Profiting From Waste Reduction
A Best-Practices Guide for Textile
and Apparel Manufacturers
U. S. EPA Region 2
Professor George Ganiaris
Fashion Institute of Technology
Textile Development and Marketing Department
Long Island City Business Development Corporation
Industrial Waste Recycling and Prevention (INWRAP) Program
This report was prepared by the Textile Development and Marketing Department of the Fashion Institute of Technology and the Long Island City Business Development Corporation (LICBDC) Industrial Waste Recycling and Prevention (INWRAP) Program in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 (hereafter the EPA). The EPA under Solid Waste Management Assistance Grant X-1992947-98-0 to LICBDC has funded this document wholly or in part. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the EPA; and any reference to specific products, services, processes, or methods does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it.
About the U. S. EPA Region 2 Office of Solid Waste
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) operates under authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. It protects human health and the environment by ensuring responsible national management of hazardous and non-hazardous waste.Its goals are:
Individual states adopt federal standards and operate their own waste management programs. Besides states, OSW works closely with industry, environmental groups, tribes, and the concerned public to promote safe waste management.These shared responsibilities help to:
EPA works to assure the safe management of non-hazardous household, industrial, and mining wastes. Because everyone shares responsibility for reducing and managing these wastes, OSW policies rely heavily on national voluntary and educational programs. It promotes and encourages the use of combined methods to manage solid waste. These methods are: source-reduction or waste prevention, which means any practice that reduces the amount or toxicity of waste generated; and recycling, which conserves disposal capacity and preserves natural resources by preventing potentially useful materials from being disposed of by either landfilling or waste combustion. (Source: EPA website: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw.html)
The development of this guide was made possible by the generous contribution of time, information, experience and resources from many individuals.
We would like to acknowledge the important role of Dr. Fred Golden of FIT, whose previous work on textile and fabric waste reduction and recycling provided the framework for our research and development of this document.
We are grateful to the staff of LICBDC for performing the initial review of this document. We also wish to acknowledge the contributions of Edgar Bello, formerly of the Hofstra University Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) and Rich Malachowski from Cranston Printworks Company. In addition, we would like to thank MaryEllen Etienne and Nicole Egger of NY Wa$teMatch for the final editing, layout and design services for this guide.
Finally, we are extremely grateful to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for supporting this project. We extend a special thank you to Ms. Lorraine Graves of the U. S. EPA Region 2, who has provided advice and assistance in her capacity as project officer and coordinator of the Wa$teWise program.Project Development and Coordination
This project involved a collaboration between the LICBDC Industrial Waste Recycling and Prevention (INWRAP) Program and the Textile Development and Marketing Department at the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT). The individuals principally responsible for managing this project for each organization were:
Day-to-day responsibility for coordinating the project was handled by the staff of LICBDC's INWRAP Program with assistance from the FIT Textile and Marketing Department faculty on an as-needed basis. The best practices guide, "To Riches From Rags: Profiting From Waste Reduction, A Best-Practices Guide for Textile & Apparel Manufacturers," was primarily written and developed by Professor George Ganiaris with assistance from John Okun.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The purpose of this project is to develop and provide state-of-the-art waste reduction resources and practices for textile and apparel industry firms located in EPA Region 2. The targeted audience consists of textile dyers, finishers, apparel producers (woven/ knit), cut-and-sew operations, textile bleachers, textile recyclers, and textile printers. Leading manufacturing, environmental management compliance, and energy and research experts from the textile and apparel industries were invited to contribute. This guide will help educate representatives from industry in the following areas of interest:
The project's development team, consisting of the FIT Textile Development and Marketing Department and the LICBDC INWRAP Program with the assistance of the Cyntex Company, hosted a day-long conference on waste prevention and recycling strategies for textile and apparel manufacturers on March 16, 2000.
Thirty-two representatives from industry and technical assistance organizations attended the "To Riches From Rags" conference. There was a series of outstanding presentations, and several firms made valuable contacts. In addition, a video of the conference was produced along with a written compilation of the conference proceedings.
There are more than 6,000 textile manufacturing and apparel production companies located in the metropolitan New York and New Jersey area. Within New York City alone there are 84,000 workers officially employed by 4,000 apparel and knitwear manufacturers.1
According to a City of New York commercial waste composition study, apparel firms and textile manufacturers generate approximately 384,000 tons of waste each year.2 Much of this is recyclable, a fact codified in New York City's 1993 commercial recycling ordinance, Local Law 87. Under this law, any company generating more than 10% of its waste as textile scrap must recycle that material along with the other mandated commercial recyclables (paper, cardboard, etc.).
For companies required to recycle their textile waste, the greatest difficulty comes when they have small quantities of different colors and types of fabric. Most recyclers want fabrics and colors collected separately. In facilities with limited space, this makes cost-effective recycling of textiles difficult to achieve.
Waste prevention is an obvious solution to this problem. The American Textile Manufacturers Institute's recent survey of 36 companies and 260 plants showed that after implementing waste reduction practices the total amount of waste generated per plant per month decreased by 44%.3 Although several apparel firms have both reduced the quantity of material they use in production and the amount they ultimately discard by refining their layout and fabric cutting techniques, there are still many more firms which have yet to implement these practices.
Advances in computer-aided design have helped companies lower their costs, as has the use of continuous-feed systems which reduce the amount of material used and the number of partially finished apparel discarded by textile fabricators. Other reuse strategies, such as targeting the recovery of yarn cones, plastic fabric and yarn shipping bags, and corrugated cardboard containers, have been implemented in several apparel and textile manufacturing facilities.
At knitting and textile dyeing facilities there is an additional set of environmental regulations which must be followed. Many of the dyeing and finishing practices used by these firms generate hazardous waste or emit volatile organic compounds. At several textile manufacturing facilities in the southern United States, process modifications have been implemented which eliminate the use of many of these toxic compounds saving companies thousands of dollars in disposal and safety compliance costs each year. Other pollution prevention process changes have resulted in reductions in energy and water consumption.
For example, Ti-Caro, a North Carolina textile manufacturer that produces dyed and finished fabrics, implemented several process modifications and chemical substitutions to reduce its effluent discharge levels.4 These pollution prevention applications not only brought the firm into compliance and reduced its water usage, but resulted in over $15,000 per year in savings. Americal Corp., a nylon hose producer, is realizing $35,000 per year in savings by applying similar pollution-prevention strategies to its dyeing and discharge and wastewater treatment processes.5
As noted earlier, the FIT Textile Development and Marketing Department, in conjunction with the LICBDC INWRAP Program and the Cyntex Corporation developed and hosted a regional waste prevention and recycling conference for textile manufacturing and apparel production firms. The conference, featuring speakers from the FIT faculty, government agencies, business operators, and the consultant community, was held at the Fashion Institute of Technology on March 16, 2000.
The conference provided information on:
The conference also addressed the work of Dr. Frederick Golden, Professor of Apparel Production Management at the Fashion Institute of Technology.6 Dr. Golden worked with the Apparel Research Committee (ARC) in outlining a variety of pre-production processes and cutting-room operation procedures that reduce fabric scrap at its source.
Dr. Golden's work focused on merchandising and design room issues pertaining to:
He also focused on best-practice techniques for cutting department planning and operations using a systems approach.
Overview: The Development Team
FIT Textile Development and Marketing Department
This department offers a baccalaureate degree program leading to the bachelor of science degree with a highly flexible, interdisciplinary curriculum. It provides a broad overview of the textile industry as well as the study of a variety of textile applications.Graduates of this program bring their in-depth knowledge of fabrics to the fashion-related careers they have been working toward. They go on to work in different segments of the fashion and design industries such as:
They also graduate with the necessary background and experience to pursue more specialized professional careers in fields such as:
LICBDC Industrial Waste Recycling and Prevention (INWRAP) ProgramLICBDC is a not-for-profit business development organization dedicated to promoting the economic vitality and infrastructure of greater Long Island City. Formed in 1983 by local business and community leaders, LICBDC, as the manager of the Long Island City In-Place Industrial Park (IPIP) -NYC's largest and most diverse IPIP, succeeded in stabilizing the area's existing industrial employment base at a time when the communities throughout NYC experienced severe manufacturing job losses. LICBDC acts as an ombudsman on behalf of the entire area, sponsoring public events that increase the public's knowledge of Long Island City and that network area businesses. With over 200 members, LICBDC can help focus public attention on important local and regional issues. LICBDC offers the following services to members and area businesses:
The Industrial Waste Recycling and Prevention (INWRAP) Program began in the summer of 1993 to help businesses implement waste reduction and recycling programs. Since then, INWRAP has helped firms save up to $30,000 per year by reducing, reusing, and recycling their by-product and waste materials.INWRAP serves a critical market niche creating solutions for businesses that:
In recognition of its work, INWRAP has received awards from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, the City Club of New York, the National Council for Urban Economic Development, the National Recycling Coalition, the New York State Governor's Office, and the New York City Environmental Action Coalition.
Primary funding for INWRAP is provided by the Empire State Development Environmental Management Investment Group, the City of New York Department of Sanitation Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling through the Industrial & Technology Assistance Corporation, and Consolidated Edison of New York and the shared savings and revenues of companies using its services.
Overview: The The Industry
The textile industry is one of the nation's oldest dating back to the beginning of the American Industrial Revolution in the 1790s.Textile manufacturing begins with the use of raw fiber. Fiber used in textiles can be harvested from natural sources (e. g., wool, cotton), manufactured from regenerative cellulosic materials (e. g., rayon, acetate), or it can be entirely synthetic (e. g., polyester, nylon). After the raw (natural or synthetic) fibers are shipped from the farm or the chemical plant, they pass through four main stages of processing:
Depending on usage, yarns are first produced as either filament, multi-filament, or spun; with varying amounts of thickness, twist, and/ or ply.
Fabric production, the second step, involves primarily either weaving or knitting. Broadwoven mills consume the largest portion of textile fiber and produce the raw textile material from which most textile products are made. Manufacturers of knit fabrics also consume a sizable amount of yarns.
Finishing represents the third step. For most uses, fabrics must undergo further processing, which can include scouring, bleaching, printing, dyeing and mechanical or wet finishing. Many different textures can also be obtained through the application of resins and sizings as well as through mechanical finishing.
Finally, the finished cloth is fabricated into a variety of apparel, household, and industrial products. The simplest of these products, such as bags, sheets, towels, blankets, and draperies, are often produced by the textile mills themselves. The sewn-products trades usually fabricate apparel and more complex home furnishings.
The textile industry is concentrated geographically in the South and Mid-Atlantic regions due their historic presence in these areas. For example, denim manufacturing is centered in the Southeast as well as the production of large commodity-type goods such as sheeting. However, considerable amounts of fabric dyeing and finishing still take place in New York, New Jersey and the New England states. Some of these operations are niche-market oriented.
The primary textile manufacturers that operate in this region are textile knitting, weaving, nonwoven operations, textile dyeing/ printing, and finishing facilities. Within these firms the following types of equipment may be found in the New York metropolitan region: becks (box, winch), jigs, jets, beams, padders, screen printing, paddles (used for apparels), dry cans, tenter frames, and dry-finishing equipment.
Some of these systems may require the direct use of water, dyes, chemicals, and eventually machinery (energy) to dry these goods. In addition, there are indirect materials that are used in the manufacture or transport of the finished goods, i. e. tubes, pallets, and plastic wrap that must be considered. The apparel industry also has waste-generation streams that are linked to the handling (cutting and eventual shipment) of finished goods. These waste-generating processes are related to the type of goods, lengths of rolls, and fabric designs that are delivered to the cutting room facility.
Opportunities for Waste Reduction in the Industry
In general, there is fertile ground for the application of material optimization and source-reduction strategies to prevent waste generation within this industry. As noted earlier, New York City apparel firms and textile manufacturers generate approximately 384,000 tons of waste each year.7 Our efforts should focus on better management of resources; such as reducing the consumption of raw materials and reusing or recycling materials whenever possible. The main goal is to lessen the waste stream while maintaining or improving upon product standards.
Several New York City firms have already realized examples of this goal. Within this guide we outline a sample of those companies which have been assisted by waste-reduction techniques and the resulting savings. One such firm, Marcus & Wiesen ñ a women's undergarment manufacturer, was generating three tons of lycra scrap per year which comprised its primary waste. The LICBDC INWRAP Program recommended several source-reduction and reuse strategies for optimizing lycra usage, thus lowering waste generation rates and disposal quantities. Modifications in the spreading and cutting operations, along with the substitution of a continuous spool system, were designed to minimize lycra, elastic, and corrugated-core waste. A reduced hauler collection schedule was recommended based on projected volume reductions.
The company realized a reduction in its generation of scrap lycra by 60 cubic yards per year, saving the firm $4,200 in purchasing costs. The installation of a continuous-feed elastic system reduced elastic discards by 11 percent, with an initial $950 per year savings. In addition, Marcus & Wiesen's reduced waste collection schedule lowered its annual hauler fees by $2,540.
With the challenge of the ever-growing trend of importing textiles and apparel from other areas of the world, streamlined operations will give NYC firms the edge to compete in the world economy. The region's longevity is primarily due to its focus on quality assurance combined with timely production. Over time niche markets have developed and continue to exist in this region because of their special manufacturing techniques and end-use requirements. The close proximity of many manufacturers to the New York metropolitan region is not coincidental; it allows them to achieve quick turn-around times.
The following section outlines the waste streams, often categorized as primary and secondary, associated with both textile and apparel manufacturing firms.8
Although mentioned previously, inefficient use of utilities results in a waste that is not as obvious as extra fabric or paper waste.9
Case Studies: Citations from the AATCC
Studies cited in the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Review have shown that combined reductions in industrial by-products (textile cuttings, common recyclables, dyes, and chemicals), and effluent treatment by as much as 30% are possible.10 Numerous recycling and waste-reduction projects have been completed, varying from reducing the amount of advertising mail delivered, to recovery and reuse of bleaching chemicals and reduction of chemical waste during fabric finishing. No capital expenditures are needed, just a careful evaluation of current practices and procedures. The following section introduces a few of the case studies, which are cited in the AATCC Review.
Case Study #1: Industrial By-Product Textile Cuttings ñ Milliken & Company
Background: A project to reduce waste/ costs associated with textile cuttingsFindings:
A study of a piece goods operations process resulted in the following:
Apparel manufacturers can find remarkable efficiency gains by bringing a systems approach to cutting room operations according to the Apparel Research Committee of the American Manufactures Association (ARC). In practice, that simply means considering the cost consequences of each variable in the process.11
Selecting fabrics with symmetrical patterns enables simpler cutting as the marker can be placed one way or another. However, the marker can only be placed one way when asymmetric fabrics are cut guaranteeing fabric waste. Suppliers can be held to a consistent fabric quality level by defect mapping. Requiring shipment in packaging that keeps fabrics clean, unwrinkled, or uncreased, especially at beginning and end of roll, and protected from light damage, significantly reduces waste. Shade control should be monitored side-center-side as well as beginning-to-end of roll.
The systems approach has been profitably applied to weaving mill operations as early as the 1950s. A study, cited in a 1979 issue of Bobbin Magazine,12 explained how a weaving mill went from a 300-yard to a 3000-yard roll of curtain fabric. The finishing plant no longer sewed together ten 300 yard rolls prior to the finishing processes, and no longer cut apart the individual rolls (with fabric waste) to reconstitute the original 300 yard rolls for delivery to the curtain factory.
The entire 3000-yard roll was hemmed on both sides simultaneously and automatically, thereby greatly reducing labor as compared with operators first hemming one side then hemming the other side in a second operation with its associated costly material handling of bundle movement, pick-up, sew, and dispose. The 3000-yard roll was then cut to length automatically with just one potential remnant instead of 10, substantially cutting back on waste for a product with very long parts.
Fabric suppliers can ship large rolls of denim to major customers who could engineer their material handling systems to capitalize on the use of these giant rolls. The increases in length do not have to be as radical as the 3000 yards just described for other companies to achieve waste reduction through longer rolls and elimination of short pieces. Burlington offers rolls from 50 to 800 yards, with small-to-medium sized operations confining its purchases to 100-300 yard rolls. No one purchases full warps. Surprisingly, few companies take large rolls because most plants have not been engineered to handle them from receiving through spreading operations. This appears to be a missed cost-saving and waste-reduction opportunity.
Recently, Milliken, a textile firm making apparel and industrial fabrics, worked closely with apparel plants to find ways to reduce their waste and costs. It offers 250-yard or larger rolls, marks the actual width on each roll of cloth, strives toward zero defects, and helps engineer the needed material handling. Milliken figured that 3.5 cents per yard consumed was the potential savings from longer rolls of $2.50/ yard fabric.
No longer is the extent of a person's reach a constraint on cutting width of fabrics. With computerized cutting, the width can really be any dimension leading to optimum material utilization. One major activewear company is able to fit five apparel across when cutting 120" warp knit vs. only two from 60" goods, or a total of four from two spreads of 60" goods, resulting in savings of time and money.
Wider goods can reduce preparatory, weaving, and inspection costs. Processing more square yards per running linear yard can lower finishing, spreading, and cutting costs. Milliken has successfully introduced wider goods via its wider looms working with sewing plants which were willing and able to increase the width of their cutting tables, eliminating one of the inhibitions to more widespread acceptance of wider goods.
General objectives of reducing textile cutting waste include:
There are pre-production processes that can affect utilization from cut planning to marker making. Production pattern engineering for fit, fullness, seam allowance, shape, seam location, and trim parts are all related to waste reduction.Process areas, other than pattern engineering, affecting waste reduction include:
Case Study #2: Industrial By-Products / Common Recyclables ñ Cranston Print Works Co.
Background: A project to reduce waste/ costs associated with common recyclables (paper, plastic, etc.) and generate revenueFindings:
The study of a printing operations process resulted in the following:
Case Study #3: Industrial By-Products / Dyes and Chemicals ñ Cranston Print Works Co.
Background: A project to reduce waste/ costs associated with dyes and chemicalsFindings:
The study of a printing operations process resulted in the following:
Overall Recommendations/ Tips:
Case Studies #4-7: Effluent Treatment ñ Kufner Textilwerkein Weibkirchenlstmk Mill, Americal Corporation, Amital Spinning Corporation, Cranston Print Works
Background: A project to reduce waste/ costs associated with wet processing.
A study of an Austrian textile mill, Kufner Textilwerkein Weibkirchenlstmk, showed that 10% of the process water could be saved by reusing cooling water. In addition, 20% of water usage could be avoided by optimizing the water use through better process control. Vacuum cleaning of the fabrics and reducing fiber content and spinning oils cut its chemical oxygen demand (COD) on wastewater treatment, allowing dyeing baths to be reused rather than used once and then discarded.13
Americal Corporation, a dyehouse, replaced customary dyes and chemicals with less polluting alternatives that performed just as well, but substantially lowered Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), COD and Azo dyes. Modifying temperature and hold time improved exhaustion of dyes, reducing chemical and dye usage and also lowering BOD, COD, and Azo dye bath levels.14
Amital Spinning Corporation reused non-contact cooling water as process water, enabling dye liquors to be prepared at higher temperatures. Steam requirements and dyebath preparation time were reduced. Wastewater generated per pound of yarn dropped from 19.34 gallons to 3.19 gallons in 1992.15
Cranston Print Works employees noticed that smoke was building up inside the plant, as well as being vented to the air outside. They took the initiative to substitute process chemicals, and visible emissions were eliminated. Next they substituted a combination of carbon dioxide injection and biological oxidation for sulfuric acid as a pH neutralizer, resulting in the delivery of consistently buffered, equally loaded effluent to the town treatment plant. Without the use of 2.5 million pounds of sulfuric acid, chemical oxygen demand on the town treatment plant was sharply reduced, winning Cranston Print Works an environmental award from the Worcester Business Journal and the Massachusetts Audubon Society.
Case Studies #8-10: Energy Usage ñ a Queens dyehouse, Brooklyn dyehouse, and a Brooklyn garment manufacturer.
Background: A project to reduce waste/costs associated with utilities/energy
Easily overlooked is the cost of energy in textile and apparel production. Many government technical assistance programs, as well as private companies, can audit and assess energy use at a facility to identify areas of inefficiency and propose cost-effective solutions. On average, recommended actions from an assessment result in annual cost savings of about $55,000.16
A Queens dyehouse company had yearly energy costs of $367,000. More efficient lighting was installed at a cost of $16,000 with annual savings of $5,500. Steam pipes were insulated for $3,000 with annual savings in natural gas of $5,000. Wash water, originally draining to the sewer, was recovered for reuse at a cost of $285,000 resulting in the savings of $72,000 per year. In total, improvements that cost $326,600 to implement resulted in total savings of $112,400 per year.
At a Brooklyn dyehouse company, with yearly energy costs of $384,000, wash water was draining to the sewer, the overflow water consumption was too high, and dryers were not loaded to capacity. With these problems fixed at a $323,200 implementation cost, the firm saved a total of $129,000 each year.
A Brooklyn garment manufacturer learned its yearly energy costs of $74,500 was due to inefficient lighting with extremely high demand charges. Changing the lighting and staggering the switching of equipment resulted in a total savings of $15,000 per year with a $15,700 implementation cost.
Success Stories: A Selection of Companies Assisted By INWRAP
The following section outlines the benefits implementing waste reduction strategies have had on a sample of New York City textile and apparel firms.
Premier Brands of America
Premier Brands of America is an insole manufacturer that generated an average of 44 baled cubic yards (22 tons) of waste materials per month. As of June 1997, the company paid $1,248.00 per month in landfill disposal costs. As a result of INWRAP's initial assistance, Premier began segregating, baling, and recycling its five tons of corrugated materials per month. Its remaining 22-ton monthly waste stream composition was as follows:
INWRAP's waste reduction and reuse report identified several options for Premier's insole cuttings and cork sheeting. Two regional foam products manufacturers, Crest Foam and Durafoam, expressed strong interest in using Premier's natural rubber latex scrap as a feedstock for their product lines. Since Premier could easily separate its natural rubber latex during the production process as well as store it for up to one month, the company was capable of diverting 40% of its insole scrap for remanufacturing reuse. The key problem for Premier was the transportation of these materials. However, both Durafoam and Crest had customers near Premier's facility and expressed a willingness to pick up its latex on a monthly basis. Transport, labor, and handling costs precluded the possibility of revenues for Premier, but the firm stood to divert 2.8 tons per month at a disposal cost savings $158.82 per month.
Several packaging material firms expressed interest in Premier's cork sheeting, most notably Wiltec, Inc. Wiltec was prepared to pay all shipping and handling costs for four tons per month of the cork sheeting. In addition, the Children's Museum in Los Angeles had begun an ongoing project producing children's beanbag chairs that required .8 tons per month of cork sheeting as a feedstock. Yemm & Hart, the consulting firm handling the project, was willing to pay for freight and processing. Both these options provided Premier with the potential to realize approximately $269.45 per month in disposal costs, while diverting 4.8 tons of waste material for reuse.
One meeting was held with Premier production manager, controller, and president to review INWRAP's report and recommendations. At this June 1997 meeting, all three agreed to implement INWRAP's report recommendations and asked INWRAP staff to continue their search for reuse markets for styrene butadine rubber (SBR) insole cuttings and the remaining cork sheeting.
The chart below documents source-reduction and reuse tonnage, material-specific diversion rates and dollar values realized by Premier Brands of America from July of 1997 through September of 1998.
♦ SBR: styrene butadine rubber
Gloria Lingerie was an undergarments manufacturer that generated 64 loose cubic yards (11.24 tons) per month of waste materials. The company paid an average of $692.80 per month in disposal costs in November of 1997. Its average monthly waste stream composition is broken down in the table below:
♦ OCC: old corrugated cardboard
INWRAP's waste reduction report identified three cost-saving and revenue-generating source-reduction and reuse opportunities for Gloria Lingerie fabric cuttings, textile cones and textile cone cartons. Gloria used a manual system for marking, spreading, and cutting its nylon and polyester fabric. INWRAP's team identified approximately .75 to 1.0 inches of material that was being wasted during each lay-up. By tightening up the edges using smaller t-squares, this waste could be eliminated. The company paid an average of $3.00 per square yard, $1.20 per linear yard, and $. 05 per linear inch for its fabric. On average, two pattern cuttings are performed each workday throughout a 250-day work year. All fabric is folded 108 times for each cutting and is laid-up in 90" widths.The following formulas were used to calculate the amount of potential savings through optimizing the fabric usage:
Gloria textile thread cones were ideal for reuse and resale. The cones are 6 3/ 4" in length with a 1 1/ 2" opening at the top and a 3" circumference at the base. A vendor INWRAP had previously worked with in Philadelphia, Textile Cones, Inc., bought these type of cones at $. 08 per lb. for resale to North Carolina textile mills. Gloria generated approximately 4,800 lbs. of textile thread cones per year. At $. 08 per lb. it stood to receive $384.00 in revenues and save $779.40 in disposal costs by selling the cones to Textile Cones, Inc., a firm from Philadelphia. The company also generated approximately 30 triple-walled textile thread cone cartons in excellent condition each month. Several INWRAP materials exchange companies, such as Ben Forman and Son, United Shipping and Packing, and Foremost Corrugated were willing to pick up and pay $2.00 per carton.
Three meetings were held with Gloria president and its production personnel in October and November of 1997. All of INWRAP's source-reduction and reuse report recommendations were agreed upon for implementation. Gloria Lingerie lay-up and cutting department began tightening up the edges of its nylon and polyester fabric in late November. In early December, we arranged for Foremost Corrugated Job Lot Division to begin purchasing Gloria textile thread cone containers. Textile Cones, Inc. made the first collection of these cones in April of 1998.
The following chart documents source-reduction and reuse tonnage and material-specific diversion rates, along with dollar values realized by Gloria from December of 1997 through September of 1998.
The following chart references an additional list of textile and apparel manufacturing firms with a variety of waste streams that have been assisted by INWRAP in reducing their waste with resultant savings.
+ Cubic yardage (yds3) quantities are calculated on a loose, not compacted, basis.
* Total revenues/ savings = gross generator purchasing and disposal cost savings, including revenues where applicable.
♦ HGP: high grade paper
Recommendations: Waste Stream Reduction Practices for Textile and Apparel Manufacturers
The following suggestions are steps that manufacturers can take to align themselves with better practices. In later discussions, there are specific examples and more detailed proactive steps these firms can take to reduce their waste stream and costs.
Procedures To Develop a Comprehensive Waste Management System17
Create a corporate waste committee:
Techniques to Reduce Industry Specific Waste:18
To reduce waste from end-of-roll length cut off fabric:
How to Handle Specific Operational Wastes (i. e., industrial by-products or surplus materials):
How to Handle Office Waste (i. e., paper, common recyclables):
Despite the numerous resources available to textile and apparel manufacturers in New York City, the services remain underutilized and the industries still suffer from inefficient systems. The findings discussed in this guide point to the need for a comprehensive waste-reduction outreach and implementation program for these industries.19 These following are suggestions to implement a program of this nature.
This guide considers two main types of textile operations, fabric finishing and fabrication of products. Dyeing, printing, and finishing facilities add color or change the appearance and/ or performance of manufactured greige goods. These dyed/ printed and finished fabrics will eventually find their way to the cutting room tables to be assembled into apparel or other types of consumer ready textile products. The new waste reduction program should concentrate on these operations.
Successful Apparel and Garment Waste Reduction Practices20
The following was developed by INWRAP to assist industrial firms and distributors in assessing their operations.
Key Practices for Waste Reduction21
The following was developed by INWRAP to assist industrial firms and distributors in assessing their operations.
Questions to Consider22
The following questions were developed by INWRAP to assist textile and apparel manufacturers in assessing their purchasing, operations, waste management and recycling practices.
Waste Evaluation Survey23
The following survey was developed by Cyntex, Inc. to assist textile and apparel manufacturers in assessing their operations and waste management practices.Date:_______________
Resources in Print: Selected Textile and Apparel Waste Reduction
The following resources were compiled by INWRAP for the purposes of this guide.
"A Comprehensive Material Utilization Study: Parts 1 and 2." Apparel Manufacturer,May and August 1989.
"Achievements in Source-reduction and Recycling for Ten Industries in the United States." Tillman, J. W., A. Robertson, and E. L. George, Science Applications International Corp., U. S. EPA, DOC EPA-68-C8-0062; EPA-600/ 2-91/ 051, September 1991.
"Apparel Care and the Environment: Alternative Technologies and Labeling." U. S. EPA, DOC EPA-744/ R-96/ 002, September 1996.
"Best Management Practices for Pollution Prevention in the Textile Industry." U. S. EPA, DOC EPA-625/ R-96/ 004, September 1996.
Choose to Reuse: An Encyclopedia of Services, Products, Programs & Charitable Organizations That Foster Reuse. Goldbeck, Nikki & David. Ceres Press, New York: 1995.
Cutting Room Update, Part I and Part II. Kurt Salmon Associates. New York: March 1990.
Don't Overlook Textiles! Council for Textile Recycling. Maryland: 1997.
"Filtration Techniques Used by the Textile Industry for Recovery of Dyes, Chemicals and Energy." Porter, J. J., Clemson University School of Textiles, U. S. EPA, DOC EPA, 1995.
"Generation and Management of CESQG Waste." U. S. EPA, DOC EPA-68-W3-0008; EPA-530/R-95/ 017, July 1994.
"Going Organic: Converting Patagonia's Cotton Product Line." Chouinard, Yvon, and Brown, Michael. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 1, No 1, 1997.
"Handling Difficult Materials: Textiles." Polk, Tom. Waste Age, July 1994. "How to Recycle or Reuse Almost Anything." The City of New York, Department of Sanitation -Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling. New York: 1994.
"Massachusetts Weaver's Waste Filters into New Product Line." McCurry, John W. Textile World, August 1995.
Materials Management in Clothing Production. Tyler, David J., Blackwell Scientific Publications Professional Books, Cambridge, MA: 1991.
Material Utilization in the Apparel Industry: Current Practices and Recommendations for the Future, Apparel Research Foundation, Inc., 1970.
"Patterns for Fabric Economy." Havinoviski, Mara. Bobbin Text Book Series, 1969.
"Potential for Source-reduction and Recycling of Halogenated Solvents: A Report on Research Performed by the Source-reduction Research Partnership for the Metropolitan Waste District of Southern California and the Environmental Defense Fund, Jacobs Engineering Group, California: 1992.
"Pricing Environmental Impacts: A Tale of Two T-shirts," Illahee, Volume 11, Numbers 3 & 4, 1995.
"Profile of the Textile Industry: Sector Notebook Project", U. S. EPA, DOC EPA-310/ R-97009
"Recycle-If You Can." Kron, Penny. Apparel Industry Magazine, September 1992.
"Recycling: Saving Money and the Environment." Elliot, Edward J. Textile World, February 1996.
"Recycling Should Be Your Last Resort, Says EPA." Kalogeridis, Carla. Textile World, Vol. 141, June 1992.
"SIC 2200-2300: Textile Mill Products & Apparel/ Other Finished Products Case Studies." Office of Waste Reduction-Pollution Prevention Program, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, North Carolina: September 1993.
"Survey of Dyes and Chemicals Used in the Hosiery Industry." National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources & Community Development, North Carolina: May 1995.
"Starting Continuous Improvement with a Cleaner Production Assessment in an Austrian Textile Mill." Fresner, Johannes. Journal of Cleaner Production, No. 6, 1998.
"Textile Waste." Groff, Kimberly A. Water Environment Research, Vol. 64, June 1992.
"Textile Recycling Fact Sheet." Council for Textile Recycling. Maryland: 1997.
"Textile Recycling 101." Scrap Processing and Recycling, Winchester, Sarah Hart. May/ June 1995.
"Textile Recycling." Jablonowski, Ed and Carlton, John. Waste Age, January 1995.
"Trade Associations and Textile Schools." Textile World, July 1995.
Waste Reduction in the Textile & Apparel Industries. East Williamsburg Valley Industrial Development Corporation. New York: 1996.
WasteWise Textiles Case Studies: Johnston's Industries, Springs Industries, Inc., Cone Mills Corporation, Dan River, Inc." U. S. EPA, DOC EPA-530-N-97-008, 1999.
"What To Do With Hard-To-Recycle Items: Organizational Resources Fact Sheet." Upper West Side Recycling Center Inc., New York: 2000.
"Waste Recycling in the Textile Industry." National Technical Information Service, Citations from the World Textile Abstracts Database, NTIS, 1989.
Weaving Textile Reuse Into Waste Reduction. Platt, Brenda. Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Washington DC: 1997.
Resources on the Internet: Organizations Providing Textile and Apparel Waste Reduction Information, Products, Services
The following resources were compiled by INWRAP for the purposes of this guide.
END NOTES1 Source: Source: Union of Needle Trades, Industrial and Textile Employees, 1996.
2 Source: City of New York Department of Sanitation, "NYC Waste Composition Study, Commercial Sector", Volume 4, 1992.
3 Source: American Textile Manufacturers Institute, "ATMI 1998 Waste Generation Survey", October 2000.
4 Source: North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -Office of Waste Reduction, Case Studies SIC 2200-2300: "Textile Mill Products & Apparel/ Other Finished Products". September 1993.
5 Source: North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -Office of Waste Reduction, Case Studies SIC 2200-2300: "Textile Mill Products & Apparel/ Other Finished Products". September 1993.
6 Note: Dr. Golden is familiar with, or has contributed to, a variety of seminal, industry-specific waste reduction and materia l utilization publications. These works include Material Utilization in the Apparel Industry, Patterns for Fabric Economy and Materials Management in Clothing Production.
7 Source: City of New York Department of Sanitation, NYC Waste Composition Study, Commercial Sector, Volume 4, 1992.
8 Source: To Riches From Rags Conference Proceedings
9 Source: Hofstra University Department of Industrial Assessment Center, a program of the Federal Department of Energy
10 Source: " American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists AATCC, Glover, G and Hill, "Waste Minimization in the Dyehouse, Volume 6, June 1993.
11 Source: Apparel Research Committee of the American Apparel Manufacturers Association, Task Group Report -"The Environment", 1997.
12 Source: Apparel Research Committee of the American Apparel Manufacturers Association, Task Group Report ñ "The Environment", 1997.
13 Fresner, J. "Starting continuous improvement with a cleaner production in an Austrian textile mill." Journal of Cleaner Production Volume 6, 1998.
14 Source: North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources-Office of Waste Reduction, Case Studies SIC 2200-2300: "Textile Mill Products & Apparel/ Other Finished Products". September 1993.
15 Source: North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources-Office of Waste Reduction, Case Studies SIC 2200-2300: "Textile Mill Products & Apparel/ Other Finished Products". September 1993.
16 Note: Results are based upon participants of Hofstra University's Department of Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) program.
17 Source: Russell Corporation's Procedures for Comprehensive Waste Management, Apparel Research Committee of the American Manufacturers Association, Task Group Report ñ "The Environment", 1997.
18 Note: Findings are based upon the proceedings of the "To Riches From Rags" conference, 2000.
19 Note: Findings are based upon the proceedings of the "To Riches From Rage" conference, 2000. Proceedings.
20 Source: LICBDC INWRAP report, "Apparel and Textile Suggestions for Reducing Your Waste and Saving Your Company Money," 1994.
21 Source: LICBDC INWRAP report, "Best Practices" reference file, INWRAP, 1999.
22 Source: LICBDC INWRAP report, "Best Practices" reference file, NWRAP, 1999.
23 Source: Cyntex, Inc. survey, "Waste Evaluation Survey" reference file, Cyntex/ Survey, 1997.