Subject: Dioxin
In October (Conservation DistList Instance: 15:28 Tuesday, October 2, 2001), I asked the DistList: Can the environmentalist's goal to encourage purchase of TCF (Totally Chlorine Free) paper be joined with the librarian's and archivist's goal to use permanent paper? I received several replies and I want to share my report on the topic. A citizen called the Connecticut State Library to discuss his interest in legislation that would require the State to purchase paper that is made without the use of chlorine. His concern was not that he would be made ill by touching paper made this way but that the waste water from chlorine processes puts dioxin into our streams and lakes. It gets into the food chain and becomes a health hazard. He asked me if his proposal would contradict our requirements for permanent paper. After much research, I conclude that his wish for chlorine-free paper and the State Library's wish for permanent paper cannot be joined. I am inclined to believe the environmentalists when they say the current production methods release dangerous chemicals but the Environmental Protection Agency disagrees. Nor could I find a paper on both their list of acceptable papers and the list of papers that meet the permanence standard. A report from the Abbey Newsletter in Oct. 1994 <URL:http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/> was encouraging that chlorine free processes would become available and, if done, properly, would produce paper that met the permanence standard. However, this does not seem to have happened. A report published in 1995 and written by the Librarian of Congress, the Acting Archivist of the United States and the Public Printer says this: "... in the absence of research that provides other options, fully bleached pulp is a necessary component of permanent paper at this time. Bleaching removes the lignin from the pulp, which is necessary for permanence because lignin-containing papers have been shown to darken with age and light exposure. Librarians, archivists, and records managers are concerned that such discoloration could impede future reformatting procedures. Thus, the requirement that permanent paper be fully bleached cannot be eliminated because it is directly related to its long-term performance." <URL:http://lcweb.loc.gov/preserv/pub/perm/pp_9.html> In emails on Oct. 3, and Nov. 30, 2001, Bruce Arnold, Chair of the ASTM Paper Aging Research Program, who also previously worked for many years for a paper manufacturer, told me that recent ASTM research shows that lignin does not lessen the strength of alkaline paper but "[chlorine-free] bleaching produces pulp of lower strength than is produced by ... sequences [that use chlorine dioxide]. As much as 10% of the tensile strength is lost when a comparison between the two sequences is made." The chlorine dioxide sequence meets the Environmental Protection Agency's rules on dioxin production. The environmentalists prefer the chlorine free sequence. To determine if a paper is acceptable, I rely on Ellen McCrady's list of North American Permanent Papers <URL:http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/napp/>. Several of the environmentalist web sites list papers that meet their requirements. The most complete seemed to be by Conservatree <URL:http://www.conservatree.com/paper/PaperGuide.shtml> I compared the lists but found no paper on both lists. It took decades of effort to achieve both the permanent paper standard and the legislation that requires governments to use permanent paper. In addition, the impact on our collections of books and documents made from deteriorating paper has been well documented. I cannot recommend at this time that the State Library support a bill to require chlorine-free paper in state publications. Jane F. Cullinane Preservation Librarian, Collection Management Unit Connecticut State Library 231 Capitol Ave., Hartford, CT 06106-1537 860-757-6524 Fax: 860-757-6559 *** Conservation DistList Instance 15:43 Distributed: Monday, December 17, 2001 Message Id: cdl-15-43-002 ***Received on Monday, 17 December, 2001