
Since transportation costs are a significant factor in the distri-
bution of most paper products, specification of waste paper utilization rates
which cannot be met by local or regional paper mills may result in significant
purchasing difficulty. Specification of such levels may force paper to be
transported into the region from distant regions at significant expense.
This would increase the cost of the product,perhaps significantly.
One solution might be to set the waste paper utilization levels
within the current utilization levels, or at levels only slightly higher
than are currently implemented. This would imply that paper procurement
specifications would vary from region to region, depending upon the delivery
point of the product. Obviously, significant administrative problems would
be associated with such regionally-established procurement specifications.
G-64
-------
Appendix H
RECYCLING CAPACITY IN TWO PRODUCT SEGMENTS
OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
An important consideration in this study is the capacity of the
paper industry to produce paper products containing postconsumer waste.
This is of interest to compare with the results from Appendix G, where the
actual use of secondary fibers is assessed. The capacity analysis allows
a determination of possible idle or unused capacity to recycle, which could
be brought back into production with little or no capital expense.
The methodology employed was to analyze the mill descriptions of
all of the paper mills in the U.S. listed in Lockwood's Directory of the
Paper and Allied Trades, 1978, published by the Vance Publishing Company
of New York. Mills manufacturing fine and printing paper and sanitary
papers were identified for this study.
Mills producing products in the fine and printing papers and
sanitary papers can utilize a variety of fiber sources, which includes
virgin slush pulp, virgin market pulp, pulp substitute grades of waste
paper, and postconsumer waste paper. The fiber source of crucial interest
in this study is postconsumer waste paper (PCW). There is no precise way
of identifying mill capacity to use PCW, but a good estimate is the capa-
city to produce deinked pulp. Tables H-l and H-2 and accompanying maps
showing the location and deinking capacity are presented here.
Table H-3 was developed to summarize the capacity data by geo-
graphical region. For fine and printing papers, it can be seen that the
recycling capacity is concentrated in the central region, with additional
significant capacity primarily in the northeast. A similar situation
exists for sanitary papers with only 8 percent of the capacity in the
south and west. This is important because it implies that transportation
costs from recycling mills to many Federal installations could be sub-
stantial. In addition, recovery of waste paper from Federal installations
in the south and west would have to be transported back to the recycling
mills to provide a balance for the supply-demand situation. Thus, there
will undoubtedly be increased costs to Federal procurements that will cause
greater transportation of products and of waste paper.
A potential serious problem with the analytical procedure used is
that some companies with deinking capacity view their deinking as an unim-
portant part of their operation and would not necessarily list it in Lock-
wood's directory. In these mills, there is frequently an absence of equip-
ment dedicated to deinking.
H-l
-------
Table H-l
Location
California
Pomona
Ripon
Massachusetts
Boston
Fitchburg
Michigan
Kalamazoo
Vicksburg
New York
Newton Falls
Ohio
Deinking Capacity Listed in Lockwood's Directory
Fine and Printing Papers
Company Listed Production
Comments
Potlatch Corporation
Simpson Paper Company
Diamond International Corp.
Fitchburg Paper Co.
Georgia Pacific
Simpson Paper Co.
Newton Falls Paper Mill
West Carrollton Bergstrom Paper
Miami Paper Corp.
Washington
Vancouver
Wisconsin
Appleton
Merrill
Neenah
Boise Cascade
Riverside Paper Corp.
Ward Paper Co.
Bergstrom Paper
280 TPD 50 TPD deinked pulp
90 TPD 100% recycled paper
150 TPD Deinked pulp
200 TPD Deinked pulp,
recycled paper
400 TPD Deinked pulp
100 TPD 100% recycled text
papers
400 TPD Deinked pulp
160 TPD Deinked pulp
210 TPD Deinked pulp
274 TPD Deinked pulp
95 TPD 60 TPD deinked pulp
60 TPD Deinked pulp
300 TPD Deinked pulp
H-2
-------
DeinkingCapacity Listed in Lockwood's Directory
Fine and Printing Papers (TPD)
-------
Table H-2
Location
Arizona
Flagstaff
Indiana
Gary
Maine
Augusta
Deinking Capacity Listed in Lockwood's Directory
Sanitary Papers (tissue)
Company Listed Production
Ponderosa Paper Products,
Inc.
Georgia Pacific Corp.
Statler Tissue Co.
Massachusetts
Baldwinville Baldwinville Products
Erving Erving Paper Mills
New Hampshire
Hinsdale
Hinsdale Products
New Jersey
Elmwood Park Marcal Paper Mills
New York
Battenville Bio-Tech Mills
Carthage Crown Zellerbach
Greenwich Skybel Tissue Mills
Niagara Falls Nitec Paper Corp.
South Glen
Falls Patrician Paper Co.
North Carolina
Rockingham Carolina Paper Mills
Oklahoma
Pryor
Rabel Tissue Mills
Oregon
Oregon City Publishers Paper Co.
Vermont
Putney
Wisconsin
Ashland
Eau Claire
Green Bay
Ladysmith
Menasha
Putney Paper Co.
American Can Co.
Brown Co.
Fort Howard Paper
Brown Co.
Wisconsin Tissue Mills
50 TPD
74 TPD
150 TPD
73 TPD
100 TPD
25 TPD
265 TPD
54 TPD
145 TPD
65 TPD
250 TPD
130 TPD
40 TPD
100 TPD
30 TPD
34 TPD
51 TPD
160 TPD
800 TPD
30 TPD
85 TPD
Comments
Deinked pulp
All deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
120 TPD deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
Deinked pulp
H-4
-------
Deinking Capacity Listed in Lockwood's Directory
Sanitary Papers (tissue) (TPD)
-------
Table H-3
DEINKING CAPACITY BY REGION FOR TWO PRODUCT CATEGORIES
Northeast
South
Central
West
Total
Fine
Printing
(TPD) (%
750
0
1,290
414
2,454
and
Papers
of Total)
30
0
53
17
100
(TPD)
1,161
140
1,200
80
2,581
Sanitary
Papers
(% of Total)
45
5
47
3
100
Annual Capacity
(at 350 days)
860 x 10 tons
900 x 10 tons
Source: Lockwood's Directory of Paper and Allied Trades, 1978,Vance Pub-
lishing Corp., New York, 1978, with estimates in some cases by
Franklin Associates, Ltd.
H-6
-------
Table H-4 was developed to cross-check the deinking capacity listed
in Lockwood's directory. The first line is the annual capacity calculated by
summing the daily capacities listed in Tables H-l and H-2 and multiplying by
350 days. The second line lists waste paper consumption for 1976 as listed
in the Capacity Survey of the American Paper Institute. The third line is
line 2 divided by line 1 multiplied by 100. The results in this line show
a close match between total waste paper consumption and deinking capacity
for fine and printing papers, but not for sanitary papers.
A close correlation between deinking capacity and total waste
paper consumption is expected. In deinking mills, the installed equipment
is frequently used for deinking grades of waste paper as well as for pulp
substitutes which are not deinked, and also for market pulp. The 1 to 1
correspondence of total waste paper consumption and deinking is encouraging,
although not solid proof that any estimates of deinking capacity are valid.
However, the 41 percent mismatch for sanitary papers implies that there is
some deinking capacity that is not identified in Lockwood's.
In any event, this analysis implies that if there is any idle
deinking capacity, it must be quite small.
H-7
-------
Table H-4
WASTE PAPER USE IN TWO PRODUCT CATEGORIES
Fine and Sanitary
Printing Papers Papers
Annual Deinking Capacity , 3
(at 350 days) 860 x 10 tons 900 x 10 tons.
Total Waste Paper 3 3
Consumption 869 x 10 tons 1,269 x 10 tons
Total Waste Paper
as a Percent of Capacity 101 141
Estimated Postconsumer
Waste Paper I/ 360 x 10 tons 560 x 10 tons
Postconsumer as a
Percent of Total
Waste Paper 41 44
T/Calculated as 10 percent of pulp substitutes (mostly tab cards) plus
deinking grades.
Source: 1976-1979 Capacity; Paper, Paperboard and Woodpulp Fiber Consumption,
American Paper Institute, with estimates by Franklin Associates.
H-8
-------
Appendix I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF VIRGIN AND RECYCLED PAPER
AND PAPERBOARD MANUFACTURE
When considering national policy, it is important to consider the
total effects of proposed action, at least to the extent possible. In this
appendix, an assessment will be made of possible impacts of replacing virgin
paper products with their recycled counterparts. The categories examined
will be air pollution, water pollution, industrial solid wastes, and post-
consumer solid wastes.
An accurate assessment of these issues is not possible for several
reasons. One reason is that environmental impacts vary greatly between mills,
so to do an accurate assessment it would be necessary to consider individual
mills. Another difficulty is that the industry is presently undergoing rapid
change with application of pollution controls now in advanced stages of com-
pletion. New equipment being installed means that the environmental impact
on the nation as a whole changes almost daily.
Another problem is that the environmental impact of virgin and
recycling mills is not entirely of the same type. For example, a serious
problem with many virgin mills is the release of malodorous sulfur compounds,
which recycling mills do not produce. A serious problem with some recycling
mills that use old magazines as a raw material is that they must dispose of
large quantities of solid waste in the form of minerals used to coat magazine
papers. Virgin mills do not have this problem. It is not possible to say at
this point in time which of these environmental problems is the more serious.
Nevertheless, both problems can be solved in an environmentally acceptable
manner.
An important feature of virgin and recycling paper and paperboard
mills is that their environmental impacts tend to be of the same nature,
with the two important exceptions as noted in the previous paragraph. The
air pollutants tend to be primarily fuel related, or the same types of pol-
lutants as are generated by fuel combustion. Water pollutants are primarily
those caused by discarded wood fiber components. Industrial solid wastes
are primarily related to water pollution treatment or other discarded wood
fibrous material. Thus, except for the two environmental problems previously
mentioned, the impacts are of a similar nature.
1-1
-------
Although no detailed quantitative evaluation of environmental
impacts will be attempted here, some general statements can be made.
These statements are based on one key document* as well as substantial
unpublished and confidential data available to Franklin Associates.
Replacement of virgin fibers with secondary fibers tends to result in
less air pollution, almost without exception. Recycling also reduces
postconsumer waste to the extent that postconsumer waste is used as a
raw material. Recycling also leads to a reduction of water pollution
and industrial solid waste when clean "high grades" of waste paper are
used as raw materials. However, use of postconsumer grades can in some
cases create a water pollution and or solid waste problem greater than
for competitive virgin materials.
These findings are summarized in Table 1-1 with plusses and
minuses used for qualitative designations. As can be seen on this table,
the environmental impacts of replacing virgin with recycled fibers are
usually desirable, but in some cases more water pollution and industrial
wastes will occur. These greater impacts generally result from use of
coated waste paper (such as magazines) or badly contaminated waste paper.
1-2
* Hunt, Robert G. and William E. Franklin, "Environmental Effects of Recycling
Paper," presented at the 73rd National Meeting of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, August 27-30, 1972, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and revised
by the authors July 9, 1973.
-------
Table 1-1
QUALITATIVE EVALUATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH REPLACING VIRGIN PAPER PRODUCTS
WITH RECYCLED PRODUCTS
Clean Grades
of Waste Paper
Coated or Contaminated
Waste Paper
Air Pollution
Water Pollution
Industrial Solid Waste
Postconsumer Solid Waste
+ replacement of virgin by recycled results in more impact
- replacement of virgin by recycled results in less impact
1-3
-------
Appendix J
GSA DEFINITIONS OF RECOVERED MATERIALS
Until 1978, GSA used a definition of "reclaimed fiber" in its
purchase specifications which separated specified postconsumer wastes
(Part I) and other secondary fiber sources (Part II). An example page
from an invitation to bid (dated 9/8/77) with the definition is included
in this appendix on page J-2. The subject product is "FSC Class 8540 -
Paper, toilet tissue."
Subsequently, GSA changed these definitions to coincide with
definitions listed in Public Law 94-580, known as the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act. An example page from an invitation to bid
(dated 2/8/78) is included in this appendix on page J-3. The subject
product is also "FSC Class 8540 - Paper, toilet tissue."
J-l
-------
, | .Mli»lll > nun U till 1 I'M 1
GINIMM \FHVH M *l»MlNiMMA HUM 1
i'in emir »tn Hi r t »i 1- 1* 101 1
N*Ut Of
orrcnoi 01 coHiRACioa
CONTINUATION
SHEET
nramiu Kr'.NTn FOR UCTOUD HAitniaii FOR onxiFtcn
6 . (a)
The following requlraM
UU-P-556J
mt applies to all product*
for
where oomplianc
PAPER, TO
Ntr no
-------
FPOP-FY-30039-A 9 24
Recycled/Recovered Materials Definition*
6« Definitions. The following definitions from Public Law 94-580, 42 USC
6903, Sec. 1004 are furnished for your information and use:
(i) The term 'procurement item1 means any device, good, substance, material,
product, or other item whether real or personal property which is the subject
of any purchase barter, or other exchange made to procure such item.
(ii) The term 'recovered material1 means material which has been collected
or recovered from solid waste.
V
(iii) The term 'recovered resources' means material or energy recovered from
solid waste.
(iv) The term 'resource recovery' means the recovery of material or energy
from solid waste.
(v) The term 'resource recovery system; means a solid waste managertent
system which provides for collection, separation, recycling, and recovery
of solid wastes, including disposal of nonrecoverable waste residues.
(vi) The term 'solid waste' means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste
treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility
and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained
gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural
operations, and from community activities, but-'does not include solid or dissolved
material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return
flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under
section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880)
or source, special nuclear, or byproduct material, as defined by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 as amended (68 Stat. 923).
(vii) The term ' solid waste management' means the systematic administration
of activities which provide for the collection, source separation, storage,
transportation, transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste.
6b. Recovered Material Requirements
A 1 £
Solicitation Item Minimum Percentage of Minimum Percentage of total
Numbers Recovered Material Required material utilized which will be
' recovered materials
1 thru 17 501
Columns "A" and "B" set forth the Government's requirements which must be met.
Column "C" is to be completed by the offerer. Submission of a signed offer con-
stitutes a certification that the percentage of recovered materials, as defined in
the provision of this contract entitled "Recycled/Recovered Materials Definitions",
will be furnished. Offers which indicate a percentage less than that listed in
Column "B" will be considered non-responsive and rejected. The offerer's figures
inserted in Column "C" will become a contract requirement if they exceed the per-
centage required for that item in Column "B". Percentages in excess of 501 are
encouraged however, they will not be a bid evaluation factor.
See-text for reference.
J-3
-------
Appendix K
PROGRESS REPORT ON STATE PURCHASES
OF RECYCLED FIBER PAPERS
INTRODUCTION
Since the initiation of this investigation several states have
moved to encourage their consumption of recycled paper products. At the
time this study was initiated, the states of California, Maryland, and
Minnesota had actually established programs to purchase recycled paper.
Since that time, the states of Missouri, Delaware, Kentucky, and Oregon
have initiated procedures to purchase recycled paper products, and Kansas
is now preparing a legislative proposal towards this end as well.
Of these states, Maryland and California seem to have enjoyed
especial success with their efforts. Follow-up interviews were held with
representatives of each of these states and their programs are discussed
below.
MARYLAND
Maryland was one of the first states to implement a recycled
paper products purchase program, and has had success in its efforts.
During fiscal year 1978, Maryland purchased about 36,000 reams of re-
cycled bond paper, representing about 16 percent of the estimated total
bond paper purchases for the state that year. Since the recycled paper
was purchased at approximately 12.5C per ream less than virgin bond, it
is estimated that Maryland saved about $4,500 on bond paper purchases
alone. Other recycled products were purchased as well, representing
about 7.4 percent of total purchases of about $3,000,000, including the
recycled bond purchases.
The Maryland program is apparently being received well, with
projected fiscal 1979 purchases expected to include 50 percent of the bond
purchases to be of recycled fiber, representing a sayings to the state
of about $15,500. Additionally, the Maryland provision for encouraging
local government purchases to be made from state supplies is being well
received. Three counties and four cities have participated so far.
Some problems have been encountered, however. Slow delivery
times have been a nuisance, and there has been only one bidder for the
last two contracts. (Note that the bid was price-advantageous to the
state however.) Fiber supply shortages and high paper demand were given
as reasonHor the delays and bidding situations. In addition some users
have^n reluctant to use the less-white recycled bond. A series of edu-
cation/explanation presentations have been made to user groups to encourage
^Po™t f^ the program, and 5 percent of all user agency bond paper orders
are now automatically filled with recycled stock. In the event that user
resistanceTnot overcome by these measures, a legislative mandate to use
recycled paper is being considered.
K-l
-------
CALIFORNIA
Perhaps representing the other end of a continuum is California,
with perhaps the largest paper pjunchases for a state government. Cali-
fornia has also had a recycled fiber use encouragement program in effect
for a good part of the 1978 fiscal year, and has also met with success
and difficulty.
About 4.8 percent of California's total purchases of paper and
paper products have been made under a statute which allows the state to
pay up to a 5 percent premium for products meeting its recycled fiber
requirements. These purchases have totaled about $1.2 million in fiscal
1978, 1.1 million of which was supplied by only three purchases. Most,
but not all, purchases were made under the 5 percent premium rule, and
it is estimated that the additional cost to the state totaled about $15,000,
or one percent of the total expenditures for paper products.
Notably about 231,800 reams of bond paper were purchased under the
program, amounting to about 44 percent of the state's bond paper usage.
Recycled towels, sanitary paper, and other miscellaneous paper products
were also purchased under the program.
It would appear that the principal difficulty encountered in the
implementation of the California program is the unusually long delivery
times offered by vendors of recycled products. No explanation is offered
for these delays, but a possibility might be the need for special mill runs
to meet the state recycled fiber requirements.
no 1854
SW-179C
:'-U.S.MffMMfMM«ITM60FflCE:1979 -281-H7/UO
K-2
------- |