SD9 - Costs and Benefits of a Phosphate Detergent Ban

  • Published: 1985
  • Author: State Water Control Board and Chesapeake Bay Commission and Virginia Cooperative Extension
  • Enabling Authority: Senate Joint Resolution 54 (Regular Session, 1984)

Executive Summary:
INTRODUCTION

Senate Joint Resolution No. 54, passed during the 1984 General Assembly Session, requested the State Water Control Board, Chesapeake Bay Commission, and Virginia Cooperative Extension Service to study the costs and benefits of a phosphate detergent ban in Virginia and the usefulness of such a ban in conjunction with other nutrient control strategies in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. A Task Force was formed of staff from these agencies plus the Soil and Water Conservation Commission. The Task Force held a series of meetings and a public fact-finding forum and reviewed numerous reports and studies nationwide from the private sector, governmental agencies, universities and foundations in the course of its work.

BACKGROUND

A. Water Quality

Those activities of man which introduce excessive nutrients into lakes and rivers cause what is termed nutrient enrichment. This is a condition which manifests itself in excessive growths of algae and other aquatic weeds, resulting in: 1) unsightly appearances of lakes and streams; 2) a decline in certain species of fish as well as recreational uses; 3) a noxious odor and unpleasant taste in the water when these plants die and decay; and 4) a demand on the dissolved oxygen in the water which stresses aquatic life and degrades water quality.

The focus of this study is the nutrient, phosphorus, because of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) findings that excessive phosphorus is present in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.

The CBP examined 30 years of nutrient data (1950-1980) to characterize conditions and trends in the Chesapeake Bay and its drainage area (Figure III-I) (Refer to end of Executive Summary for Figures and Tables). The presence of excessive phosphorus from non-point sources (run-off from agriculture, forest, and urban areas) and point sources (sewage treatment plants and industrial plants) has led to serious water quality problems such as algal blooms, low dissolved oxygen, and a reduction in water quality. There .has also been a decreasing trend in living resources such as fresh water spawning fish, oysters, and submerged aquatic vegetation.

In Virginia's four major tributaries (Figure lII-2), nutrient enrichment problems occur in the upper tidal fresh reaches, especially in the Rappahannock and the James. As a result, a State nutrient control strategy is needed to halt and steadily reverse these decreasing trends in water quality. Virginia's neighboring states of Maryland and Pennsylvania are working in complementary efforts to develop statewide nutrient control strategies.

The Chesapeake Bay Initiatives developed by the Secretary of Commerce and Resources address certain nutrient enrichment problems and were funded by the Virginia General Assembly. In fact, a substantial percentage of the $10 Million Initiative package was targeted to the nutrient enrichment problems. A working goal of 20% reduction in phosphorus loadings to Virginia tributaries has been established with a mixture of point source and non-point source control strategies to address the problems. Two strategies for dealing with the point source problem are: 1) upgrading sewage treatment plants (STPs) and 2) a phosphate detergent ban.

An update on phosphorus loads to the Chesapeake Bay from the four major river basins is included in Figure 111-4. However, other state waters, including the Chowan and many freshwater lakes and reservoirs, are considered to be eutrophic, or having a high rate of nutrient input.

B. Laundering & Detergents

There are three factors which primarily affect laundering: water, soils and detergents. In Virginia 64% of the population live in areas with soft water; 36% live in areas with water of varying degrees of hardness from medium hard to very hard. The hardness of the water affects the cleaning ability of the detergents as do water temperature and soil composition.

Detergents contain two major ingredients: surfactants, which act as the soil remover, and builders, which control water hardness. Phosphate is the builder most frequently used in granular detergents. Other builders include: sodium carbonate, NTA, citrate, sodium silicate and zeolites. Sodium carbonate is the most frequently utilized builder in non-phosphate, granular detergents. Liquid detergents do not contain phosphates or carbonates but may contain citrates as a builder.

Procter and Gamble (P &G) reports that levels of phosphates in detergents have decreased since 1970. The average phosphorus content of all detergents - both liquid and granular - was 11% in 1970; now it is estimated to be 5%. For example, among granular detergents sold in Virginia stores, phosphorus levels are as follows: Tide - 8.4%, Cheer - 8.2%, Oxydol - 7.4%, Gain - 6.1%, Fab - 6.0%, Bold - 5.9%, Ajax - 3.8%, Cold Power - 2.5%, All - 0.0%, Trend - 0.0%, Arm and Hammer - 0.0%.

In states where all types of detergents are sold, such as Virginia, 64% of the population use phosphate detergents. The nationwide average, including the population in phosphate-ban states, is 50% phosphate users, 50% non-phosphate users.

The Task Force has received varying positions from detergent manufacturers regarding the performance and cost of detergents. According to Procter and Gamble, extensive efforts by the detergent industry have failed to find a satisfactory substitute for phosphate and research has shown that among those builders which are sanctioned for use in the U.S., phosphate remains the most effective choice in terms of performance and cost. Conversely, Lever Brothers and Purex Industries contend that their non-phosphate detergents provide comparable performance at a comparable price.