HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07181989 - IO.9 s- L I.O. 9
Board of Supervisors
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE rn
DATE: July 10, 1989 - 0
�ST"I-CO 2i'4•t
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON PLASTICS IN THE WASTESTREAM
Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Acknowledge the findings of the Public Health Director on the potential health hazards
associated with disposable diapers as reflected in the attached report from Wendel Brunner,
M.D., namely that:
* Proper disposal of diapers in a well managed sanitary landfill does not constitute a public
health threat.
* There are several studies which argue that there is little occupational risk [from handling
household garbage] for sanitary workers.
* In an improperly operated landfill,there is potential for garbage,including diaper contents,
to be scattered by birds,animals,or insects causing potential health problems. This problem
can be mitigated by proper management of the landfill disposal working face.
* There are a number of public health advantages to the use of disposable diapers,particularly
in day care centers which do not practice sound diaper-changing practices.
2. Direct County Counsel,in consultation with the Community Development Director and Health
Services Director,to prepare and forward to the Board of Supervisors for further consideration,
conditions of development which specifically requires that used disposable diapers be subject
to collection as solid waste and that prior to collection all owners and subscribers rinse into the
sewage system the human excrement from diapers before disposing of them in the solid waste
stream.
Continued on attachment: YES Signature:
Recom endatio f Count Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee
Appro Other•
ature(s): T ERS su WRIGHT MC PEAK
Action of Boar July 18, 1989 Approved as Recommended x Other
Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
x Unanimous (Absent — ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Absent: Abstain:
Attested 2 /r /989
cc: See Page-6- Phil Bat elor, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By , Deputy Clerk
3. Direct County Counsel,in consultation with the Community Development Director and Health
Services Director,to determine whether any additional regulation of the disposal of diapers in
a landfill is needed and if so to report their recommendations to the Internal Operations
Committee on October 23, 1989 at 11:00 A.M.
4. Direct the Health Services Director and Purchasing Agent to review in more detail the economic
and health factors involved in the use of disposal diapers versus cloth diapers at Merrithew
Memorial Hospital and provide the Internal Operations Committee with their conclusions and
recommendations on October 23, 198.9 at 11:00 A.M. For the Health Services Director this
analysis should also include the relative staff costs involved in the use of disposable versus cloth
diapers as well as any reasons why more expensive large size infant diapers should be used as
opposed to adult diapers, if in fact, such large infant diapers are substantially more expensive
that adult diapers. This review should include discussion with employee organizations
regarding the possible increased staff time which would result from the use of cloth diapers.
For the Purchasing Agent this analysis should also include a more refined analysis of the cost'
factors involved in the use of various sizes of diapers so that our Committee can reach an
informed conclusion regarding the relative costs of using disposable versus cloth diapers.
5. Direct the Purchasing Agent to determine the cost of paper cups which are suitable only for cold
drinks and provide our Committee with his conclusions on October 23, 1989 at 11:00 A.M.
6. Direct the Community Development Director, working with the Health Services Director,
Sheriff-Coroner and County Probation Officer, to evaluate the feasibility of a polystyrene
plastic container and other recyclables collection program at County institutions and report his
conclusions and recommendations to our Committee on October 23, 1989.
7. Direct the Community Development Director to prepare letters for the Chairman's signature
to each newspaper printed or distributed in Contra Costa County requesting information on the
recycled paper content of the newspaper and whether the publisher has considered or would
be willing to consider increasing their use of recycled newsprint and report the results to our
Committee on October 23, 1989 at 11:00 A.M.
8. Request County Counsel to determine what authority the Board of Supervisors currently has
to impose a fee at or near the point of purchase (wholesaler, distributor, retailer or refuse
collector)of selected products which are neither capable of being recycled nor are degradable
in a landfill. If County Counsel concludes that additional legislative action is required to
provide the Board of Supervisors such authority, request County Counsel to draft such
legislation which the Board can include in its 1990 Legislative Program and report his
conclusions and recommendations to our Committee October 23, 1989 at 11:00 A.M.
9. Request"Californians Against Waste" to take whatever steps they can to encourage the State
of California to advise local governments throughout California when they are considering the
purchase of recycled products so that local governments can participate in such a purchase,
hopefully increasing the volume of the purchase to the point that it makes such a purchase
economically viable compared to the purchase of those products without recycled content and
request that they advise our Committee of the results of their efforts on October 23, 1989 at
11:00 A.M.
10. Request the Purchasing Agent to discuss with the cities and special districts in Contra Costa
County the feasibility of combining the purchasing needs of the County for recycled paper and
other recycled products with those of other local governments in the County in an effort to
increase the economic viability of such purchases and report the results of his discussions to
our Committee on October 23, 1989 at 11:00 A.M.
- 2 -
,
11. Request the Purchasing Agent to review with distributors of photocopy machines the feasibility
of requiring that any such machines which are purchased or leased by the County in the future
be able to use recycled paper and report his conclusions and recommendations to our
Committee on October 23, 1989 at 11:00 A.M.
12. Agree to establish a Plastics Recycling Task Force consisting of four members of the Solid
Waste Commission representing various geographic areas of the County,a representative of the
Board of Supervisors,onexesin producer,one polystyrene resin producer,one garbage hauler,
one plastics processor,one recycling collector,a representative of an environmental organiza-
tion,a representative of a city involved with recycling activity and a public member. Members
of the plastics industry should also be invited to indicate their interest in serving on such a Task
Force. The Community Development Director should write.to each such organization
requesting expressions of interest in serving on such a Task Force and requesting nominations
of individuals who should be appointed to such a Task Force. The Community Development
Director should forward responses and a final recommended composition for the Task Force
to the Board of Supervisors onAugust 15, 1989 since our Committee will not be meeting during
the month of August and we do not want to lose the momentum and sense of cooperation which
has been built up over the past several months.
13. Direct the Community development Director to establish,in cooperation with the local plastics
manufacturing industry and recyclers,a waste plastics recycling program for the entire County,
composed of the following elements:
(A) A pilot plastics recycling program for residential curbside collection and processing of
mixed plastics as outlined on pages 24-27 of the Solid Waste Commission's report which
is to be in place by July 1, 1989.
(B) A pilot polystyrene plastics recovery and recycling program for restaurants, businesses
and residential customers in the entire County which is to be in place by October 1, 1989.
(C) A full-scale waste plastics recovery and recycling program for all curbside recycling
programs and all commercial and private recycling programs operating in the entire
County which is to be in place by December 31, 1990.
The waste plastics recycling activities shall include at a minimum all containers and packaging
products made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high and low density polyethylene
(HDPE, LDPE),polystyrene (PS),polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polypropylene (PP) as they
are described in the Solid Waste Commission's report.
14. Direct the Community Development Director to work with the franchising cities and sanitary
districts in the County in an effort to encourage each of those jurisdictions to assist in making
the waste plastics recycling program a reality countywide by enacting a similarprogram in their
jurisdiction.
15. Direct the Community Development Director to prepare an amendment to the County's Solid
Waste Management Plan to incorporate the waste plastics recycling program into the County's
Solid Waste Management Plan.
16. Direct the Community Development Director to require the operators of all refuse transfer
stations in the County to extract waste plastic materials, as defined in the Solid Waste
Commission's report,from all solid wastes processed in their facilities pursuant to the dates and
times required for recycling as they are contained in Recommendation #13.
- 3 -
1 1
J ,
17. Indicate that it is the Board of Supervisors' intent to impose a ban, and recommend that each
city in the County impose a similar ban,on the continued use of plastic containers or packaging
materials if the waste plastics recycling program has not been fully implemented by December
31, 1990.
18. Indicate that it is the Board of Supervisors' intent to impose a ban, and recommend that each
city in the County impose a similar ban,on the manufacture of plastic containers and packaging
materials if the waste plastics recycling program has not been fully implemented by December
31, 1990.
19. Direct the County Administrator to include in the County's 1990 Legislative Program a request
that counties and cities be given the authority to place a product disposal charge on all plastic
containers and packaging materials at the point of sale,to include at a minimum plastic grocery
bags,single-use plastic diapers and plastic soft drink,milk and water containers'as well as other
multi-material, multi-layered and aseptic packages. The proceeds of the product disposal
charge fees levied by the County and cities would generate a fund to facilitate and promote
plastic recycling activities in the County.
20. Direct the Community Development Director to determine the appropriate product disposal
charge for each type of packaging and recommend a fee schedule to the Board of Supervisors
and each city in the County once it is clear that the County and cities will have the authority
to impose such a fee.
21. Direct the Community Development Director to identify any difficult-to-recycle plastic
containers and packaging that are unable to meet the waste plastic recycling program goals and
standards by December 31, 1990 and report to the Board of Supervisors by January 31, 1991
recommending those plastics which have been unable to meet the goals and recommending a
deadline by which the use and sale of these products shall be phased out unless and until such
plastic products meet the established goals and standards.
0
22. Request the County Purchasing Agent(Director of General Services)to consider an addendum
on purchase orders that requests vendors to use the minimum amount of packing material which
will transport and deliver the product safely and consider imposing a penalty of 2% on the use
of loose expanded polystyrene pellets as a packing material and report his recommendations
to the Internal Operations Committee by September 1, 1989.
23. Direct the Community Development Director and Purchasing Agent to develop guidelines for
the purchase of products made with recycled plastic and other secondary materials. These
guidelines may include price incentives or set-aside allotments. The Community Development
Director and Purchasing Agent shall report their findings and recommendations to the Internal
Operations by September 1, 1989.
24. Direct the County Purchasing Agent to prepare annual reports to the Board of Supervisors and
Solid Waste Commission on the extent to which the County has been able to increase its
purchase of products made with plastic and other secondary materials.
25. Request the Director of General Services to instruct custodial staff not to routinely change the
plastic liners in wastebaskets in County buildings every time the wastebasket is emptied if the
liner is still usable since routinely changing the liners add to the amount of plastic which must
be disposed of in a landfill, in many cases unnecessarily.
- 4 -
1 11
26. Direct the Community Development Director to forward copies of the report on the Solid Waste
Commission on"reducing Plastics in the Wastestream"to each city and sanitary district in the
County,urging them to enact similar programs to those recommended to the County by the Solid
Waste Commission.
27. Request the Community Development Director to prepare a letter for the Chairman's signature
asking Proctor & Gamble to locate a sixth pilot project in Contra Costa County to test the
viability of recycling disposable diapers.
28. Support the following legislation:
* AB 1305 .(Killea) which requires that newsprint must contain specific percentages of
recycled paper in California.
* AB 1041 (LaFollette) which requires the California Waste Management Board to prepare
a report on the use, disposal and recyclability of plastic materials, although we would like
to see more action than just a study of the problem.
* AB 1796(Moore,et al)which assesses a fee of 4 cents perpound of problem plastics to assist
in the recycling of such plastics. We would suggest, however, that this bill be closely
coordinated with AB 2199 (Bates) to insure that the two bills complement each other.
* AB 2020 (Cortese & Vasconcellos) which would outlaw the use of food containers after
January 1, 1990 which are made with a blowing agent compound which includes CFC-12
or any other fully-halogenated CFC.
* AB 2199 (Bates) which requires local agencies to prepare a plastics recycling plan and
imposes fees on plastic containers to finance the preparation of such plastics recycling plans.
29. Support in concept the following legislation, while not necessarily supporting every specific
detail of each bill as currently drafted:
* AB 1332 (Peace) which requires that all 1993 and later model cars have air-conditioning
systems which do not use CFC's unless comparable systems do not exist.
* AB 1718 (Hayden & Vasconcellos) which regulates the installation and servicing of
automobile air-conditioning systems and other products to insure that CFC's are recycled
and are not released into the atmosphere.
* SB 116 (Rosenthal, et al) which regulates the refrigeration systems in retail stores, cold
storage warehouses and commercial or industrial buildings in an effort to control the release
of CFC's,into the environment.
30. Direct the Directors of Community Development and General Services to work with garbage
collection companies to develop a pilot program for the collection of recyclable plastics at
County facilities.
31. Direct the Director of Community Development to prepare and forward to our Committee on
October 23, 1989 goals by which fast-food restaurants will reduce the number of plastic food
containers in order to increase recycling and reduce litter.
32. Direct County Counsel to prepare and forward to the Board of Supervisors an ordinance
imposing a total ban on the manufacture, sale or use of plastic food containers in the
unincorporated area of Contra Costa County if the plastic container is manufactured with
CFC's.
- 5 -
11
C
BACKGROUND:
Our Committee made a status report to the Board of Supervisors on June 6, 1989 on the report from
the Solid Waste Commission entitled "Reducing Plastics in the Wastestream". A number of
additional staff reports were requested in that status report. On July 10, 1989 our Committee met
with industry representatives from the James River Co., Dow Chemical, Proctor and Gamble; the
Sierra Club, Californians Against Waste; members of the Solid Waste Commission's Plastics
Committee and staff from the Health Services Department, General Services Department,
Community Development Department, County Counsel's Office.
Attached is a packet of materials we received from various staff as well as from Proctor and Gamble.
The recommendations we have made above are based on these staff reports and extensive discussion
with all parties that were present at our meeting.
Our Committee wishes to emphasize that we are more interested in seeing plastic wastes recycled
than we are in banning the sale of such items. However,it is also essential that we establish realistic
goals which must be achieved if we are not to resort to the ultimate of banning the sale of such items
in this County.
We also want to make it clear, as we believe we have in our recommendations,that we are anxious
to work with representatives of the plastics industry to achieve the goal of being able to sort and
recycle plastic waste in an economical manner and help stimulate a market for recycled plastic
products which will make it financially advantageous for industry to recycle such wastes.
It is clear that a great deal more public education and technical development are needed in order to
make the recycling of waste plastic an economic reality. The same is true, to a lesser extent, with
recycled paper. It is of little use to recover tons of paper and plastics if there is no market for the
recycled products. As a result we are recommending the formation of a Plastics Recycling Task
Force of government, industry and environmental representatives to come to grips with some of
these issues and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors which will lead to a meaningful,
realistic and economically viable plastics recycling program for Contra Costa County. The
representatives of the Solid Waste Commission believe that the deadlines set forth above in our
recommendations are achievable. While they may be optimistic,we agree that they are achievable
with the good will, dedication and support of all involved organizations.
We plan to follow this issue closely and will make a further report to the Board of Supervisors
following our October 23, 1989 meeting.
cc: County Administrator
Director of Community Development
David Okita, Community Development
Sheila Cogan, Community Development
Mark Finucane, Health Services Director
Wendel Brunner, M.D., Public Health Director
Bart Gilbert, Director of General Services
Vic Westman, County Counsel
Lillian Fujii, Deputy County Counsel
Sanford Skaggs, on behalf of Proctor & Gamble
David Tamm, Sierra Club
Rod Miller, Californians Against Waste
John Marshall, Dow Chemical
Richard Gamble, James River Co.
CLVM:eh - 6 _
io-9
t%
sE- L Health Services Department
•:` Public Health Division
t OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
n� r Administrative Offices
Ol - tiif•1N `. ;� 20 Allen Street
a e ' Martinez,California 94553
•, ti4 _ (415)646-4416
OOS A
COUlz•�
July 6, 1989
To: Supervisor Sunne McPeak
Supervisor Tom Powers
Internal Operations Committee
From: Wendel Brunner, M.D.
Director of Public Health
Re: Public Health Implications of Disposable Diapers
in Landfills
I was asked to report to the Board on the potential public health
problems from disposing of soiled diapers in sanitary landfills .
That request arose from the report to the Board of Supervisors from
the Solid Waste Commission on the disposal of plastics, which
included a section on disposable diapers . That report suggested
that disposable diapers could cause a public health problem by the
spread of pathogens, particularly viruses from the feces contained
in diapers. Since between one and two percent of the total solid
waste stream in the United States consists. of soiled diapers, this
constitutes a significant portion of the landfill mass .
The County report on plastics repeats some of the concerns
expressed in the popular press that soiled diapers contain polio
virus and hepatitis vaccine virus. As almost all infants are now
immunized with live polio vaccine, the polio virus excreted in the
feces is polio vaccine virus and does not cause polio. Hepatitis
A virus can certainly be present in stools; however, it is not the
result of hepatitis .vaccine. Nonetheless, there are potentially,
many other pathogenic viruses and bacteria present in disposable
diapers .
The issue of the potential public health problems from landfilling
diapers is a surprisingly partisan one, with most of the relevant
studies being financed either by disposable diaper companies or
major diaper service firms. Most of the literature indicates,
however, that proper disposal of diapers in a well managed sanitary
landfill does not constitute a public health threat. Most of the
viruses and other pathogens are inactivated in the landfill, and
are present, if at all, at very low titers in the leachate. By the
A372 (4/88)
time the leachate in a properly constructed landfill percolates
into the ground water, essentially all the pathogens are
inactivated or absorbed. In addition, drinking water wells are
rarely sunk right next to major urban landfill sites.
.,Of more concern is the possible exposure of sanitary workers to
human waste in the process of collecting the garbage and burying
it in the landfill. Although I have not exhaustively reviewed the
literature, there are several studies which argue that there is
little occupational risk for sanitary workers. These studies have
methodologic and design flaws, however, and involve small numbers
of workers, so their results are not conclusive.
An additional concern is the potential for exposure between the
time the diapers are placed in the garbage can and their final
disposal in the sanitary landfill. There is the opportunity for
garbage cans to be knocked over and their contents scattered by
dogs or other animals . Garbage, particularly containing human
feces, scattered through crowded urban areas could definitely pose
a potential health problem.
Finally, in an improperly operated landfill there is potential for
garbage, including diaper contents, to be scattered by birds,
animals, or insects causing potential health problems. This
problem can be mitigated by proper management of the landfill
disposal working face.
I believe there are a number of public health advantages to the use
of disposable diapers, as well as the potential problems cited
above. There -have been major social changes in this country since
the 1950's, when cloth diapers were nearly universal. Currently,
a large percentage of women with diaper age children are in the
work force. The time when infants and toddlers were home by
themselves with their mothers is over; today a large percentage of
diaper age children spend a portion of their day in child care
centers or family day care homes.
In Public Health we have had to deal with a number of outbreaks and
epidemics in day care centers caused by fecal pathogens, including
several epidemics of infectious hepatitis A. These centers are
largely staffed by modestly trained aides . These epidemics are
usually traced to diaper changing practices in the institution,
and have required intervention and training of staff by Public
Health to modify the diapering practices to eliminate the,
epidemics.
I believe that good diaper practices in an institutional setting
are facilitated by the use of disposable diapers, which greatly
simplifies the procedures, handling, and disposal of the diapers
and their contents. While cloth diapers might be optimal in an
2
individual home setting, in a day care center with 30 toddlers and
marginally trained staff, disposable diapers greatly simplify the
procedures and, in my opinion, lessen the risk of epidemics .
Although my review of the literature on the subject was not
exhaustive, it appears that disposable diapers in a properly
constructed and managed sanitary landfill pose little or no threat
to public health. There are some concerns about exposure of
sanitary workers or the scattering of diapers from spilled garbage
in crowded urban settings. I have consulted with Jack McGurk,
Chief of Environmental Health for the State Health Services
Department and a member of the State committee developing
infectious waste policies, who concurs in this analysis and
conclusions. In addition, I believe from our own experience that
the disposable diapers have definite public health advantages in
institutional and day care centers, although I have not seen any
literature on the subject.
Disposable diapers, even if they may not pose a significant public
health problem, nonetheless form a significant portion of the solid
waste stream and contribute to the nation's solid waste disposal
problems. The issue of disposable diapers should be considered in
the context of an overall program to reduce the amount of solid
waste going to landfill disposal through source reduction,
recycling, and composting.
WB:rm
cc: Mark Finucane
Health Services Director
3
a •
s+ a
a
THE PROCTER &GAMBLE COMPANY
WINTON HILL TECHNICAL CENTER
woo CENTER HILL ROAD CINCINNATLOWO 45124-1788
June 23s 1989
Dr. Vendell C. Brunner
Public Health Division
20 Allen Street
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Dr. Brunner:
pe would like to thank you again for your tlae on June 19 to discuss the
various questions about disposable diapers. 44 understand; however. that you
still have some concern over the potential health risks of sanitation workers
who handle household wastes and the disposable diapers they may contain. Vo
would like to follow-up on our discussion and expand on the data that was
shared. Below are summarized the key data and conclusions that are currently
available.
1. Dr. Scott Clark at the Kettering Laboratory, Institute of Environmental.
Health at the University of Cincinnati investigated the incidence of viral
infections among waste collection workers. This study was to determine
whether the incidence of viral infections among waste collection workers,
as measured by the lovel of antibody in sera, was different from other
public works employees (e.g.. highway maintenance workers). The
conclusions of this report were "These data suggest that waste collection
workers do not experience increased viral infections because of their
occupation". (Clark. G.S. at. al.. Incidence of Viral infections Among
paste Cellect on Vorkers. University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 1979)
2. "There is no adequately designed study which shows a statistically
significant difference in the rates of respiratorys gastrointestinal ov
skin infections among sanitation workers, the group most frequently exposed
to solid waste" (pare. S.A., A Surirev of Pathogen Survival During
Wmicl2gj Solid Neste and ?tenure Treatment Processes. EPL Report
-600/8-80-034. August, 1980)
3. In one of the most comprehensive epidemiology studies of its kind, two
sequential historical prospective morbidity studies of workers and
residents were done at the Upper Ottawa Street Landfill in Hamilton,
Ontario, Canada. The effects seen (e.g., mood symptoms. eye irritation.
etc.) were correlated to the presence of hazardous chemicals in the
landfill. No associations were seen for any gastrointestinal. hematologic
or genitourinary conditions -- effects that would be expected if the
presence of microorganisms were creating a health problem. (Herttman, C. .
Hayes, X. . Singer. J. , and Highland, J. Upper Ottawa Street Landfill Site
Health study. EnviroTmgntai Health rersge iv s, 75:173-195. 1987)
J711J 1.11111 Cb-nT CTCT i<'QdC<
I"f PROC7FR 6 CANOLE COMPANY
Dr. Wendell C. Brunner
June 23, 1989
Page Two
4. Drs. S.K. Bradford and C.P. Garbs, at the Department of Microbiology and
Immunology, University of Arizona, reviewed the sources of viruses and
bacteria to the solid wastes stress. Their results showed that pat feces.
as well as other household sources of microorganisms (e.g., food wastes,
personal hygiene products, facial tissue), contribute over a 1000 times
more eaterovirusas (human pathogen strains) than disposable diapers.
Therefore. if disposable diapers were removed from household waste, this
would not significantly, reduce the presence of microorganisms in household
refuse or landfills. (Bradford, S.B. and Garb&, C.P., Relative Contr{butign
of Solid We at Components to the Microbt&I Patbgg*n Land of Landfills,
1489)
S. Mr. John Norton, current Director of Solid Waste Managemant Department for
Montgomery County. Ohio has stated that disposable diapers in solid waste
do not present a health risk to sanitation workers. His conclusion is
basad on: 1) chance of sanitation worker exposure to infections agents is
minimal; 2) garbage has always had a lot of b=au bacteria and vtzuses, but
no evidence ever linking this to h=as disease: and 3) he formerly directed
a sewage treatment plant and he felt that if health and faces were & major
issue, he would have seen it before in his workers. lir. Norton has
publicly stated his position and has agreed to discuss any questions with
interested parties (513-225-6145).
6. Although hospital waste does not contain all the same types of materials as
household waste, disposable diapers are a common component to each source
(currently over 98% of all U.S. hospitals use disposable diapers in their
nurseries). This hospital waste, similar to household waste, unat be
handled by sanitation workers. Due to the presence of potentially
infectious material, several studies have beta conducted to determine
potential health risks/problams associated with sanitation vorkera and
hospital waste. These studies have indicated no evidence of risk to
hospital waste handlers. For azample:
a. The Director of Statewide Infection Control Program (North Carolina),
Dr. VLIIL&m Rutala, conducts an annual literature review for reports
of disease trsasmlxsibn frost hospital waste management practices. In
these reviews, Dr. Rutala has never found any indication of disease
traasmission film hospital waste man&genent practices (EPA Office of
Solid Vast*, Backgro=d Documents page 40). In addition, Dr. Rutala
completed a recent survey of 441 randomly selected U.S. hospitals that
demonstrated that no hospital could identify an infection problem
(excluding needlestick infurias) that was attributable to the disposal
of Infectious waste (manuscript submitted to the Pty Mand J4mrnal
sg,Medicine).
T,IE pROC7E4k i CA,%49LE COMPANY
Dr. Wendell C. Brunner
June 23, 1989
Page Three
b. A letter from the State of Virginia Health Commisioner stated that
annual reviews of hundreds of disease-related worker compensation
claims and communicable disease reports have not revealed we single
case of illness in a sanitation worker or the general public traceable
to exposure to medical waste (EPA Office of Solid waste, Background
Document. page 40).
7. In an article on a study of health and reeyclings Terry V. Sprenkel, City
Manager of Ames, Iowa stated that "Records maintained by Ames Employee
Relations Department over the past two years indicate that the physical and
related medical teats have not indicated the presence (or potential) of any
illness that has direct association with the handling of solid vast*, or
the processing of refuse-derived fuel* (Sprenkel. 'T.V.s Health and
Recycling: Little Downtime on the Human Xachinery at Ames. paste ae
10:74, 1979)
8. Wastewater treatment workers may have an increased incidence of infections
under improper operating-conditions where large exposures from
aerosolisation occur. These same types and aaguitudes of exposure do not
occur with sanitation (solid waste) workers. H.R. Pahron (Hazardous paste
Engineering Research Laboratory, EPA) concluded that "studies that have
been made in the U.S. showed no proven adverse health effects (to
Sanitation workers) from the microorganisms contained in the waste".
Pahren also reviewed the wastewater operations and concluded; " Persons
exposed to relatively low densities of microorganisms in the air near
wastewater operations showed no significant adverse health effects, but
infections were sometimes found at high densities". Since the amount of
aerosol exposure that occurs with outdoor sanitation workers would be much
less than that seen with wastewater treatment operations. there is no data
to support a sanitation worker health problem. (Pahren, H.R. Microorganisms
in Maaieipal Solid Waste and Pnbiic Health Implications. CRC Critigal
Reviews in EnviXosmental gotrol, 17:187-228, 1987)
We also want to again.emphasize,the unique health care benefits that disposable
'diapers- provide since these.aast be:considered in any discussion of diaper
systems. Our research has clearly demonstrated that the modern disposable
diaper containing absorbent gelling material provides superior skin care
compared to cloth-type diapers or older disposable technologies. These
benefits have been shown in normal skin infants. atopic infants or infants at
risk of diaper dermatitis dna to diarrhea or oral antibiotic therapy. These
findings are published in peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals, and we
left with you a summary of these publications. Additionally* as you noted,
disposable diapers have important benefits for child group care settings such
as day care. One of our studies [PodLatric Dormatoloav 1. 83-87. (1988)] as
we've noted, demonstrated improved akin care for day care infants at risk of
diaper dermatitis from diarrhea or oral antibiotic therapy. Also, disposables
ac,'d SL9L? C162;f.PK:6STtr LSL- nl rr-n9 S1:!nQn,dd d3dHd Woa-d HS:ST 6T6T/SC1/LA
SO'd -1d101
THE PROCTER 6 CAMSIE COMPANY
Dr. Wendell C. Brunner
June 23. 1989
Page Pour
require less handling and provide. better fecal containment than cloth diapers,
both of these attributes can help to reduce the chance of transmission of
common day care illnesses such as diarrheal disease. This illness is common to
day care settings where the transmission vector is the fecal/oral route by the
fecal contamination of day care surroundings as well as infants' and workers•
hands. A large volume of work on this subject has been conducted by Dr. Larry
Pickeriag at the University of Texas. Dr. Pickering believes that improved
containment of BM by disposable diapers is a benefit in day care.
Iaatly, we again want to affirm Procter and Gambl*'s commitment to finding
solutions to the solid vast* problem. We support a hierarchical approach that
Includes using less materials is our products and packages, as veli as
recycling and composting. Qe have publicly announced programs in the recycle/
compost areas to demonstrate their utility in managing diaper solid waste.
Importantly, these approaches can manage up to as much as SO% of the complex
solid waste stream. We encourage and will help facilitate incentives for
recycling and composting.
Again, we enjoyed our meeting vith you. If you have any questions on any of
these topics. please feel free to tali us (513-634-7839 for Bob Campbell and
513-634-6166 for Bob Lindenschaidt).
Sincerely.
THE PROCTER S GAMBLE COMPANY
Paper Products Division
Bobert L. Campbell. Ph.D.
Section Head
Clinical and !Microbiological
SafetySupport
Robert C. Lindeaschmidt. Ph.D.. DART
Croup Leader
Divisional Toxicologist
bcc: R. A. Greene
R. Stokes
R. P. Lustik
PAPER PRODUCTS
CINCINNATI
FAX
(513) 983-7675
DATE:.
. 7-kr/pq
TO •
EXTENSION:
FROM: _ w1i lI�
MESSAGE:
" ^ - -- ----.-- �� .-.!a nn �-��nrtnv� v7�N..1 LjnvJ Ch-CT G.TG.T
i W
w `ro
4p37-198' .
THE PROCTER &GAMBLE COMPANY
PAPER PROOUCTS DMSION
I PROCTER 6 GAMBLE PLAZAJ,CMCwIzTI., ��j02-S115
�6
Dr. Wendel Brunner
Director of Public Health
Contra Costa County
20 Allen Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Dr. Brunner:
This letter details basic facts relative to health issues and other points
raised in Contra Costa County relative to disposable diapers. We hope it
helps to overcome certain misconceptions which have arisen with regard to this
product.
This submission is in three parts:
First, we discuss factors contributing to an infant health care benefit
associated with use of disposable diapers. This was not discussed in the
Plastics Committee report to the Board of Supervisors, but we are sure you
agree that a scientifically-established health advantage is relevant to
any discussion of the merits of various diapering practices.
Second, we present general comments and facts regarding the use and
disposal of disposable diapers and their relation to public safety and the
environment.
Third, we present comments on the real solutions to the solid waste
problem and how disposable diapers are handled within these solutions.
Attached, in addition, are two appendices and two attachments. Appendix I
explains in more scientific detail the infant benefit described above.
Appendix II provides summaries relevant to public health and environmental
issues. The attachments are referred to below.
Regarding factors contributing to an infant health care benefit associated
with the use of disposable diapers containing absorbent gelling material, you
should understand this benefit cannot be achieved through use of other
diapering systems such as cloth diapers. The specific key conclusions from
the scientific work which is detailed below are as follows:
1. Modern disposable diapers with absorbent gelling materials are superior to
cloth diapers for maintaining skin drya ess and for reducing fluid return
to the diaper skin interface.(l, 29 3)
2. Modern disposable diapers with absorbent gelling materials are superior to
cloth diapers in maintaining natural skin pH.(l• 29 3)
3. Skin dryness and maintenance of natural skin pH levels are important to
maintaining the barrier and abrasion resistance properties of skin
necessary for optimum skin health.(l, 49 5, 6, 7)
— 2 --
• 4. Modern disposable diapers with absorbent gelling materials are superior' to
cloth diapers in establishing the best possible skin environment whi6h is "
clinically significant for both the normal population as well as for
infants at increased risk (atopic skin).(29 30 8, 9, i0)
5. Modern disposable diapers with absorbent gelling materials have
demonstrated their benefit in a hospital environment.
Further discussion of these points is provided in Appendix I attached.
We believe the benefits described above and in the Appendix are important to
you since we are certain of your interest in patient and infant care.
References cited above:
1. L. Benjamin, R.W. Berg, W.E. Jordan, and R.E. Zimmerer. Etiology of
Diaper Rash and the Effects of Diapers on Infant Skin Condition.
Proc. TAPPI International Dissolving Pulps Conf. (1987)
2. R.L. Campbell. Clinical Tests with Improved Disposable Diapers.
Diapering and Infant Skin Care, Proc. .Int. Symp., Hakone, Japan 1986.
Pediatrician 24, 34-38 (1987)
3. R.L. Campbell, J.L. Seymour, L.C. Stone and M.C. Milligan. Clinical
Studies with Disposable Diapers Containing Absorbent Gelling
Materials: Evaluation of Infant Skin Condition. J. Amer. Acad, of
Dermatology 1Z, 978-987 (1987)
4. R.E. Zimmerer, R.D. Lawson, and C.J. Calvert. The Effects of Wearing
Diapers on Skin. Ped. Dermatol. 2, 95-101 (1986)
5. K.W. Buckingham and R.W. Berg. Etiologic Factors in Diaper
Dermatitis: The Role of Feces. Ped. Dermatol. 1, 107-112 (1986)
6. R.W. Berg, K.W. Buckingham, and R.L. Stewart. Etiologic Factors in
Diaper Dermatitis: The Role of Urine. Ped. Dermatol, J, 102-106
(1986)
7. R.W. Berg. Etiologic Factors in Diaper Dermatitis: A Model for
Development of Improved Diapers. Diapering and Infant Skin Care,
Proc. Int. Symp., HakonetxJapan 1986. Pediatrician 149 27-33 (1987)
S. J.L. Seymour, B.H. Keswick, M.C. Milligan, W.P. Jordan, and J.M.
Hanifin. Clinical and Microbial Effects of Cloth, Cellulose Core, and
Cellulose"Core/Absorbent'6e1 Diapers in Atopic Dermatitis. Diapering
and Infant Skin Care, Proc. Int. Symp., Hakone, Japan 1986.
Pediatrician 1A, 39-43 (1987)
9. J.L. Seymour, B.H. Keswick, J.M. Hanifin, W.P. Jordan, and M.C.
Milligan. Clinical Effects of Diaper Types on the Skin of Normal
Infants and Infants with Atopic Dermatitis. J. Amer. Acad,
Dermatology JZ, 988-997
THE PROCTER 6 CAMREE COMPIkhY
-- 3 —
10. .R.L._ Campbell, A.V. Bartlett, F.C. Sarbaugh, and L.K. Pickering.
Effects of Diaper Types on Diaper Dermatitis Associated with Diarrhea
and Antibiotic Use in Children in Day Care Centers. Ped. Dermatol.
83-87 (1988)
11. A.T. Lane, P.A. Rehder, and K. Helm. Clinical Evaluations of Pampers
and Ultra Pampers in Newborn Infants. Manuscript in Preparation
We also have a number of comments which relate to the Plastics Committee's
report. We believe that certain of the conclusions are erroneous because they
are based on incorrect material. We suspect this material may have been
provided by uninformed sources. These sources are not experts themselves on
public health issues nor have they used the opinions of or the scientific
publications from experts in landfill science, microbiology or public health.
Our materials are based on scientific data and opinion from such experts.
The paper states, for example, "The human waste is (ale) disposable diapers
has been found to be dangerous, carrying live polio and hepatitis vaccine
residues. It is defined as a hazardous waste." Used disposable diapers and
any contents have not been found to be dangerous or hazardous or infectious
waste. That position has been established by appropriate governmental
authorities, e.g., the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Health
and Human Services, the EPA, and numerous experts in academia. Also,
Attachment I consists of letters from seven states whom we recently contacted
with regard to the Medical Waste Tracking Act. They unanimously comment that
diapers are routine solid waste unless coming from patients in isolation
because of infectious disease.
Another example is the statement, "No other consumer product — with the
exception of newspapers and beverage and food containers — contributes so
much to our solid waste." Apart from the fact that the three items mentioned
contribute many times more to solid waste than disposable diapers do, there
are many other items that contribute more to solid waste. One example is
kitty litter. Attachment II shows that, in fact, most products amount to more
than disposable diapers in the solid waste stream. This table is taken from
the report prepared by Franklin Associates, Ltd. under contract with the EPA
entitled Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States
1910-2000 (Update 1988) Final Report, March 30. 1988. The comparisons of
these diapers with other products can be made by entering the columns headed
1986 and 1990. For comparison purposes, disposable diapers represent 0.8
million tons dry basis.
.Following is a.summary .of:the..information which has been developed over the
past 20 years to answer concerns.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
1. Public Health Experience
Disposable diapers have been used for over fifty years in Europe and over
twenty-five years in the United States; .since the World War, they have
accounted for nearly 100% of diaper usage in Sweden; in the United States,
they have been used for well over half the diaper changes fo; the last
fifteen years, and for at least three-Quarters of the diaper changes in
this country for the last five years. In all of this time, there has been
no public health problem attributed to the use or disposal of these
products. In fact, a 1980 EPA report stated, "There is not one sound
epidemiological study correlating an outbreak of any infectious disease in
this country with the pathogen content of solid waste " 7 (References
in this summary follow in Appendix II.)
-- 4 --
2. Viruses in Solid Waste
Extensive work done at universities in the last twenty years has shown
that viruses in solid waste are no hazard to waste collectors,(1) and do
not escape from properly operated landfilla.(2-3) In addition to
laboratory studies, nationwide surveys of leachates from actual municipal
landfills confirmed absence of any significant hazard.(6)
Landfills are far more effective than sewage treatment in deactivating
viruses.(2-3) (Virus-laden sludge from sewage treatment plants is also
disposed of on land). Typical leachate is toxic to viruses.(2) (See
Appendix II 1.).
3. Solid Waste - Quantitative Impact
The report quotes exaggerated numbers on the quantity and nature of solid
waste produced by users of disposable diapers. The following sections
summarize the best available data on usage of disposable diapers and their
quantitative contribution to solid waste.
A. Usage Rates
The average child uses 40 disposable diapers a week or 70 cloth
diapers. (Double and triple diapering are common when using cloth on
most infants).($) Cost, usage, and environmental impact
calculations are invalid because of incorrect usage information. (See
Appendix II 2.).
B. Ouantitative Load on Landfills
Disposable diapers amount to about one-half of 1% of municipal solid
waste collected in the United States, or about 800,000 tons
nationwide. (Calculations in Appendix II 3.). The average disposable
diaper weighs 45 grams, or one-tenth of one pound. An average child
uses about 2000 disposable diapers a year, weighing about 200 lbs.
C. Biodegradability
Biodegradability has no practical effect on the space required for
landfilling solid waste.`13) (Appendix II 4.).
D. Plastics in Solid Waste
Diaper plastic film amounts to one-twentieth of one percent of
municipal solid waste.(10, 14) The plastic film in disposable
diapers used in the United States totals, for example, one-eighth of
that used in garbage bags.(14) Eliminating it would have virtually
no effect on the life of landfills. (See Appendix II 5.).
INFORMATION ON SOLUTIONS TO THE SOLID WASTE PROBLEM
Procter & Gamble supports as reasonable, responsible, and technically feasible
the consensus developing around an integrated hierarchical approach to waste
management priorities. This type of approach is supported by the U.S. EPA.
In integrated waste management, each part complements the other. The
components of this program and how the disposable diapers fits in are
discussed below:
-- 5 �
1. Source reduction or using less material in products or Packages The
newer technology disposable diapers with absorbent gelling material are
thinner than past technology; the volume reduction achieved is 50%. These
thinner diapers require less packaging materials, again achieving a source
reduction. Packaging reductions to 80% are currently possible. These
thinner diapers provide the skin care benefits discussed earlier.
2. Recycle and composting. Recycle or reuse of waste materials is a key part
of managing solid waste. Disposable diapers can be sanitized and
separated into useful plastic and wood pulp. A demonstration project
supported by Procter & Gamble has been announced in a key municipality
with a major recycling firm. Private entrepreneurs are also developing
diaper recycle technology. Such technology should be encouraged since the
disposable diaper is the preferred consumer product and the materials in
them are an important useful resource.
Composting of solid waste into useful soil is an additional way to manage
solid waste. Some communities compost up to 70% of their solid waste.
Disposable diapers are compatible with this process, and Procter & Gamble
is working with compost operators to further demonstrate this
Compatability.
3. Incineration by "state-of-the-art" processes with energy recovery.
Disposable diapers can be incinerated without the production of Logic
gases or ash material. Incineration is the solid waste management
alternative chosen by some communities and institutions.
4. Landfill. Some waste materials will still need to be managed through
landfill. The management of disposable diaper solid waste is achievable
by all solid waste alternatives, and they can be landfilled without risk
to the public health, the landfill, or the environment.
Procter & Gamble by a Corporate Solid Waste Policy is committed to the
minimization of the impact of its products and packages and their manufacture
on the environment and solid waste disposal. We seek and support the
development of balanced, integrated approaches to solid waste management as
the true solutions to the solid waste proglem. We encourage and will
facilitate incentives for recycling and composting and establishment of
recycling infrastructures.
If you have any questions about the above points we have made, please feel
free to let us know. We will be pleased to have them reviewed with you in
more detail. We would also be pleased to discuss how we may be of assistance
to you with regard to handling solid waste.
Sincerely,
/Lustik Ronald P.
Manager - Industry, Government, and
Regulatory Activities.
0635
cc: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
The Plastics Committee of the
Solid Waste Commission
APPENDIX I
INFANT HEALTH CARE
The information following in this appendix provides a fuller discussion of the
infant health care points made in our letter, and references scientific
peer-reviewed publications.
Over the past several years, a vast amount of new information has been
generated about diapers and their impact on the health of infant skin. Nearly
all infants experience diaper dermatitis during their diaper age years; in
fact, at any one time up to one-third of diapered infants are likely to have
some degree of diaper dermatitis. This newer research has also shown that
diaper rash is related to infant maturity, diet, and diaper type, with infants
wearing exclusively disposable diapers having a .significantly lower mean rash
grade than those in cloth diapers.
Supporting Publications:
1. W.E. Jordan, K.D. Lawson, R.W. Berg, J.J. Franxman and A.M. 'Marrer.
Diaper Dermatitis: Frequency and Severity in a General Infant
Population, Ped, Dermatol. 2, 198-207 (1986)
2. L.Benjamin, Clinical Correlates with Diaper Dermatitis, Diapering and
Infant Skin Care, Proc. Int. Symp. , Hakone, Japan 1986, Pediatrician
141 21-26 (1987)
Further laboratory and clinical work has provided a model to describe the
causes of diaper dermatitis. Common diaper dermatitis results from the attack
of the skin by physical, chemical, enzymatic, and microbial factors. Skin
wetness from urine squeezed from the diaper onto skin and increased akin pH
from the formation of ammonia by bacterial action on urinary urea can impair
or. compromise the barrier function of skin. Compromised skin is susceptible
to attack by protease or lipase enzymes present in feces that further degrade
or irritate skin. These enzymes increase in activity as pH increases.. Skin
in a compromised state is subject to further irritation by materials in urine
or stool, to mechanical abrasion, or to microbial infections. The end result
of this process can be an episode of diaper dermatitis.
Supporting Publications:
1. R.E. Zimmerer, R.D. Lawson, and C.J. Calvert. The Effects of Wearing
Diapers on Skin, Ped. Dermatol, 3., 95-101 (1986)
2. R.N. Buckingham and R.W. Berg, Etiologic Factors in Diaper
Dermatitis: The Role of-^Feces, Ped. Dermatol, 2, 107-112 (1986)'
3. R.W. Berg, R.W. Buckingham, and R.L. Stewart, Etiologic Factors in
Diaper Dermatitis: The Role of Urine, Ped. Dermatol. .1, 102-106 (1986)
4. R.W. Berg, Etiologic Factors in Diaper Dermatitis: A Model for
Development of Improved Diapers, Diapering and Infant Skin Care, Proc.
Int. Symp., Hakone, Japan 1986, Pediatrician 24, 27-33 (1987)
5. B.E. Gaunder and E. Plummer, Diaper Rash: Managing and Controlling A
Common Problem in Infants and Toddlers, J. Ped. Health Care 1, 26-34
(1987)
APPENDIX-1
2
6. R.W. Berg, 'Etiology and Pathophysiology of Diaper Dermatitis, Adv.
Dermatology 1, 75-98 (1988)
Ahe model for diaper dermatitis development predicts that preventing excessive
skin hydration, maintaining skin near its normal physiologic pH, and
minimizing the-interaction of urine and feces (which increases pH and fecal
enzyme activity) will result in decreased incidence and severity of diaper
dermatitis.
Newer disposable diaper technologies have been built on this model. When a
small amount of absorbent gelling material is added to a disposable diaper
core, urine is absorbed and tightly held. This keeps fluid from squeezing
back against the infant's skin, thus controlling skin wetness and reducing the
mixing of urine and feces.
This new technology contrasts with the cloth diaper where free movement of
urine between the diaper and skin and within the diaper is possible. A
variety of clinical evaluations in normal skin infants, in infants with dry
skin (atopic dermatitis) and in day care infants prone to diaper dermatitis
from diarrhea or oral antibiotic treatment have demonstrated the validity of
the diaper dermatitis model. The skin care benefits of disposable diapers
with absorbent gelling materials/cellulose cores have also been demonstrated.
Across all the clinical tests, lower skin wetness, more normal skin pH, and/or
lower degrees of diaper dermatitis were observed with absorbent gelling
materials disposable diaper use than with cellulose-only disposable or cloth
diapers. The results of these clinical tests have been widely shared in
national and international scientific meetings and have been published in
peer-reviewed journals.
Supporting Publications:
1. B.L. Campbell, Clinical Tests with Improved Disposable Diapers,
Diapering and Infant Skin Care, Proc. Int. Symp. , Hakone, Japan 1986,
Pediatrician 14, 34-38 (1987)
2. J.L. Seymour, B.H. Keswick, M.C. Milligan, W.P. Jordan, and J.M.
Hanifin, Clinical and Microbial Effects of Cloth, Cellulose Core, and
Cellulose Core/Absorbent Gel Diapers in Atopic Dermatitis, Ibid. 39-43
(1987)
3. R.L. Campbell, J.L. Seymour, L.C. Stone, and M.C. Milligan, Clinical
Studies with Disposable Diapers Containing Absorbent Gelling
Materials: Evaluation of Infant Skin Condition, J. Amer. Acad. of
-Dermatology 17, 978-987 {1987).
4. J.L. Seymour, B.H. Keswick, J.M. Hanifin, W.P. Jordan, and M.C.
Milligan, Clinical Effects of Diaper Types on the Skin of Normal
Infants and Infants with Atopic Dermatitis, Ibid, 988-997 (1987)
5. R.L. Campbell, A.V. Bartlett, F.C. Sarbaugh, and L.R. Pickering,
Effects of Diaper Types on Diaper Dermatitis Associated with Diarrhea
and Antibiotic Use in Children in Day Care Centers, Ped. Dermatology
83-87 (1988)
0636
APPENDIX II
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
1. Waste HAndlers
There is no special risk to waste handlers or to the Public from diapers
U household waste.
a. In research at the University of Cincinnati, blood samples from
garbage collectors (and highway maintenance workers as controls) were
assayed for antibodies to viruses known to be secreted by infants. In
the spring, the waste handlers had significantly lower antibody levels
than the controls on four of the 17 viruses and not higher on any in
the fall, they were still lower on three and not higher on
Clearly, employment as a waste handler creates no special risk of
virus infection from handling solid waste containing disposable
diapers'. Similarly, there is no special risk of virus infection to
the public from accidental contact.
b. Landfills are very effective destroyers of viruses. Solid waste
containing viruses will not contaminate surface or groundwater.
In tests on simulated landfills, large doses of enteroviruses were
intentionally added to chopped solid waste, and the cells watered for
many months at rates experienced in the humid portions of the United
States. No viruses were found in the leachates and none were found
in the waste when the cells were torn down.(2-35 Viruses added to
leachates collected from these cells were rapidly inactivated, showing
that leachates are toxic to viruses.
The EPA Solid Waste Research Group operated a full-scale test landfill
site for several years. Soiled disposable diapers were present in the
waste delivered to the landfill.(4) In addition, nylon mesh bags
containing heavy doses of poliovirus were added to certain cells: No
live virus was found in the bags after fourteen days in the landfill,
and none was detected in the leachate. High temperatures from
fermentation in the first few days after the waste is placed are
believed to destroy the virus.(5, 13)
In a nationwide survey of real-world landfills, leachate was collected
and assayed for enteroviruses. In 22 samples from 20 landfills, virus
was detected in only one,.'from a poorly-operated landfill yielding
surface leachate from uncovered, freshly dumped waste.(6)
"There is not one epidemiological study which can directly trace
outbreaks of disease. to the presence of pathogens in solid waste.-(7)
2. Usage Rates and Costs
Diaper laundries incorrectly apply their own experience to the disposable
industry, comparing costs on a per-diaper basis, projecting disposable
usage as if it were the same as cloth, and providing cost data based on
the high number of cloth diapers used by the youngest infants.
APPENDIX II
o 2
Consumer diary studies conducted periodically over the past twenty years
consistently show that double and triple diapering is a common practice
with cloth users, while disposable users adopt larger or more absorbent
sizes when they need more absorbent capacity. Recent studies have found
that disposables-only users average 38 to 42 diapers per week, while
cloth-only users average 68to 72 per week (panels balanced to represent
all diapered ages properly).(8)
Diaper laundry fliers usually quote costs on the large number of small
size diapers offered for newborns, say 90 per week at $8 to $10. Cost per
diaper increases as the weekly usage decreases.
For an honest comparison, one should price 70 cloth diapers against 40
medium size disposables. The usage rate obtained from these studies is
also consistent with the total national usage discussed in the next
section.
3. Solid Haste Ouantities
Approximately 16 billion disposable diapers are used annually.(9)
The average disposable diaper weighs 45 grams, or one-tenth of a pound
(not "four to eight ounces"). Anyone can verify this roughly by weighing
diapers bought on the open market; the average given above is weighted for
size distribution and brand differences.
i
16,000,000,000 x 0.1/2000 - 800,000 tons total weight.
Total municipal solid waste in 1968 was reported by U.S. E.P.A. to be 3.35
lbs, pQer capita per day.(10) Subsequent reports in 1977(11) and
1986 2) supported this estimate. Assuming no increase in per capita
waste production in the last 20 years (a very conservative position),
245,000,000 people x 3.35 lbs./day x 365 days/year / 2000 lbs./ton =
150,000,000 tons total municipal solid waste per year.
Therefore, the dry weight of disposable diapers is 8009000 / 1501000,000 =
0.0053 = 0.53% of municipal solid waste.
Moisture content in the diapers is not relevant since all solid waste
eventually reaches "field capacity" as rain percolates into the landfill.
In any case, diapers seldom reach "saturation" in use; the average soiled
-diaper weighs 125-150.grams .or< 01.25 to 0.33 lbs. Wetness helps
compressibility of these and other paper wastes in the packer truck and
the landfill
4. Biodegradability
Biodegradability of solid waste will not solve landfill siting problems.
In the early 1970'x, the U.S. E.P.A. constructed full-scale landfill
cells, filled them with residential waste, compacted them according to
standard practice, and covered them with earth in the approved manner.
The waste going into these cells was sampled for category of materials and
the percent of each type of material. Biodegradables amounted to 76% of
the wet (as-received) waste, and 70% of the dry weight of the waste.
APPENDIX II
-- 3 --
For the four cells measured, cumulative settlement (volume reduction) at
the end of 7.5 years was 10%, 14.5%, 16% and 17%. After a rather rapid
initial settlement (attributable at least in part to softening by water
infiltration ), a continuing rate of about 1% a year appeared to be
persisting -at the end of the study.(13)
The degradation rates of plastics in solid waste landfills is not known.
Estimates of 11400 years" and "500 years", published in the popular press,
have no experimental basis. Plastics account for only a small part of the
"non-biodegradables" in municipal solid waste(12) (consider metals,
glass, ceramics, rubber) and these other materials are likely to be
extremely long-lived in landfills. For that matter, even paper degrades
very slowly in burial; most old-time landfill managers tell of digging up
an old portion of the fill and finding 50-year-old newspapers still
readable.
5. Plastics in Solid Waste
Diaper film amounts to only three-tenths of one percent (0.3X) of the
24,400,000 tons of plastics used in the United States).(14) For
comparison, eight times this amount was used in garbage bags alone.
Compared against the total municipal solid waste of 150,000,000 tons,
diaper film amounts to
74000 / 15090009000 = 0.0005 = 0.05% of municipal solid waste.
Franklin (12) estimates that 10,830,000 tons of plastic goes into solid
waste annually (ignoring the plastics in "durable" uses such as buildings,
major appliances, etc. , that will go into solid waste eventually). Using -
his estimate, diaper plastic amounts to 0.68% of. the plastics currently
going into municipal solid waste.
References for all sections in II above:
1. Clark, C.S. et al. , Incidence of Viral Infection Among Solid Waste
Collectors, report to Procter and Gamble Co. 1979.
2. Engelbrecht, R.S. , Biological Properties of Sanitary Landfill Leachate, in
Virus Survival in Water and Wastewater Systems, (1974).
3. Sobsey, M.D. et al., "Studies on the survival and fate of enteroviruses in
an experimental model of a municipal solid waste landfill and leachate",
Applied Microbiology U: 565 (October 1975).
4. Peterson, M.L., "Soiled Disposable Diapers: A Potential Source of
Viruses", American J. Public Health 64, 912 (1974).
5. EPA Solid Waste Research Group, Interim Report 1, Test Cell I. Boone
County Field Site (1973) (EPA file report).
6. Sobsey, M.D., "Field Survey of Enteric Viruses in Solid Waste Landfill
Leachates", American J. Public Health 68, 858 (1978).
APPENDIX II
4
7. Ware, S.A., A Survey of pathogen survival during municipal solid Waste and
manure treatment processes. EPA-600/8-80-034, August 1980.
S. Consumer diary studies, panel sizes 700 to 1500 mothers, Procter and
Gamble Co. , 1970, 19759 19809 1986.
9. Washington Post, January 18, 1985. (Current industry data supports this
estimate for 1987 also).
10. R.J. Black et al., The National Solid Waste Survey - An Interim Report.
U.S. Public Health Service, 1968.
A.J. Muhich et al., Preliminary Data Analysis, 1968 National Survey of
Solid Waste Practices. USPHS Publ. 1867 (1968).
J.H. Skinner (EPA): Resource Recovery, The National Perspective. Waste
(&e, Jan-Feb. 1974, pp. 129 14.
11. "Waste Paper, the Future of a Resource" by Franklin Associates Ltd. ,
projected from U.S. E.P.A. Fourth Report .to Congress, 1977, Table 2.
12. U.S. E.P.A., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States, 1960-2000, final report, July 11, 19869 by Franklin Associates Ltd.
13. Wigh, B.J. , Landfill Research at the Boone County Field Site, Municipal
Environmental Research Lab., EPA. Feb. 1984. NTIS PB84-161546.
14. Modem Plastics, Jan.-Feb. , 1987.
0637
I
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: July 5, 1989
To: Internal Operations Committee
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
By: Vickie L. Dawes, Deputy County Counsel
Re: Authority to prevent disposal of Unrinsed Single-Use
Diapers in Solid Wastestream
This responds to the request of the Internal Operations
Committee for a report from the County Counsel on the authority of
the Board of Supervisors or the County Health Officer to regulate
the practice of disposing of single-use plastic-covered diapers
into the solid wastestream without rinsing before disposal,
resulting in human excrement being released into the solid
wastestream rather than into the sewage system.
It is the duty of the County Health Officer to enforce and.
observe in the unincorporated territory of the county all
ordinances and orders of the Board of Supervisors pertaining to the
public health and sanitary matters, as well as all orders, rules,
and regulations by the State Department of Health Services and all
statutes relating to public health. (Health & Saf . Code, g 452. )
Although it is preferable for disposable diapers to be rinsed
before being discarded, the definition of "refuse" which may be
deposited in a "refuse disposal site" under the County Ordinance
Code includes "putrescible solid or liquid wastes originating from
household . . . activity, including sewage, sewage effluent, sewage
sludge, or any admixture of any of these substances with another of
them or with any other substance. " (Ord. Code, S 418-4.006 . )
Under this provision, it is lawful for unrinsed single-use diapers
to be deposited in a refuse disposal site. However, under the
Ordinance Code chapter governing "Mandatory Subscription, " the
definition of "solid waste" does not include "sewage. " (Ord. Code,
5 418-6 .002(d) . ) Thus, although sewage, including unrinsed
diapers, may be deposited in the refuse disposal site, the
Ordinance Code does not authorize it being placed in the solid
waste containers used by people at their homes . It is a violation
of the County Ordinance Code to fail to subscribe to a service for
the collection and disposal of solid waste, but it is not clear
whether it is also a violation of the Ordinance Code to include
unrinsed disposable diapers , in the refuse container. (Ord. Code,
7.
Internal Operations Committee -2- July 5; 1989
§ .418-6.010. ) In the opinion of County Counsel, the Board of
Supervisors could by ordinance specifically require that used
disposable diapers be subject to collection as solid waste and that
prior to collection all owners and subscribers rinse into the
sewage system the human excrement from diapers submitted for
disposal.
VLD:tb:df
W E D 1 5 0 4 8 P 0 2
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 200
Martinez, California 94553
Extension 4920
DATE: July 5, 1989
TO: Claude L. 21b=ert,.64D1eCWt0r'�6f
nt County Administrator
FROM: Barton J. General Services
SUBJECT: Report to Internal Operations Committee on Purchase of
Plastics
Attached in a memo from Cliff Baumer, Purchasing Services
Officer, regarding cloth diapers, plastic cups and other products
made with recycled plastic and other secondary materials, and
recycled paper products.
The memo will give the Committee members some advance
information. We will attend the meeting and will be prepared to
answer any questions they may have. Please let me know if you
need anything further prior to the July 10th Committee meeting.
BJG:dcg
Attachment
S - e9 W ED 1 !5 : 48 F ' _ 03
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Purchasing Division
1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 101
Martinez, California 94553
646-2174
DATE: July 3, 1989
TO: Barton J. Gilbert, Director of General Services
FROM: Cliff Baumer, Purchasing services officer
SUBJECT: Report to Internal Operations Committee on Puzc ase of
Plastic Products
The 10 Committee has referred four items to us for response. The
first item deals with cloth diapers.
Currently, the County buys in excess of 45,000 childrens'
disposable diapers annually. This works out to a monthly average
of approximately 3,750. in addition, over 12,000 adult disposal
diapers are purchased annually.
Costs vary with quantities and sizes. Infant diapers range from
$.0975 each for the newborn to $1.79 each for the large size.
The average cost for all infant diapers is 26 cents:. Adult
diapers range from 30 cents to about 52 cents each depending on
the size. The average is 46 cents. Total average price for
all diapers is about 30 cents each.
As alternatives to the disposable diapers, the County could
purchase its own diapers and clean them or it could contract for
a diaper service. I have not considered the purchase of diapers
in that the County no longer has its own laundry facilities. I
don't believe anybody seriously envisions this as a viable
alternative.
Turning to laundry services, we have contacted other hospitals to
find out if they contract for this type of service, and if so,
who they contract with. John Muir, Los Medanos and the V.A.
Hospitals in Martinez and Palo Alto all use disposable diapers
only. Mt. Diablo Hospital^ uses mostly disposable diapers,
although some cloth diapers are purchased and cleaned at their
own laundry facility.
Turning to other resources, we contacted a number of companies to
determine if they could provide a diaper service, and if so, some
idea of the cost. A small number of vendors are able to do so.
The costs appear to be quite favorable, ranging from
approximately 10 to 15 cents per diaper. This includes all
laundry, pick-up and delivery, hampers, bags, and other services
such as training. The only problem that we have uncovered is a
reluctance to service adult diapers. Evidently, this is due to
concerns gelated to the medications given to adults as opposed to
U L S - e 9 W E D 1 5 = 4 9 P _ @ 4
those given to children, if this appears to be an unresolvable
problem, we could continue with the disposable diapers and at the
same time contract for service for the infants. Such a plan
would reduce the number of diapers to be disposed of by some 75%.
From a cost standpoint, it would seem that converting to a diaper
service would be most beneficial to the County in addition to
meeting the environmental questions which have been raised.
This analysis is centered on cost only, and does not take into
consideration any operational changes which may be required at
the County Hospital. I believe it appropriate to have Hospital
Staff comment on that aspect.
The second item referred to us concerned using paper cups. On
February 21, we reported the costs of styrofoam cups and an
alternative of useing polystyrene cups. The prices stated in
that memorandum are still current. As an additional alternative,
paper cups are readily available. Listed below are comparative
prices and useages.
Styrofoam cups: Useage Costs
6-oz. (hot &cold) @ $ 9.10/cs(1000) 480 cs $4,368
14-oz. (hot & cold) @ 22. 84/cs(350) 335 cs 7,651
Total $12,019
Paper cups:
6-oz. (hot & cold) @ $ 29.50/cs(1000) 480 cs $14,160
12-oz. (h&cno hndl) @ 130.00/cs(2500) 47 cs 6,923
Total $21,083
There would be a significant cost difference in shifting to the
paper cups, however, it may be that the Board feels that this
difference is outweighed by other factors. I should point out
that such a price difference may have a serious effect on at
least one operation. This the Senior Nutrition Project. I
understand that they have a very limited budget, and that any
increase may seriously impair their operations. I suggest that
Paul Kraintz may want to address the IO Committee on this point.
Other departments which use styrofoam cubs are; Probation,
..Hospital..,&...the..sheriff.
As far as purchasing and supplying these products, if directed
we will discontinue the purchase of styrofoam cups in favor of
paper cups only.
The third item referred concerned the feasibility of developing
guidelines for the purchase of products made with recycled
plastic and other secondary materials. This item is more
difficult to address as it is a general referral and not product
specific. I am currently working with staff from the Community
Development Department as well as their consultant to determine
suitable products which fall into these categories. Once they
are identified, I will be in a position to discuss establishing
guidelines for their purchase. September 1 has been targeted as
the date we want to have this completed.
2
8 9 W E D 1 S = 5 0 P _ 0 5
Currently, all of our paper towel and toilet tissue purchases are
made of recycled products. This was reported to the Internal
Operations Committee last fall. That policy has not changed. We
are not purchasing recycled paper for copiers at this time due
to significantly higher costs. Also, availability is difficult.
This was explained by one vendor who told us recycled paper is a
low demand item. The mills producing this would rather produce
quality white paper. The demand for white paper is increasing
dramatically and machine time used to produce paper is critical.
The cost of producing recycled bond is about the same price as
that of quality copy paper. Therefore, mills are scheduling
machine time for the quality paper, rather than recycled paper.
Another vendor indicated that recycled paper was not a stock item
for them and for most paper houses in the Bay Area. They
indicated that the market for recycled paper is small. The
merchants stocking recycled paper charge a premium due to its
slow movement. Most mills make recycled paper on order and stock
very little. It costs them to switch over to produce recycled
paper due to the added expense of chemicals and labor involved.
It is more efficient and cleaner to use virgin pulp fiber. A
major vendor of recycled paper has placed a maximum on the amount
that we can order at any given time, and places a $30 premium
delivery charge on each order. it is my understanding that two
years ago this vendor won the state bid without any preference
being given. Last year they failed to bid on the State contract.
The final item referred was a request to report the feasibility
of making an annual report on the purchase of recycled products
along with additional information. Once our new computer system
is in operation; we will be able to code each item we buy. We
could assign a separate code number for each recycled product and
therefore its purchase could be tracked. it seems to me it would
be rather easy to have a report produced which would indicate the
volume of purchases for each product along with percentage
increases, etc. I would point out that any report using the main
frame computer will have an attendant cost. The more detail
required, the higher the cost. This is not currently budgeted
for, and I would think that anyone ,wanting a report would be
willing to pay for it.
The foregoing four items are due to be presented to the IO
-Committee on 'July" 10. ' Mr. Van Martex' -desires this information no
later. than Wednesday afternoon on July 5.
3 -
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez, California
DATE: July 5, 1989
TO: Supervisor Tom Powers
Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTE
FROM: Claude L. Van Marte Wt
ant County Administrator
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS WHIC RECEIVED ONLY CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
AT YOUR MEETING ON MAY 22, 1989
At your meeting on May 22, 1989 as a part of your Committee's
consideration of the report from the Solid Waste Commission on
Plastics, your Committee provided conceptual approval only to
several recommendations and asked the staff and Plastics
Subcommittee of the Solid Waste Commission to undertake further
consultation with representatives of the affected industries and
return to your Committee on July 10, 1989 with the results of
that additional consultation. The recommendations which received
only conceptual approval and which, therefore, are pending before
your Committee on July 10, 1989 include the following:
A. Direct the Community Development Director to establish,
in cooperation with the local plastics manufacturing.
industry and recyclers, a waste plastics recycling
program for the entire County, composed of the
following elements :
(1) A pilot plastics recycling program for residential
curbside collection and processing of mixed
plastics as outlined on pages 24-27 of the Solid
, Waste Commission' s report which is to be in place
by July 1, 1989.
(2) A pilot polystyrene plastics recovery and
recycling.program for restaurants, businesses and
residential customers in the entire County which
is to be in place by October 1, 1989.
(3) A full-scale waste plastics recovery and recycling
program for all curbside recycling programs and
all commercial and private recycling programs
operating in the entire County which is to be in
place by December 31, 1990.
The waste plastics recycling activities shall include
at a minimum all containers and packaging products made
from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) , high and low
density polyethylene (HDPE, LDPE) , polystyrene (PS) ,
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) , and polypropylene (PP) as
they are described in the Solid Waste Commission ' s
report.
B. Direct the :Community; Development Director to work with
the franchising cities and sanitary districts in the
County in an effort to encourage each of those
jurisdictions to assist in making the waste plastics
recycling program a reality countywide by enacting a
similar program in their jurisdictions .
C. Direct the Community Development Director to prepare an
amendment to the County' s Solid Waste Management Plan
to incorporate the waste plastics recycling program
into the County' s Solid Waste Management Plan.
D. Direct the Community Development Director to require
the operators of allrefuse transfer stations in the
County to extract waste plastic materials, as defined
in the Solid Waste Commission' s report, from all solid
wastes processed in their facilities .
E. Indicate that it is the Board of Supervisors ' intent to
impose a ban, and recommend that each city in the
County impose a similar ban, on the continued use of
plastic containers or packaging materials if the waste
plastics recycling program has not been fully
implemented by December 31, 1990.
F. Indicate that it is the Board of Supervisors intent to
impose a ban, and recommend that each city in the
County impose a similar ban, on the manufacture of
plastic containers and packaging materials if the waste
plastics recycling program has not been fully
implemented by December 31, 1990.
G. Direct the County Administrator to include in the
County's 1990 Legislative Program a request that
counties and cities be given the authority to place a
product disposal charge on all plastic containers and
packaging materials at the point of sale, to include at
a minimum plastic grocery bags, single-use plastic
diapers and plastic soft drink, milk and water
containers as well as other multi-material,
multi-layered and aseptic packages. The proceeds of
the product disposal charge fees levied by the County
and cities would generate -: a fund to facilitate and
promote plastic recycling activities in the County.
H. Direct the Community Development Director to determine
the appropriate product disposal charge for each type
of packaging and recommend a fee schedule to the Board
of Supervisors and each city in the County once it is
clear that the County and cities will have the
authority to impose such a fee.
I. Direct the Community. Development Director to identify
any difficult-to-recycle plastic containers and
packaging that are unable to meet the waste plastic
recycling program goals and standards by December 31,
1990 and report to the Board of Supervisors by January
31, 1991 recommending those plastics which have been
unable to meet the goals and recommending a deadline by
which the use and sale of these products shall be
phased out unless and until such plastic products meet
the established goals and standards .
J. Request the County Purchasing Agent (Director of
General Services) to consider an addendum on purchase
order that requests vendors to use the minimum amount
of packing material which will transport and deliver
the product safely and consider imposing a penalty of
2% on the use of loose expanded polystyrene pellets as
a packing material and report his recommendations to
the Internal Operations Committee by September 1, 1989.
K. Direct the Community Development Director and
Purchasing Agent to develop guidelines for the purchase
of products made with recycled plastic and other
secondary materials . These guidelines may include
price incentives or set-aside allotments . The
Community Development Director and Purchasing Agent
shall report their findings and recommendations to the
Internal Operations Committee by September 1, 1989.
L. Direct the County Purchasing Agent to consider the
feasibility of preparing annual reports to the Board of
Supervisors and Solid Waste Commission on the extent to
which the County has been able to increase its purchase
of products made with plastic and other secondary
materials and report to the Internal Operations
Committee by September 1, 1989 on the extent to which
such reports are feasible and if not feasible what
would be required in order to make such reports
feasible.
M. Direct the Community Development Director to forward
Copies of the report of the Solid Waste Commission on
'.'Reducing Plastics -i - the Wastestream" to each city and
sanitary district in the County, urging them to enact
similar programs to those recommended to the County by
the Solid Waste Commission.
CLVM:eh
ioc
cc: Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development
David Okita, Assistant Director, Community Development
Sheila Cogan, Resource Recovery Specialist
Bart Gilbert, Director of General Services
Cliff Baumer, Purchasing Manager
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C O N T R AC O S T A C O U N T Y
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez, California
DATE: July 5, 1989
TO: Supervisor Tom Powers
Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak
INTERNAL OPERATIONS, VTEE
FROM: Claude L. Van Martestant County Administrator
SUBJECT: STATE LEGISLATION DEALING WITH THE DISPOSAL OF PLASTICS
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND WITH THE USE OF
CHLOROFLUOROCARBON (CFC's) .
On June 6, 1989 the Board of Supervisors approved a report from
your Committee on the subject of plastics . One of the
recommendations asked that staff provide your Committee on July
10, 1989 with a summary of all legislation that is designed to
facilitate or promote reduction of plastic packaging and
facilitate promotion of plastics recycling or which place
restrictions on the use of non-recyclable and excessive packaging
for consumer goods along with staff's recommendations for bills
the Board of Supervisors should support.
We have identified five bills which have been introduced in the
State Legislature on the subject of plastics this Session. These
are AB 952 (Killea) , AB 1041 (La Follette) , AB 1796 (Moore, et
al) , AB 2020 (Cortese & Vasconcellos) , and AB 2199 (Bates) . We
have also identified an additional three bills which deal with
the use, reuse and disposal of CFCs. A description of these
three bills is included because of the concern the Committee has
displayed for the environmental hazards created by the improper
use and disposal of CFCs. These three bills are AB 1332
(Peace) , AB 1718 (Hayden & Vasconcellos) , and SB 116 (Rosenthal,
et al) . A summary of the provisions of each of these bills and
their current status follows.
AB 952 (Killea) - As Chaptered.
The bill makes a technical correction to the coding which must
appear on all rigid plastic bottles and rigid plastic containers
sold in California on and after January 1, 1992 to correct a
typographical error in the code for polyethylene terephthalate.
AB 952 has passed the Legislature and was signed into law by the
Governor as an urgency measure on June 8, 1989 (Chapter 37,
Statutes of 1989) .
AB 1041 (LaFollette) - As amended May 3, 1989.
Requires the California Waste Management Board to prepare and
submit to the Governor and the Legislature by January 1, 1991 a
report on the use, disposal and recyclability of plastic
materials and containers which are not subject to the California
Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. The
report is required to include but not be limited to:
* A description of barriers to plastic collection,
separation and recycling for reuse.
* A description and comparison of current methods used in
the state, other states, and other countries to reduce
the use of, and recycle, plastic materials currently
disposed of in the state. The report is also to
contain recommendations on how the state might improve
its current programs to reduce or recycle plastic
materials.
* A description of programs under development and
potentially available for plastics collection and
recycling.
* A description of current domestic and foreign markets
for recycled plastic materials and recommendations on
how the state could improve the marketability of these
materials.
AB 1041 has passed the Assembly and is currently on referral to
the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and wildlife.
AB,.1796 (Moore, et al) - As amended June 19, 1989.
The hill enacts the Problem Plastics Elimination Act. It defines
a problem plastic as polyethylene or related organic polymeric
plastic packaging products which are not biodegradable or
recyclable.
The bill imposes a fee of 4 cents for each pound of problem
plastics manufactured or sold .for use in retail transactions and
for which there are substitute, commercially available products
that are physically or functionally identical and which are not
composed or constructed of problem plastics.
The bill requires the Department of Conservation to adopt
regulations requiring the labeling of all problem plastics
products which are sold or distributed directly to consumers to
indicate they are problem plastics .
The 4 cents per pound fee on problem plastics is to be deposited
in the Problem Plastics Elimination Fund. Money in the fund is
to be used to aid state and local agencies in recycling of waste
resulting from problem plastics . The money can also be used for
grants to nonprofit agencies, public research institutions and
small businesses engaged in research to develop methods of use or
fabrication of plastic products to minimize the deposit of
problem plastics into landfills. The money can also be used for
consumer education regarding the consequences of using problem
plastics products and their substitutes.
AB 1796 is currently on referral to the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee.
AB 2020 (Cortese & Vasconcellos) - As amended June 15, 1989.
The bill would make it unlawful, on and .after January 1, 1990" to
manufacture, distribute or sell any food service product or food
packaging product made of or with polystyrene foam plastic if the
foam product is made with a blowing agent compound which includes
CFC-12 or any other fully-halogenated CFC.
The bill would also make it unlawful, on and after January 1,
1992, to manufacture, distribute or sell any rigid polystyrene
foam product made of or with polystyrene plastic if the rigid
foam product is made with a blowing agent compound which includes
CFC-12 or any other fully-halogenated CFC if chemical substitutes
are commercially available and have received all necessary
approvals by appropriate agencies.
The bill would provide for civil penalties of $1000 per day for
each day that the violation continues . The bill authorizes a
county health officer to enforce the provisions of the bill and
authorizes a city attorney or district attorney to petition the
superior court to impose, assess and recover the civil penalties
provided for in the bill.
AB 2020 has passed the Assembly and is now awaiting a Committee
assignment in the Senate.
AB' 2199 '(Bates) - As amended .June 5, 1989.
The bill makes legislative findings regarding the problem of
disposing of plastic products . The findings specifically . note
that the policy and intent of the bill is to . facilitate the
greatest utilization of plastic containers in the waste stream
through encouraging recycling efforts and conversion to other
methods of packaging that will reduce the strain on the state' s
landfills, stimulate markets for recyclable plastic materials,
minimize ocean pollution and litter, and conserve non-renewable
natural resources.
The bill defines "plastic" as including a number of specific
materials as well as every item of organic synthetic material
that consists of polymers of high molecular weight and can be
molded, cast, extruded, drawn or laminated into objects, films
and filaments.
NA
The bill defines a plastic container very broadly as including
sacks, bottles, serving containers, or film which is primarily
intended as a disposable consumer item for final retail sale or
furnished as packaging of any product sold at retail. Plastic
container also includes all plastic disposable consumer items and
any container that has been coated, laminated or treated with
plastic.
The bill requires all local agencies to prepare, adopt and
implement a plastics recycling plan. The plan must contain at a
minimum a waste characterization study of plastic containers and
a schedule for implementation of the reuse or recycling of
specified plastic containers listed in the waste characterization
study.
The bill requires the Department of Conservation, by October 1,
1991 to establish plastic recycling and mitigation fees for
plastic containers . The revenue from the fees is placed in the
Plastics Recycling and Mitigation Fund.
The bill requires the Department of Conservation to prepare and
file a report with the Governor and the Legislature by January 1,
1991, analyzing the impacts of implementing the bill. -The bill
specifies all of the data which is to be included in the report.
The bill provides thatthe money in the Plastics Recycling and
Mitigation Fund may be used for grants to local agencies to
prepare, adopt and implement the plastic recycling plans, as well
as for other specified purposes including a public education
program.
The bill exempts, from the fee`":provisions plastic containers that
are already subject to the California Beverage Containers
Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. The bill also allows a
distributor ..to be exempted . from the fees if they can show that .
the container is manufactured from at least 50% recycled
post-consumer waste materials from plastic containers or if it can
be shown that at least 50% of the plastic containers are reused
or recycled.
The bill provides that any person convicted of a violation of its
provisions is guilty of an infraction and can be punished by a
fine of not more than $1000 per day.
AB 2199 has passed the Assembly and is now awaiting a Committee
assignment in the Senate.
The following are the three bills dealing with CFCs:
AB 1332 (Peace) - As amended June 8, 1989.
This bill, which originally prohibited the use of any plastic. in
this state which is not degradable was amended June 8, 1989. The
bill now provides that no vehicle could be registered or sold in
California effective with the 1993 model year that has an
air-conditioning system which uses chlorofluorocarbons . The bill
also authorizes the State Air Resources Board to delay the
implementation of this requirement upon finding that there is no
economically or technologically feasible alternative
air-conditioning system that does not use chlorofluorocarbons.
AB 1332 is on referral to the Assembly Committee on Natural
Resources .
AB 1718 (Hayden & Vasconcellos) - As amended May 17, 1989.
This bill makes legislative findings regarding the danger of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC' s) to the ozone layer and their
contribution to the greenhouse effect. The findings also include
the statement that 25% of the total amount of CFC's produced in
this country each year is lost to the atmosphere because of poor
maintenance, inappropriate servicing practices and leaking mobile
air conditioners .
The bill prohibits any business, on and after January 1, 1991,
from installing or servicing motor vehicle air-conditioners
without the use of approved refrigerant recycling equipment, as
it is defined in the bill. Each violation of this provision can
subject the guilty party to a civil penalty of $50 per incident,
not to exceed a total of $1000 per day.
The Bureau of Automotive Repair is required to establish and
administer a program to ensure the installation and proper use of
refrigerant recycling equipment and to certify businesses and
individuals who are trained in the service of vehicle
air-conditioners.
The bill prohibits, on and after January 1, 1991, the sale of any
refrigerant suitable for use in charging motor vehicle
air-conditioners except in containers of 15 pounds or larger
which meet U. s. Department of Transportation safety standards .
A violation of this provision can subject the guilty party to a
civil penalty of $50 per item sold, or $1000 per day, whichever
is greater.
The bill prohibits the sale, on and after January 1, 1991, of
hand-held fire extinguishers or cleaning sprays for electronic
and photographic equipment for residential consumer applications
which contain CFCs, halons or other ozone-depleting halogenated
substances if acceptable chemical substitutes are commercially
available.
The bill prohibits, on or after January 1, 1990, any business ,
from performing a "dump test" of a full flooding halon fire
suppression system using any of the ozone depleting materials
which are identified in the bill.
The bill prohibits, on and after January 1, 1990, the sale of any
chemically propelled plastic party streamers or noise horns which
contain any of the ozone depleting substances identified in the
bill.
The bill prohibits, on and after January 1, 1991, the sale of any
sterilant containing any of the ozone depleting substances
identified in the bill, providing there are acceptable chemical
substitutes commercially available.
The bill prohibits, on and after January 1, 1995, the
manufacture, assembly, packaging or . sale of any product which
contains or is manufactured or assembled with any of the ozone
depleting substances which are identified in the bill, providing
that acceptable chemical substitutes are commercially available. .
A provision is made for extensions to this date for individual
businesses under certain circumstances.
AB 1718 has passed the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety
and Toxic Materials. The bill is currently on the Assembly Ways
and Means Committee suspense file.
SB 116 (Rosenthal, et al) - As amended April 18, 1989.
The bill makes a statement of legislative findings regarding the
dangers of CFC's to the environment and notes that large
quantities of such CFC's are used in retail food refrigeration
and freezing systems, cold storage warehouses and
air-conditioning units used to cool large commercial and
industrial buildings. The findings also note that methods are
available that reduce emissions from CFC's and reduce the virgin
use of CFCs.
The bill prohibits the intentional venting or disposal of CFC's
from refrigeration systems and requires the reuse or recycling of
the CFC when servicing or disposing of the refrigeration system.
The bill exempts recyclable CFC' s from regulation under hazardous
waste statutes if they contain no hazardous constituents other
than those inherent in the CFC' s and if they are recycled or
reused at the site where the CFC' s were used.
The bill requires the, owner or operator of a retail store, cold
storage warehouse or commercial or industrial building which uses
a refrigeration system containing CFC's to establish an inventory
of all refrigeration systems, when they were installed, whether
or not they are operative, the total volume of CFC charge for
each unit, the last date when the unit was serviced and a
description of the type of service that was performed. The bill
also requires that effective July 1, 1990 a record of all
services performed on each unit be maintained. This record must
identify who serviced the unit, the amount of CFC put into the
unit, the amount of CFC removed from the unit, who handled the
CFC, how the CFC was handled, including whether itwas recycled
onsite or was taken off-site. This record must include
documentation of all purchases of CFC and for which units the CFC
were purchased.
The above records must be maintained at the site where the
refrigeration unit is located and must be made available on
request to a district attorney and county health officer plus a
variety of state officials .
The bill provides for civil penalties of not more than $25, 000
for each separate violation or, for continuing violations, for
each day that violation continues. Any person who makes a false
statement in any of the above records or inventory is liable for
a civil .penalty not exceeding $10, 000 for each separate violation
or, for continuing violations, for each day that violation
continues .
Criminal penalties are provided for anyone convicted of
intentional venting or disposal of CFC.
The bill becomes operative July 1, 1990 .
SB 116 has passed the Senate and is currently on referral to the
Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
CLVM:eh
plastics
. L
McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN
COUNSELORS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO 18SS OLYMPIC BOULEVARD,THIRD FLOOR WALNUT CREEK OrrICE
SAN JOSE - TELEX 34-0817
POST OFFICE BOX V
WASHINGTON,O.C. FACSIMILE G1, 11 AND 111
SHANGHAI WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596-1270 (415)930-2390
TAIPEI TELEPHONE(415)937-8000 CABLE ADDRESS MACPAG
July 6, 1989
Hon. Tom Powers
Hon. Sunne McPeak
Internal Operations Committee
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Martinez , CA
Disposable Diaper Issues
Agenda of July .10 , 1989
Our File No . 72883 . 001
Dear Supervisors :
We represent Procter & Gamble which is interested in
the disposable diaper issues on the agenda of the Internal
Operations Committee for July 10 , 1989 .
Representatives of Procter & Gamble have met with Dr .
Brunner to discuss the health issues which were referred to the
Health Services Department for report . We understand that Dr .
Brunner will report orally to the Committee on Monday. Due to
the absence of a written report and our inability to reach him
by telephone, we have been unable to learn his conclusions .
, This has made .it difficult to prepare for the meeting. We have
no reason to believe that Dr . Brunner ' s conclusions will be
unfavorable to our client ' s position. If by chance we disagree
his report, we will ask the Committee to continue the items to
a subsequent meeting when adequate time will be available for
the Committee to hear the response of Procter & Gamble. The
fifteen minutes alloted for "our presentation would not be
sufficient if Dr . Brunner ' s conclusions differ from ours .
In the meantime 'we enclose for your information:
1 . Procter & Gamble ' s letter of June 16 to Dr .
Brunner discussing the health benefits and disposal of
disposable diapers .
Hon. Tom Powers
Hon. Sunne McPeak '
July 6 , 1989
Page 1
2 . Procter & Gamble' s June 23 letter regarding the
absence of risk to sanitation workers .
3 . The June 20 press kit regarding pilot programs for
recycling and composting of disposable diapers .
Very truly yours ,
SanfoM. Skaggs
SMS/mhz/1
0111X
J
' McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN
COUNSELORS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO 1855 OLYMPIC BOULEVARDS THIRD FLOOR WALNUT CREEK OFFICE
SAN JOSE TELEX 34-0817
POST OFFICE BOX V
WASHINGTON,D.C.
FACSIMILE GIS It AND 111
SHANGHAI WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596-1270 (415)930-2390
TAIPEI TELEPHONE(415)937-6000
CABLE ADDRESS MACPAG
June 20 , 1989
HAND DELIVERED
.Internal Operations Committee
Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Attention: Claude Van Marter
July 10 Agenda of Internal Operations Committee
Our File No. 72883. 001
Dear Supervisors :
We represent Proctor & Gamble which is interested in the
reports and recommendations which will be presented to your
Committee at its meeting on July 10, 1989 relating to
disposable diapers .
Proctor & Gamble would like to make a presentation to the
Committee at its July 10 meeting. We anticipate that the
presentation will take approximately twenty to thirty minutes.
Participants from Proctor & Gamble will have to travel from out
of town so we need to know in advance whether we have been
included on the agenda. Please let my secretary know by
calling her at the above number .
We appreciate your attention to this matter .
Very truly yours,
21 d M. Skaggs
SMS: ks4/29
cc: Sunne McPeak
Tom Powers
(Dictated but not read. )
07/
DANIEL S. GREENSAUM
Commissioner
Division of January 23, 1989
Solid Waste
Management
1 Winter Street T. W. F. Hughes
Boffin, MA 02108 District Manager
L. James Miller Patient Care Products
Director Proctor & Gamble
P.O. Box 9125
Braintree, MA 02185
Dear Mr. Hughes:
Under Massachusetts' existing hazardous waste regulations
(310 CMR 30.000), used disposable diapers are .not considered
a hazardous waste and do not require disposal in a hazardous
waste management facility.
The above mentioned item is routinely disposed of in a
sanitary landfill or other solid waste disposal facility.
Sincerely,
Beatrice Nessen
Chief, Policy & Regulation
Section
BN/mc
10D% Recycled Paper
STATE OF MICHIGAN
NATURAL.RESOURCES COMMISSION
MARLEN J. ANDERSON +
GORDONNE J. UYER TY
GODE GUVER
KERRY WARMER
OSTEW ART MYERS JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Governor
.
DAVID D
LSON
RAYMONDOPOUPORE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING
I P.O. BOK 30028
LANSING. MI 48909
y DAVID F. NAUS. OM4tlM
May 24, 1989
Mr. Gary L. Waits
Manager, Regulatory Services
Patient Care Products
The Procter and Gamble Distributing Company
1 Procter and Gamble Plaza
Cincinnati , OH 45202-3315
Dear Mr. Waits:
Thank you for your May 16, 1989 letter regarding Medical waste. Our
responses are as follows:
1. Michigan opted out of the Federal Program.
2. Emergency rules regulating medical waste were promulgated by the
Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH) on April 26, 1989.
A copy is enclosed. Mr. Larry Chadzynski with MDPH is the
appropriate contact regarding these rules. (Telephone: 335-8637)
3. Soiled diapers are considered routine solid waste.
If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Kim Paksi, Waste
Characterization Unit, at 517-373-7895.
Sincerely,
�- y.
Alan J. Howard, Chief
Waste Management Division
517-373-9523
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Delbert Rector
Ms. Kim Paksi
a,ozc 15�
arae
scee of on�o,r•, ut P�wection Aoe,q
P.O. Box 1049, 1800 WaterMark Dr.
Columbus,Ohio 43266-0149 Richard F.Celeste
Governor
May 17, 1989
Gary L. Waits
Manager, Regulatory Services
Patient Care Products (4-C)
Procter and Gamble
1 Procter and Gamble Plaza
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3315
Dear Mr. Waits,
The Director has asked me to respond to your inquiry of May 16,
1989 regarding the Medical Waste Tracking Act and Ohio's
infectious waste law, and the classification of soiled diapers.
In response to your first question, on April 20, 1989 Governor
Celeste informed Administrator Rielly of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency that Ohio would not be participating in the
Medical Waste Tracking Program. Ohio has an infectious waste
statute, Senate Bill 243 which was passed and later modified with
passage of Amended Substitute House Bill 592, which was signed
into law on June 24, 1988. Draft regulations to implement Ohio's
law are currently in internal review and should be available for
interested parties by the last week in May. I would be most
happy to send you a copy of the draft for your comments.
House Bill 592 specifically addresses waste that has been
contaminated or is potentially contaminated with infectious
agents. This would not include all medical waste as the federal
program does. Therefore, the determination of whether a soiled
diaper or adult incontinence garment is an infectious waste or
not is dependent upon whether the infant or adult has an
infectious disease. Consequently, the determination must be made
on a case by case basis by a health care professional. This
statute does not apply to single family residential premises
where infectious or potentially infectious wastes have been
generated by individuals for purposes of their own care or
treatment. These wastes may be disposed of with solid wastes
from the individuals residence (H.B.592 section 3734.02 (D) ) .
Gary L. Waite
May 17, 1989 s
Page 2
I hope that I have addressed all your questions. If you should
need further information, please feel free to contact me at (614)
644-2917.
Sincerely
Alison M. Shockley
Infectious Waste S ialist
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
AMS/
Sp.ame.lettersout
cc Nancy Moore
Dan Harris
Air
• State of Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
BUDDY ROEMER PAUL TEMPLET
Governor May 24, 1989 Secretary
Mr. G. L. Waits (4-C)
Procter & Gamble
1 Procter & Gamble Plaza
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3315
Dear Mr. Waits:
Your correspondence dated May 169 1989 has been received. The following are
the replies to your questions.
The State of Louisiana at this time has developed draft rules and regulations
regarding infectious waste. In their draft form, these rules and regulations are as
strict, and in some cases more stringent than federal guidelines require. While some
revisions are anticipated before the final version is complete, the rules and regulations
will remain at least as stringent as the federal guidelines. Attached for your
information is a copy of the draft documents.
Soiled disposable diapers are currently anticipated to be considered routine solid
waste except for cases where the patient is isolated to protect others from highly
communicable diseases.
It is hoped that this letter satisfactorily addresses your questions. Should you
have any further questions, please feel free to contact this section.
Sincerely,
g7"e '-V.G
James H. Brent, Ph. D.
Program Manager
Medical Waste Section
JHB:DAM:jtl
Attachment
OFFICE OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE P.O. BOX 44307 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Canpl/4.Be*adny
Secretary
BOX 7921
MADISON,WISCONSIN 53707
May 16, 1989 File Ref: 4400
G. L. Waits (4-C)
Proctor & Gamble
1 Proctor & Gamble Plaza
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3315
Dear Mr. Waits,
This letter is in response to your May 16, 1989 transmittal in
which you requested information regarding Wisconsin's
implementation of the federal Medical Waste Tracking Act.
More specifically, you asked:
1. Is Wisconsin going to follow the federal guidelines? Our
Governor chose to opt out of the federal pilot program.
However, we believe that our existing solid waste regulations
and guidelines, specific to the treatment and handling of
infectious waste, are compatible with the federal guidelines.
Until we have had the opportunity to fully evaluate the
results of the EPA pilot program and the programs of our
neighboring states, we believe our current program is
sufficient to manage medical waste in Wisconsin.
2. Are copies of Wisconsin's regulations and guidelines
available? We are putting the finishing touches on an
information package that contains among other things, the
information you have requested. I anticipate the package will
-�--�� be ready by the end of May and I have asked my staff to send
the package to you under separate cover.
3. Are soiled disposable diapers classified as routine solid
waste in Wisconsin? Yes.
Should you have other questions or need further clarification of
the answers contained herein, please contact my staff in the Bureau
of Solid and Hazardous Waste at (608) 267-7555.
Sincerely,
Licirf9F. Wible, Administrator
Division for Environmental Quality
cc: Paul P. Didier - SW/3
(A%to-k.,.•ayslh 15tate of AtIn Jersey
Ulil A TIT1F.NTOF FNV11?O.N%1F.N AI.PR )'I I ('I 1()\
DONALD A. DEIVS0. 140).
".\\\
Assistant Commissioner
for EnOronmental Management and Control
CN a(t_
Trenton.N1 (18625-(Moll
(609)292-M58
June 8, 1989
Mr. Gary L. Waits (4-C)
Proctor & Gamble
1 Proctor & Gamble Plaza
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3315
Dear Mr. Waits:
This is in response to your letter of May 16, 1989 to the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) requesting information regarding
the regulation of medical waste in New Jersey. You have raised three specific
questions in your letter.
The first two questions pertain to existing and future regulations regarding
medical waste tracking. The tracking of medical waste in New Jersey is currently
controlled by regulations enacted on an emergency basis on August 10, 1988, which
are enclosed for your information. Future regulations will be adopted in the
very near future as required by the "Comprehensive Regulated Medical Waste
Management.Act,"' which was signed into law on March 69 1989. I have enclosed a
copy of this statute per your request. The third question you have raised
pertains to the waste classification of soiled diapers. Currently, soiled
diapers are classified as municipal solid waste, I.D. 10, and are managed for the
purposes of disposal in accordance with the Department's solid waste flow rules.
Should you have any further questions concerning regulated medical waste
management in New Jersey, please contact the Medical Waste Advisement Program
directly at (609) 984-7840.
` ncerel ,
1
Donald A. Deieso, Ph.D.
Assistant Commissioner
Enclosures
Alen-Jcrsex is an Equal Opp riumt%F_inploNer
Rer}cled Paprr
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
NEED DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ,
PEN N S Y L VA N I A Post Office Box 2063
Kim qW Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
June 6, 1989
Deputy Secretary for
717-787-5028
Environmental Protection
Mr. G. L. Waits (4-C)
Procter do Gamble
One Procter be Gamble Plaza
Cincinatti, OH 45202-3315
Dear Mr. Waits:
This is in response to your letter of May 16, 1989 regarding Pennsylvania's implementa-
tion of the federal Medical Waste Tracking Act. I will answer each of your three questions in the
order that you raised them.
1. Pennsylvania decided not to participate in the demonstration program under the Medical
Waste Tracking Act. We have regulations (25 Pa. Admin. Code Chs. 271-285) under our
Solid Waste Management Act, as well as additional legislation under Act 93 of 1988, which
specifically address infectious and chemotherapeutic waste. As a result, we have a more
comprehensive and permanent basis for regulating infectious and chemotherapeutic waste
than is provided in the two-year demonstration program under the federal legislation. We
are implementing our infectious and chemotherapeutic waste regulatory program through
these municipal waste regulations as well as additional regulations to implement Act 93
which we intend to propose for rulemaking this July. Those regulations will borrow from the
federal regulations to some extent but, in general, we are following and developing our own
course.
2. Enclosed is a copy of our municipal waste management regulations. Those regulations, as I
indicated, contain specific provisions regarding infectious and chemotherapeutic waste. The
proposed amendments to those regulations will be available sometime after they are proposed
by our Environmental Quality Board in July.
3. Our view is that soiled disposable diapers are not infectious waste if generated by well
individuals. However, if the disposable diapers are generated by patients or residents, who
are in isolation or are known or suspected of having an infectious disease, the diapers must
be handled as infectious waste.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Si erely,
Ma M. McClellan
Deputy Secretary
Environmental Protection
Enclosure
ATTACHIOTT II
tmtycTS DISCARDED Um TYL MunCly o VA3T2 STAEA)f 1960 i0 2000
7if as sots eand
IVtfnoel9 OtlCAllta »rte 7111 x97KC7lAL vArtz ATM 1960 "logo
u lens et feu]
Ipso IM 1lLQ 3U 19fi mu 1!!3 mu JWA M au m Im
7erablo Duda
major ur""Cae 1.3 1.0 2.4 1.1 2.7 1.1 2.1 2.4 1.6 1.3 Lt 1.4 1.1 2.1
fetelturs ad hrauuals 1.2 1.7 3.4 4.1 3.1 1.3 6.0 613 4.0 LA L6 6*4 7,2 1.0
tubbar tire& 0.4 1.0 1.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7
mlasal"Geeaa 1"allas 6.6 3.4 4.3 7.0 7.7 7.4 4.1 1.4 8.7 - 1.3 1.3 9.t 10.0 10.3
TOTAL PuLuL21 9.1 10.1 13.9 13.1 17.4 11.2 Lt.1 19.0 319.4 ILO 7.9.1 20.2 U.7 23.0
maadutriU goods
mevapaters 3.3 6.3 7.1 4.4 1.1 1.4 1.6 4.3 1.1 9.0 1.1 9.3 10.2 11.1
loeu sad mquue4 1.4 2.1 2.1 La 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.4 4,4 4.4 4.4 1.0 1.6 6.6
office htaa 1.3 1.1 1.0 2.0 3.1 3.1 3.s 2.6 4.2 4.1 3.0 1.1 64 7.3
Oaareisl ptiatial 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.1 3.4 1.4 3.2 3.4 4.0 4.6
7168" tater 4sd levels 1.1 1.$ 2.1 1.1 2.4 1.4 1.4 2.4 1.4 2.4 2.1 3.2 3.5 3.4
Other msmpaaulsal Paper 1.1 4.1 1.4 3.6 A.3 4.6 6.3 1.0 4.7 $.1 3.3 3.1 4.6 6.9
ClMUg ed ]eetwaar 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.3 2.4 2.a 1.3 1.9 2.7 3.0 1.4 1.4 3.1
Other mistall4"esa Mmdersblu 0.4 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.4 1.3 1.3 2.7 2.6 •2.8 3.1 3.4 4.1
TOM 10MMMA1ti! 131.1 19.2 21.4 10.1 U.6 31.4 a$.2 3L3 32.0 34.2 31.4 39.3 42.7 478
9wts"Ors sat p"bs"O .
01ua
lent and Oft crick lsttlu 1.3 1.3 Lt 3.1 6.0 6.0 3.1 1.4 4.4 6.7 6.3 a.4 4.3 4.1
W" sad 1314wr settles 0.9 L4 U.t 3.0 3.4 Lt 3.2 1.3 2.1 1.2 2.1 3.2 2.1 2.1
goal ad mar tattle 4 34{0 3.6 6.1 4.6 4.4 4,1 4.4 4.1 1.7 4.1 4.3 401 4.6 401 6.3
74te1 414" 3.1 4.0 11.7 11.3 13.2 13.3 LL I 12.3 31,7 33,1 10.7 13.2 11.0 10.4
steal
3"r ud soft lltll uai 0.4 Mi 1.4 1.2 4.3 6.2 4.1 0.1 0.1 o,l 4.3 0.1 0.1 0.1
teed sed Other 06me 1.7 3.4 3.3 3.3 1.7 2.1 1.3 1.3 2.3 2.3 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.4
Other steel habssiat 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3
36014%64 4.4 6.1 3.3 6.1 3.4 3.1 Lt 1.1 1.4 Lt 1.7 2.6 LA Lt
d2ud.e,�
seer sad salt 0sieh Cama 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 G.J. 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.1 1.0
Otha$ Cama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
soli lad CLsrres 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Lt 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3
taut 6U,ataw 0.2 6.3 04 0.1 0.1 0.3 L1 0.1 0.1 1.0 31.0 1.1 LA LI
rater 41414 16Pe041"l
Camseted Inas 4.7 1.6 9.7 Lt W 0 11.3 1.1 10.1 33.1 16.1 21.4 22.3 11.1 11.9
Othat paperboard 3.1 6.1 4.3 1.9 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.1 3:0 S.2 44 1.0 1.0
taper pum" 2.7 3.4 3.4 1.9 3.7 3.1 3.7 3.9 4.1 3.9' 3.0 4.6 4.7 4.1
lou" poor 33.0 14.1 11.4 34.3 14.4 21.1 17.1 19.3 10.1 29.9 70.4 12.0 13.4 23.4
21"tisa
tLatic 0omt41"" 6.1 0.3 0.1. 2.3 3.1 1.1 3.6 L2 2.4 Lt 1.4 L1 3.6 3.9
01ha$ ►"hssirt 0.1 L7 1.1 144 9.1 2.1 1.1 3.6 1.4 3.1 3,1 3.2 3.2 4.3
fetal pluttea 0.2 LO 3.1 Lt 6,1 6.3 4.2 4.6 1.0 1.3 3.6 4.1 1.2 1.1
t]ud hehm" L0 LO 1.1 LO L1 1.1 3.0 1.6 3.0 L1 LL 1.0 LO LO
eeh.r riea.u...m. ►"bass" 6.1 0.1 '0.1 6.1 0.1 - 4.3 0.2 L3 0.1 0.1 L3 9.3 0.2 0.3
MAL OOR7Ata11
Atm PACCIOile 34.0 21.0 11.3 31.9 42.1 43.0 4Lt 41.1 43.1 62.3 62.1 63.6 44.1 30.7
IQ= MOM 1100992 MAM 44.3 60.3 74.7 71.6 si.s 00.2 07.4 11.0 93.9 94.1 07.4 104.2 111.3 221.2
41t"T Waseca
POW vasteo 11.2 U.4 U.1 13.4 11.9 12.L 12.0 11.0 LL3 12.3 12.3 312.3 ULA U.3
Tari wastes 20.0 11.6 23.3 13.2 34.3 16.7 27.0 17.3 37.1 11.0 24.3 21.3 31.0 31.0
MLS444 OAMW lurIM44 Vesta$ 1.3 1.6 1.1 3.0 2.3 1.3 1.6 2.41 L4 1.3 4.6 3.1 3.0 Lt
IOUL 02121 YAtits 33.1 21.6 37.9 60.6 40.1 4L,L 41.4 41.t 43.4 42.6 43.4 "It 4.4 47.1
101AL mAsist s1t WOO 21.7 96.1 142.3 116.2 L39.3 111.2 US.0 L%.3 134.3 137.3 Leg.6 449.0 114.9 161.4
Sam agoras" 0.s 0.4 L7 1.7 L3 3.3 300 hl 7.6 1.1 13.3 32.3 a$.0
MIT mAsts! AMARO 1 a$.7 11.1 LU.1 LU.1 MS US.3 123.6 US.1 231.4 219.7 131.1 1.21.7 134.4 136.1
_rraetu dsuarded aft"wearials raasver7 tae uham Pius.
ae mmutitel @slid mutt 4eeataed for "orgy peeav@ry. Oa" "t lmaluo ruiseeo.
7tui1@ map Mt Yd 18 t414U 408 to fhl8dsa4•
Sseasa 7rsmldu A"DuAcM. 184.
a0! �CC)j
J e: ♦ 1
1
}
i c A
It
✓M
.. - RAl
� t{:
Procter J:
P. i . on
�rz
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
PAPER PRODUCTS DIVISION'
1 PROCTER&GAMBLE PLAZA.CINCINNATI.OHIO 45202-3313
PROCTER & GABBLE ANNOUNCES
TWO SOLID WASTE INITIATIVES FOR DISPOSABLE DIAPERS
FOR RELEASE JUNE 20, 1989
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: T. SCOTT STEWART
(513) 983-8058
Procter & Gamble announced today two more initiatives to help
address the solid waste issue. These new pilot programs will
look at recycling and composting disposable diapers.
Mr . Nicolosi , vice president of Paper Products, explained the
reason for these initiatives this way, "Several years ago,
Procter & Gamble recognized that management of solid waste was a
growing concern in communities across the country; and at that
time we made a commitment to begin to develop innovative
approaches for managing our products in the solid waste stream. .
Our initiatives have included support of industry-wide coding on
bottles to aid plastics recycling and use of post-consumer
recycled plastic in our- Spic and Span, Downy, Cheer and Tide
bottles .
Mr . Greene, associate director of Research and Development,
pointed out, "that we have also initiated programs to use less,
these include a 508 reduction in diaper volume through the use
of super absorbent materials and 808 reduction in package volume
through use of compression packaging. "
Procter &• Gamble supports the Environmental Protection Agency's
goals to reduce our reliance on landfalls and reclaim materials
through recycling and reuse. "Today we bury 808 of our solid
waste, but based on' its" composition, it is possible we could
recycle or compost up to 808 -- that must be our goal, " Greene
said. "Today's announcements detail some innovative responses
for handling one of our products, disposable diapers, and other
materials in municipal solid waste in ways that can by-pass
landfill disposal and recover valuable resources. "
These new efforts are: 1), a project in Seattle to test the
feasibility of recycling "disposable diapers, and 2 ) a project in
St. Cloud, Minnesota to demonstrate that composting is a viable
disposal method for municipal solid waste. In addition to these
initiatives, Procter & Gamble will be sponsoring a research
project to study biodegradability in landfills, especially as it
relates to diapers.
more -
li 1. ..., ,..... . . ...
2 -
The first project initiative will be mounted in cooperation with
Seattle's Solid waste Utility and the Rabanco Company of
.Seattle. It is designed to demonstrate whether disposable
diaper recycling is technically and economically feasible in a
major municipal area. Here is how the project will work :
• 1 ,000 participating households will place their used
disposable diapers in special recycled plastic bags .
The bags will be picked up at curbside weekly, no
matter which brand they use.
• The diapers will be transported to a recycling center
where they will be washed, separated, and sanitized.
• The sanitized pulp can be re-used in products such as
cardboard boxes, building insulation and wallboard
liner .
• The plastic will be recycled into products such as
flower pots , garbage bags and architectural lumber for
landscaping purposes .
"Our aim is not to get into the diaper recycling business on a
permanent basis, " said project coordinator, Dr . Nancy Eddy.
"Rather we want to demonstrate that the technology is feasible
and encourage entrepreneurs to get involved in this business. "
The other Procter & Gamble initiative will be conducted in
conjunction with Recomp Inc. of St. Cloud, Minnesota. "Our
St. Cloud effort is designed to demonstrate another viable
technology for handling diapers and municipal solid waste that
makes use of the resources available, " Dr . Eddy said. we want
to illustrate that most materials in municipal solid waste,
including diapers, can be composted to create humus, a form of
soil . This humus can then be used to reestablish fertile land
along highways affected. by..winter salt use, for an organic
garden supplement, and ar, a base for laying sod, " Eddy said.
Some highlights of the second initiative:
• St. Cloud, in conjunction with Recomp Inc. , is already
engaged in this unique but practical approach of
recycling the 'city' s waste -- fully 2/3 of all the
town' s trash -- at the St. Cloud Transfer and
Recycling Facility.
• The technique used produces no odor since composting
occurs in an enclosed vessel . The process of
recycling and composting the remaining waste is highly
efficient, reducing waste volume by 70% while
producing a quality, organic humus .
more -
3 -
• while diapers are already part of the waste being
composted, Procter & Gamble will add higher quantities
of diapers to the process. At one to two percent of
solid waste , 'diapers cannot be easily identified going ,
into the composter. By increasing the quantity of
diapers, Procter & Gamble will be able to study the
composting process and understand it more fully. It
has been estimated that 80% of all the city' s waste
can eventually be composted -- including -disposable .
diapers .
In addition to the initiatives , Procter & Gamble will also help
sponsor a scientific project to examine biodegradability in
landfills , particularly as it relates to diapers.
Mr . Bob Greene: "All diapers are more than 90% biodegradable
under the right conditions . However, for biodegradation to
occur , water and air must reach the refuse . Given the way
landfills are constructed with refuse being compacted and buried
every day, very little air or moisture ever reaches trash.
Therefore , we and many scientists believe that not much
biodegrades in landfills, including newspapers, food and
"biodegradable diapers . "
Eddy added, "Procter & Gamble is concerned that if
biodegradability continues to be seen as a solution to the solid
waste problem, it will hamper the development of viable
recycling technologies that represent true solutions'. To
illustrate the point, Dr. Robert Ham, of the University of
Wisconsin, will conduct a five year program to monitor the fate
of disposable diapers in landfills. "
Procter & Gamble will collect used, current diapers and those
claiming to be biodegradable, for Dr . Ham to bury in working
landfill sites in Wisconsin, Florida, and the Northeast. Dr .
Ham will dig. up a portion of the diapers and other municipal
solid waste each year and monitor changes in these materials and
the impact on landfill volume .
Eddy concluded, "Procter& Gamble realizes that the municipal
solid- waste dilemma isnot an easy one and has no single
solution. But we are committed to the well-being of our
customers and the environment in which they live . We do not
know if our present initiatives will prove to be the ultimate
solution -- we will continue to explore ideas and introduce new
initiatives focusing on comprehensive solutions for solid waste
management. "
x
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
PAPER PRODUCTS DIVISION
I PROCTER B GAMBLE PLAZA,CINCINNATI,OHIO 452023113
PROCTER & GAMBLE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT PROCTER & GAMBLE'S
NEW SOLID WASTE INITIATIVES AND A RESEARCH PROJECT
ON DISPOSABLE DIAPERS AND BIODEGRADABILITY
Procter & Gamble is undertaking two initiatives and a research
project in various parts of the country that represent efforts
to find real solutions to managing solid waste .
RECYCLING DISPOSABLE DIAPERS
Procter & Gamble' s innovative Seattle initiative to recycle
disposable diapers may serve to redefine the concept of
disposable diapers . Instead of thinking of diapers as
disposable, we' ll think of them as a resource and therefore
reclaimable, and that' s good for the environment. This unique
pilot project is a team effort between the City of Seattle' s
.Solid .Waste Utility, Rabanco Corporation (which already runs the
established "Recycle Seattle" program) , and Procter & Gamble .
. At the beginning of the process are disposable diapers picked up
at curbside . At the end of the process are useful consumer
products such as flower pots, cardboard packaging and computer
paper -- all made from recycled materials. Here is how it will
work :
• First, disposable diapers of all types are collected
weekly in special recycled plastic bags, in selected
-areas ' by the City> of. Seattle. As many as 1 , 000
families a week could be served at the beginning.
•. Next, the collected diapers are delivered to the
Rabanco Corporation diaper recycling center. Here the
reusable components of the diaper are separated and
sanitized. The result? Plastic from the diaper
backsheets and paper pulp from the diaper padding.
0 Finally, the reclaimed materials from the recycled
diapers are used to produce other useful products,
ranging from plastic flowerpots to cardboard boxes ,
drywall backing and computer paper . Nothing is wasted
-- there is even an agricultural use for the absorbent
gelling material contained in higher-quality
disposable diapers .
11EHYx IiR.GAN I!!II ii, lC\�r
u
A
COMPOSTING DISPOSABLE DIAPERS
Another step toward making the best use of our reclaimable
resources is represented by composting, a process that converts
-garbage into a rich humus, a form of soil . A cooperative effort
.:,in St. Cloud, Minnesota, in conjunction with Recomp, Inc. ,
transforms diaper components and other municipal solid waste
into humus that can be used to re-establish fertile land along
roadways affected by winter salt use; for common garden compost
use; and as a base for laying sod. Some highlights of the
process:
• The technique used produces no odor since composting
occurs in an enclosed vessel . The process is highly
efficient; trash volume ds reduced by 70 percent after
recycling and composting . And the burden on area
landfills has been reduced substantially.
• While diapers are already part of the waste being
composted, Procter & Gamble will add higher quantities
of diapers to the process . Because diapers are only
one to two percent of solid waste , it is difficult to
identify diapers going into the composter. By
increasing the volume of diapers, Procter & Gamble
wants to show that composting is a viable disposal
method for diapers and virtually all of the waste
stream. It has been estimated that 80 percent of all
the city' s waste can eventually be composted or
recycled.
BIODEGRADABILITY -- NOT A SOLUTION FOR SOLID WASTE
Procter & Gamble is funding a -research project that will provide
scientific evidence that conclusively addresses the issue of
diapers and biodegradability.
Some have proposed that "biodegradable" products, including
"biodegradable" diapers, are the answer to reducing the burden
on our local landfills. Unfortunately, there is no scientific
data to support this .
on the contrary, biodegradation in today' s landfills simply
does not occur to any meaningful extent. Fully 70 percent of
what now goes into landfills is "biodegradable" -- including
leaves, grass clippings, leftover food and newspapers . And
disposable diapers are almost 90 percent biodegradable because
paper constitutes the major component of most disposable
diapers .
The reason biodegradability shouldn' t work in landfills is
simple . Biodegradation requires air and water. Landfills are
constructed to be stable , limiting the entry of air and water
thereby minimizing the creation of methane gas and other
leachates . As a result, very little refuse biodegrades . In
fact, research has shown that readable newspapers -- up to 25
years old -- have been discovered in landfills as well as hot
dogs , chicken on the bone , and other food items .
11 ILIT W_11.1: :c;4ntlt1l
1 +
0
University researchers and environmental groups, such as the
Environmental Action Foundation and the Environmental Defense
Fund, all agree: "biodegradability" is not the answer.
Procter & Gamble , in cooperation with Dr . Robert Ham of the
University of Wisconsin,, will bury a variety of disposable
diapers -- including some claiming to be "biodegradable" -- in
working landfill sites in Wisconsin, the Northeast and Florida .
Dr. Ham will monitor what happens to these diapers for the next
1 - 5 years. At the end of the study, Procter & Gamble expects
to show conclusively that "biodegradation" is not the answer to
the landfill problem.
workable solid waste solutions do exist. They need to be
supported and implemented. . Procter & Gamble will continue to do
its part.
0
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
1 APE K PRODUC I S DIVISION
I IBOUtR 6 GA.N16ILl PLAZA,CINCINNATI,OHIO 45202-3315
SOLID WASTE
THE- PROCTER & GAMBLE PERSPECTIVE
Procter & Gamble is a leader among corporations concerned
about protecting the environment and about creating a safer,
cleaner world for future generations. We view every
Procter & Gamble product with an eye toward ensuring that the
manufacturing process and the disposal process are as safe
and technologically advanced as they can be .
Procter & Gamble recognizes that management of solid waste is
a growing concern in communities across the country. We
firmly endorse the integrated approach to waste management
advocated by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) . We believe that this broad strategy is
essential if we are to achieve the EPA' s goal of 25 percent
reduction in municipal solid waste by 1992. The EPA approach
is fourfold:
Source Reduction -- a national commitment to reduce the
amount of material that enters the disposal and landfill
system;
Recycling and Reuse -- an emphasis on using our
resources as thoroughly as possible before they are
discarded;
Waste-toEnergy Incineration -- making the best use of
T—tem wK-chin be sa e y incinerated to provide us with
an independent source of energy;
Landfill -- for materials that fall outside the other
opt— io .
For its part, Procter & Gamble is committed to innovative
approaches to the solid waste issue. Examples of measures we
have taken include:
--Developing markets for recycled PET and HDPE plastics
through our Spic & Span, Tide , Cheer, and Downy
projects ;
--Using recycled paperboard in 70 percent of our paper
packaging;
--Supporting industry-wide coding for all plastic
bottles to promote recycling;
IIII.VK(X Ilk R?;AnV:l?
- 2 -
. �3 f
--Concentrating dry detergent formulas , resulting in a 7
percent package reduction;
--Introducing multi-function detergents like Tide with
Bleach and a triple concentrated fabric softener that
reduce packaging by 25-30 percent;
--Pioneering super-absorbent disposable diapers, which
have reduced by 50 percent the volume of diapers
entering the waste stream;
--Introducing innovative packaging like the Lenor fabric
softener refill pouch in Europe that reduces packaging
by 85 percent;
--Continuing to ensure that all of our products are safe
for incineration or landfills for areas that choose
those methods of waste disposal .
since our founding in 1837 , we have been committed to the
well-being of our customers and the surroundings in which
they live. With us, this commitment is not just a basis for
doing business -- it is a statement of who we are . Procter &
Gamble continues to evaluate new technologies that will make
future improvements in products and packages possible , we
will continue to be a leader in the search for responsible
solid waste solutions .
O
(D 'r
(D
z
D
:
cD4:i:+7$��� m
CLwal
T s
(D kD
C Z m cn D
on m D D
Ma
Q o -
C
cD n
n O
� n
00
T
v. a
a D F
Q
GLy D m
�O 7v0CD
0
CD �°'cn
m Q mm
oo
N D
m O
Z
c
O :
6 ::...........
Q
cD
RECOMP PROLE
soRfmcYC E co-coM
MARKETS(ALL SEPARATED RECYCLABLES)
A B C U
,:.
SECURE DISPOSAL
'Municipal Solid Waste(AW is Unprocessable items(tires, H%1 is tun through a bag Chersized items(textiles; Remaining Bicx
delivered to the RECOMP site, debris,carpeting,appliances) breaker and screen classifier..- carlboanl,film plastics,etc.) Solids are fed i
jus as it would be to a landfill, are rejected at the tip floor and are tranderred by comevor proprietary co
transfer station or mass bum sent to landfill.With optional and hand removed for baling, vessel utilizing
faality. community panicipaHor.,source for recycle markets or teduiologv 2m
separated recyclables are mimed conversion to dear[fuel Hand,. Wastewater Sol
to densification/baling and sold sort at the conveyor recovers adhere ideal b
to markets.Household recyclable items(multigrade conditions for
hazardous items are removed container plastics and Heave COz!ad
for secure disposal. aluminum).With magnetic, reamdated,re
separaioa removing ferrous pollutant-free a
.materials,recyclable materials aur"phere.7f
are shipped to wholesale operates on a t
recy product users batch cycle to i
requirements f
at 5M Patent(
components in
composting ve
controlled Iran
three comparu
process qualin
'ROCS' S FSO CHAT t4t J
CO-COM OSTING CURING/BLENDING -
MARKETSKRA MARKETS
�
F GH
r
I :
F , G H I
ks; Remaining 8i dable Digester output is immediately Screen output is sent to the The cured compost can be The compost may be further
s,etc.) Solids are fed' e the screened Oversized objects are curing pad Our curing process further screened A portion of cured by using proprietary US.
Proprietary mposting sent to landfill. pmides highqualiry compost the oversized compost is. tedutologies to meet our stria .
r baling, vessel utilizing meson for direct distribution or recycled to the Digester as quality assurance/qualin,control
technology and Mixed with blending for specific soil co-compost ituioculant.Current'standards.fiighWade compost
el Fland Wastewater So M'S)to markets.Mechanical aeration markets include highway can be blended with sand,peau,
corers ach eke ideal b logical during the cure cycle is critical landscaping,silvaculture,sod bark and other select
tigrade conditions for mposting. to property condition compost farming and agriculture. horticultural products for use
Hem CO2 14h itir is materials. in nurseries; iliouses and
Tw is recirculated re nsing odorless, for municipal public works and
ferrous poflutarit4eea to the parts departments.All soil
tiaterials atmosphere. 11 Digester / products are caref&,tested for
sale operates on a c to4ourdav ; quality to meet state and federal
batch cede to ii"tate EPA' regulations for product
4
requirernetus for pathogen kill distribution.
at 5500.ftente I Eweson
components in m
oomposting ve�el prrnide for
controlled tran
sfer through iuN
three comparm im for stria
I \
process quality"TAitrul,
iYinuJ on Rin:kd Ndtt�
A FULL SERVICE SOLID WASTE
RECYCLING FACILITY
RECOMP is a waste processing company providing
DT state-of-the-art, municipal solid a-aste recycling and
JURING/BL1�NDllV G composting with wastevt,ater sludge. It can provide
optimum cost savings, maximum recovery of MSW and
superior compost soil quality. Multiple technologies and
modern facility design are tailored to each unique site
specification. Proven management with over 20 years of
CO-COMPOSTHIGH-GRADE MARKETS engineering and wastewater operations experience and
fifteen years of compost marketing, from agriculture to
. . horticulture,enables Recomp
-term solutions. RE�MP
to provide long
• . • .
•® ® ' REPLY/RESPONSE
Please take the time to complete and mail this postage-free questionnaire.
This will help us to assess vour particular needs and generate a preliminan
repon outlining how RECOMP may cost effectively solve your waste disposal
Ii problems.Please prim
•I Municipality or Finn:
DgQunendAddrm:
-
it is sent to the The cured compost can be The compost may be further.
hu curing Proms furt}ter.screetxd A portion cured by using proprietazy us. CURRENT WASTE STREAM SPECIFICS
h-gwbty compost, the oversized compost is. technologies to meet our stria .- I Municipal Solid waste Stream(Nn')Tom per day.
aribution or recpcled to the Digester as quality assurance*iality comol 1 current separa e collect on prog ams
specific soil mcompost mnoculatit.Gmt nt'standards.High-grade compost I ❑ Quantity Hoa ohrn
dtanical aeration markets include highway can be blended with satid,peat,- j Grass ❑
ure c%-cle is critical landscaping,siivaailttue,sodbark and other select �a 0
:ondition compost farming and agriculture. horticultural products for use j ❑
I llecydables ❑
in nurseries;geerdtous s and others(s) 0
for municipal public wo&and I Spedi. odter(s)
patlis departments"All soil CurrmNbwdipping fee.
products are tarefulh'tested for I %dA1SAIRreammunicipallycolleaed.
l %of MSwsveam privately colleaed:
quality to meet state and federal
regulations for product I WWS
distribution. I wauewaffSludge(M)Tomperday
Cur=disposal program:
l
l CunrntW95dppiregfee4andappliadomcm:
OTHER
Pnrjeaed annual popubiun gr(mil,:
Pu*aed current tmdfilI life:
Public d�ired,
❑ Send brochure only ❑ Call me tochy
Itinad,n rwcydt.i Pgkr
1< w
RECOMP
1720 South Bellaire Street
Denver,Home Office
Suite 909
:0
(303) 753-0945; fAX (303) 692-9452
Minnesota
00 East 79th Street
Suite 102No Shreddzn
Bloomington,Minnesota
hnlike other AiS�\`composting
rxj
systems,a RECOJIP Resource
Reco�•ery Facility carefully pre
. , •t(te��iS�t:fir composting nth•
�-tensice front-end source
separation.By not slvedding
��aste ne are able to control
ingredients in our end produ
- ' atlons us to produce a high•q
organic mmpost n�dt unlimit
marketability.. ..,,
Sj�steni
Flexibilin�
�' RECOUP Resource Recotery sy
can be tailored to meet the s
� _ goals of a community.Our cyst
cornert municipal solid paste.
qualified industrial n tste and
senage sludge to m�rkeritble
products,and ease the cullecti
• and processing cost burden,
imposed by mandatory recyclii
iandf Il abatement Ia�s.
s
r 1
r �
T . ACOMPDV - T
IESN VSEL SIID:WA;STE
MP:co oSTING *' -. .
No Shredding American Pollutant.-Free
Unlike other NIS��composting Technology There are no air emission or ash
systems,a RECOJIP Resource RECOJIP employs technolgy disposal problems.
Recovery Facility carefully prepares designed and built in the C.S.for privately Owned
die MSW for composting with the unique waste stream produced ('�
extensive front-end source here•in•Nolth America. • and Operated '
separation.liy not shredding theT ,, Construction,implementation,and
waste we are able to control Landll operation are the sole responsibility
ingredients in our end product.This of RECO�iP's highly trained
allows us to produce a high-quality
t�1J1,ateYnent technical staf.Plants are
organic compost with unlimited Reduces landfill disposal up to 75°x.: economically viable at 40 tolls.per
marketability. Tip fees are competitive with mass- day and up,wvith as little as three
burn and state-of-the-art landfill acres required per site. .
Svstein technologies and caty according to l'
the extent of recycling programs in New Jobs
Flexibility the community. A RECOMP facility will provide jobs
RECOMP Resource Recovery systems11 for local residents in supervision;
Maximizes .
can be tailored to meet the specific M administration,operations,and plant
goals of a community.Our systems Ree�7Cling maintenance.
convert municipal solid waste. The RECOMP process.picks up. _ __--_RECOMP is successfully recycling
qualified industrial« este and where local recycling programs and co-composting municipal solid
sewage sludge to markemble leave off for maximum feasible waste in St.Cloud,Minnesota.Our
products.and ease the collection recovery of recycle materials. St.Cloud plant is currently
and processing cost burdens processing 50 tons-per-day of MSW.
imposed by mandatory recycling or with e pansion to 100 TPD
landfill abatement laws. anticipated in the spring of 1990.
is
X...
i
as a • '"•' , a� r. T } r fws2ay r,+ ) r ya'i+ ✓a f... � a i ....}. t�•�i �• s-• •.
+`N,r a Y �S a yL.:+ t t r+ ySY �� -. '. f �'1FF F-'j✓ a+s j Y Y t •C f; d ��. A uM 4Yf •Y
�z;� .'rt..,jfi,• .. 3 r t hfh r.:�t e�4-). . t�g� .T- S+7y� JLr..ai v� ! rM.-q•�,:!.Lj�,4:v'� bNi .Yt ,. ,.
o � Q
J
k
b
I
r
� r
40
i
"I
1
I
i
r,NM.�4Ni"�'NMNwM`�RRFJf4'y'y � •
1
S
3
I
i
1
i
i
j
i
Y Sy S
N
to
fi
4-4 N C
O w N G
m m •0 ro 0
m O •*+ :J W 54 •-4
dl N m 4)' +"
inwinHm ro
G S•i d A -.•i
r. P ro0 • � A G
mm •,q Pe .•
eroa m =
i b+
4i W 4) fi .-i G
4 H U 04 W •+
4> Ct A G n,w
vrovv0O
w '•i 10 A V 00
O U O V to
a.
1:4.!e .-i v
ar U mU G O
G W •.i ro G ro G
o N qo a•a r•i m
I
L
.,.Op; t t .. . . W. .,T,.
LN
4Z
;.-I-
. ....... .... ..
Fe
t-f71-4
�AN
IV ,
N,I c
14k;,v 4
x
34:
14
.4f
�-,AZZ
,I�AAF'rly
iIr tiii L!
Flower pots made from
recycled, sanitized compost.
The compost is produced in St.
Cloud, Minnesota, which is
recycling two-thirds of its
...unicipa' trash -- i:.,_uding
�isposab e diapers.
r
•4
t� tr
Ilk Iv g
i C� n.'��"- L•'� rite uv..
ONO
q51-r I fC�'� yF>. • r! z,k?.•F4S '�. rr �i t
ar f y
i
A
��� + \�;.' fir n__ L✓..iA�r � �J+t' t .t
e4' 'Yi
., 0 c p g ,6
S i
x
y ti
CD
Y+' Irl r 8't.'``^��7=*q�b'y Z'�^' f S ,.. t��'3' •^fy•
zxCD CD
L 0
CD
.z
N NCD
CD
CD ft
CD
WA
N
\-