PROCEEDINGS: FIRST NATIONAL
research grant
EC-00314
Uniuersity of
California
at Dauis
-------
FIRST NATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON PACKAGING WASTES
Proceedings
September 22-24, 1969
This conference, which was sponsored by
the Bureau of Solid Waste Management and the
Packaging Industry Advisory Committee, was
partially funded by Research Grant No. EC-00324
to the University of California at Davis. The
Proceedings (SW-9rg) have been reproduced as
received from the grantee. The "Bureau", as it
is termed throughout these proceedings, is now
a part of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waste Management Office
1971
Envircnnvirlral Protection Agency
I.iLr-. '; , - •' • V
1 r.o, ,:; . . - -_i*e
Chicago, Illinois 60606
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL F^FCTION AGENCY
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.00
Stock Number 5502-0013
11
-------
FOREWORD
The present report documents results of a federal Solid Waste
<
Management conference grant. Because of the broad range of interest
,„") areas inherent in the subject of packaging wastes, the first printing
lr
of the report by the grantee was inadequate to meet the demand for
^ copies. Thus, the conference proceedings are now being reprinted in
i
CQ an effort to make the information widely available to government,
university, and industry users.
r-
^ —RICHARD D. VAUGHAN
^jy Assistant Surgeon General
Acting Commissioner
Solid Waste Management Office
iii
-------
Steering Committee
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
(Organizing Group)
C. G. GOLUEKE - Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University
of California, Berkeley
S. A. HART — Agricultural Engineering Department, University of
California, Davis
R. B. KRONE — Civil Engineering Department, University of California,
Davis
P. H. McGAUHEY — Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University
of California, Berkeley
R. C. PEARL - Packaging Program, University of California, Davis
G. F. STEWART — Packaging Program, University of California, Davis
W. T. B. TJEN — Packaging Program, University of California, Davis
V. 0. WODICKA - Packaging Industry Advisory Committee, Fullerton,
California
ASSOCIATIONS, GOVERNMENT AND
OTHER UNIVERSITIES
ELMER R. KAISER - New York University, New York City
L. W. LEFKE - U. S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio
KAY VALORY - Consumer Counsel of California, Sacramento, California
RICHARD VAUGHAN - U. S. Public Health Service. Washington, D. C.
LEO WEAVER - American Public Works Association, Washington, D. C.
INDUSTRY
(Supplier, User and Associated Groups)
H. L. BLINN - Continental Can Company, San Francisco, California
F. R. BOWERMAN - Zurn Industries, Pasadena, California
ALEXANDER DONALD - King Sales & Engineering Co., San Francisco,
California
C. R. GQERTH — Package Engineering, Chicago, Illinois
B. H. MORGAN - Lamb-Weston, Inc., Portland, Oregon
E. B. CUTWATER - Stuart and Gunn, New York City
H. E. SCHUTZ - Hunt-Wesson Foods, Fullerton, California
IV
-------
Guest Speakers and Session Chairmen
The Honorable Joseph Alioto
Mayor, City of San Francisco
City Hall
San Francisco, California
Richard T. Anderson
Senior Planner
Regional Plan Association
230 West 41st Street
New York, N. Y. 10036
Thomas B. Becnel
Manager of Environmental Control Systems
Dow Chemical Company
Midland, Michigan
Dr. Irving S. Bengelsdorf
Times Science Writer
Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, Calif. 90053
Frank Bowerman
Zurn Industries
126 So. 1st Avenue
Arcadia, Calif. 91006
Dr. Andrew W. Breidenbach
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
12720 Twinbrook Parkway
Rockville, Md. 20852
Arsen J. Darnay, Jr.
Midwest Research Institute
1522 K Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
C. Soutter Edgar
Div. Vice President
Consumer Packaging Division
International Paper Company
220 East 42nd Street
New York, N. Y. 10017
Irving K. Fox
Associate Director and
Professor of Regional Planning
The University of Wisconsin
Water Resources Center
Hydraulic & Sanitary Laboratory
Madison, Wise. 53706
Norvell Gillespie
Executive Vice President
California Anti-Litter League
333 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94104
Charles R. Goerth
Associate Editor
Package Engineering
2 North Riverside Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Dr. L. P. Gotsch
Director, Technical Liaison
American Can Company
P. 0. Box 50
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
William N. Gunn, President
Stuart and Gunn Industrial Design, Inc.
370 Lexington Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10017
Dr. Samuel A. Hart
Agricultural Engineering Department
University of California
Davis, California 95616
Alfred E. Heller
President
California Tomorrow
Room 393, Manadnock Bldg.
681 Market Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94105
Dr. Samuel F. Hulbert
Dept. of Ceramic and Metallurgical Engineering
Clemson University
Clemson, So. Carolina 29631
Prof. Elmer R. Kaiser
Senior Research Scientist
New York University
School of Engineering and Science
University Heights, N. Y. 10453
Dr. Raymond B. Krone
Civil Engineering Department
University of California
Davis, California 95616
Charles W. Lincoln
Chief Packaging Engineer
Bell & Howell Company
7100 McCormick Road
Chicago, Illinois 60645
Hugh Marius
Deputy Commissioner of the
Department of Sanitation
16 West 10th Street
New York City, New York
The Honorable Paul N. McCloskey, Jr.
llth District of California
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Prof. P. H. McGauhey
Director Emeritus
Sanitary Engineering and Research Laboratory
Richmond Field Station
1301 South 46th Street
Richmond, Calif. 94804
-------
Dr. Emil M. Mrak
Chancellor Emeritus
University of California
Davis, California 95616
Eric B. Cutwater
Foundation for the Responsible
Conservation of our Environment
370 Lexington Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10017
E. R. Owens
Owens-Illinois
1 Maritime Plaza
San Francisco, Calif. 94104
G. Keith Provo
Asst. Vice President, Manufacturing
Crown Zellerbach Corporation
Gaylord Container Division
One Bush Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94119
The Honorable Henry S. Reuss
5th District of Wisconsin
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Frank M. Stead
Consultant
2040 Oakland Avenue
Piedmont, California 94611
Leonard Stefanelli
President
Sunset Scavenger Company
Foot of Tunnel Avenue & Beatty Road
San Francisco, California 94134
Dr. G. F. Stewart
Director
Food Protection & Toxicology Center
University of California
Davis, California 95616
Richard D. Vaughan
Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Consumer Protection & Environmental Health Serv.
Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare
12720 Twinbrook Parkway
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Leo Weaver
General Manager
Institute for Solid Wastes
1755 Massachusetts Avenue,
N. W.
Dr. Howard G. Schutz
Manager, New Product Exploration & Screening Washington, D. C. 20036
Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.
1645 West Valencia Drive Dr. Virgil 0. Wodicka
Fullerton, Calif. 92634 Vice President, Technical Director
Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.
1645 West Valencia Drive
Fullerton, California 92634
vi
-------
Preface
DR. GEORGE F. STEWART
The First National Conference on Packaging Wastes was held September 22 through 24, 1969
in San Francisco. The conference evolved from the University of California - Davis packaging
research and education program established in January 1967, within the Food Protection and
Toxicology Center. The Packaging Program is sponsored by the Packaging Industry Advisory
Committee which is composed of executives from companies broadly representing the many
phases of the packaging industry in the United States. The First National Conference on
Packaging Wastes was co-sponsored by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management of the U.S.
Public Health Service and the Packaging Industry Advisory Committee.
The 2 1/2-day conference was structured to promote meaningful dialogue among top-level
officials in the entire packaging and user industries, waste disposal industry, government
and universities, and also to attract participation of the public at large—all aimed at
generating ideas for and approaches to the solution of packaging waste problems.
The conference program focused attention especially on defining and clarifying the many
problems related to the accumulation and disposal of packaging wastes generated by the dual
forces of an exploding population and marketing trends which have led to a wide variety
of "convenience" consumer packages and similar professional and industrial "disposable"
packages, all of which are increasingly made up of materials that won't burn, break, crush,
degrade, or dissolve!
The conference did not result in many specific answers to packaging wastes problems: However
it did formulate the proper questions in terms of approach and did identify individuals,
industrial organizations, government agencies and universities with the capability of
cooperatively developing the means for managing and controlling these packaging wastes.
The conference was a decided success. More than 250 registered for the meetings represent-
ing all segments of society from all over the country—from package designers and manu-
facturers to consumers. The discussion periods were lively and helped clarify the points
made by speakers. A superb conference summation was provided by the last speaker.
vii
-------
This proceedings will serve as a permanent record of the material presented at the First
National Conference on Packaging Wastes. It is hoped that it will be. a useful resource
item for those interested in solid wastes problems.
G. F. Stewart
Chairman, Program Committee
viii
-------
CONTENTS
Steering Committee iv
Guest Speakers and Session Chairmen v
Preface vii
Session 1. Defining and Understanding the Problem
Chairman: Dr. E. M. Mrak
Packaging - U.S.A , 1
Eric B. Cutwater
The Changing Dimensions of Packaging Wastes 11
Arsen J. Darnay and William E. Franklin
Special Luncheon Address, "Must We Overwhelm Our Environment?" 19
The Honorable Henry S. Reuss
Session 2. Defining and Understanding the Problem (continued)
Chairman: Leo Weaver
Packaging in Perspective 27
C. Soutter Edgar
The Package User's Point of View on Waste 33
Dr. Virgil 0. Wodicka
Natural Biases Toward Packages and Packaging Wastes Problems
From the Municipal Wastes Management 37
Leonard Stefanelli
Packaging Problems From the Perspective of
the Public Official 43
Hugh Man'us
ix
-------
Session 2. (continued)
The "Bias" of the Concerned Citizen
Toward Packaging Wastes 53
Alfred Heller
Session 3. Searching for Solutions
Chairman: Dr. Ray B. Krone
Developing Strategies for Packaging Wastes Management. ... 57
Prof. P. H. McGauhey
Technical Problems Associated with Wastes
From Paper and Paperboard Packages 67
G. Keith Provo
Waste from Metal Packages 71
Dr. L. P. Gotsch
Wastes from Plastic Packages 85
Thomas B. Becnel
The Role of Glass Containers in Solid Waste Disposal .... 93
E. R. Owens
The Solid Waste Disposal Problem:
What the Packaging Engineer Can Do 101
Charles W. Lincoln
Special Luncheon Address "Environmental Problems" .... 107
The Honorable Paul N. McCloskey, Jr.
Session 4. Searching for Solutions (Continued)
Chairman: Dr. Samuel Hart
Solid Waste Management and the Packaging Industry 115
Richard D. Vaughan
(Presented by Dr. Andrew W. Breidenbach)
Motivating Ourselves for Action Through Publicity and a
Conscientious Package Design Community 121
William N. Gunn
Motivating Ourselves for Action 131
Norvell Gillespie
-------
Session 4. (continued)
Packaging Wastes Public Policy:
Law and Administration 135
Irving K. Fox
Motivating the Public 141
Dr. Howard G. Schutz
Session 5. Where Do We Go From Here?
Chairman: Frank R. Bowerman
Improving Package Disposability 147
Dr. S. F. Hulbert, C. C. Fain, M. M. Cooper, D. T. Ballanger
and C. W. Jennings
Incineration of Packaging Wastes
With Minimal Air Pollution 181
Prof. Elmer R. Kaiser
Future Research Needs and Goals 191
Charles R. Goerth
Governmental Organization for
Regional Management of Wastes 203
Richard T. Anderson
Closing the Public Information Gap 213
Dr. Irving S. Bengelsdorf
Wrapping it Up! 227
Frank Stead
Appendix I. Program 231
Appendix II. Registration List 235
-------
-------
Chairman: Dr. E. M. Mrak
Chancellor Emeritus
University of California
Davis, California 95616
Packaging - U.S.A.
Eric B. Cutwater
The Changing Dimensions of Packaging Wastes
Arsen Darnay, Jr.
-------
Packaging • U.S.A.
ERIC B. CUTWATER
There is a rumor going around the Press Room that the visitors from New York to this
Conference have a uniformly smug, secure and self satisfied look, obviously reflecting
a secret but dramatic breakthrough in the area of packaging waste disposal.
Let me set the record straight. Actually, we do have an amazing new clean-up device—
the New York Mets Baseball Team, who have cleaned up Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and
are soon to head in this direction to clean up San Francisco for the pennant.
"Kissing don't last," George Meredith once wrote, "cookery do!" Thomas Wolf put it: "There
is no spectacle on earth more appealing than that of a beautiful woman in the act of cook-
ing dinner for someone she loves.' In this day of the package with its frozen, freeze-dried
and pre-cooked foods, when entire meals may require no more preparation than flicking on an
electric oven, it is no wonder that thoughts of an older generation sometimes stray wist-
fully to the dim memory of a farm kitchen alive with rich, savory smells, to the fond
recollection of foods prepared as Mother or Grandmother used to make them.
but considering the terrible drudgery of the old fashioned kitchen starting with the blow-
ing of coals in the early morning to paring and coring of cider apples, or the proofing
of bread at night, it leaves little desire in today's woman to return to those "happy"
days. An old gravestone in New Bedford reads: "Here lies a poor woman who always was
tired--she lived in a house where the help was not hired."
It has been common for mankind to look backward with envy, you know "the good old days",
to review the present with alarm, and the future with misgivings. We are assembled here
to determine the role of packaging waste as it affects man's environment in the present
and in the future, and to achieve a greater understanding of the problems, to possibly move
further along the road to a mutual solution. As a wise man said, to know the future we
must study the past. So I have taken upon myself to review with you the role which the
packaging industry plays and must play in our everyday lives; to take a look backwards,
not with envy, view the present somewhat smugly, and look forward with anticipation.
1
-------
Certainly we do not wish to "cure the cold by killing the patient." It is easy to say
let's eliminate the packaging that adds to our waste disposal problems, or as many are
wont to say, "manufacturers over-package."
But before we apply such measures let us remember the pre-packaging kitchen, the American
woman giving her youth, health and strength to feed her menfolk and let's see what brought
about the state of packaging today, what its shortcomings are, and especially its future.
Containers date back to the dawn of history. Any item to be stored or transported called
for packaging, and led to the use of leaves, hollowed-out branches, gourds, earthenware
and the like. In time, containers were improvised or developed to meet special needs.
The antecedents of some modern containers such as glass bottles and certain packaging
practices such as labelling are very old indeed. Glass bottles were used in Egypt more
than 4,000 years ago. Marks, signatures, symbols and seals were employed for the very
first products involved in trade.
Until about 1800, the making of packages was essentially a craft or an art. Museums
display many beautiful containers that are both relics and treasures of the past.
Most people don't realize that the industrial revolution produced great advances in con-
tainer invention and fabrication, resulting in the development of most standard container
forms used today. Included were the metal can, collapsible tube, folding carton, corrugated
shipping case and even the crown closure. During the latter part of the 19th and the early
part of the 20th centuries, the groundwork was laid for mechanized production of standard
container forms. During the same period, the development of linotype, photoengraving,
process-color printing and additional graphic arts processes completed the combination of
container and effective decoration needed to make modern methods of packaging possible.
The introduction of glassine, kraft paper, cellophane, aluminum foil in the period between
1900 and 1930 helped provide the basis for a whole new area known as flexible packaging.
A revolution was thus commenced in the search for the development of new materials. This
revolution has been spectacular since 1940 when polyethylene was introduced, followed by
polyester, polypropylene, stretchable paper, steel foil, ionomers and a host of improved,
coated and laminated materials.
While revolutions in package making and in materials were occurring there were equally
far-reaching advances taking place on the merchandising side. In 1899, the Uneeda Biscuit
package was introduced. It is generally considered the event that signalled the end of
the "Cracker Barrel Era."
Then began a flood of packaged products that has never stopped growing in volume and variety.
Items were additionally processed such as sliced, pre-measured, pre-mixed, unitized, pre-
pared ready for use; protected and made sanitary or sterile, soil resistant and safe;
and labelled for identification, recognition and easy purchase. This in turn gave rise to
self-service, for try to imagine self-service and checkout merchandising without packages.
-------
The era of rising package benefits has led directly and inevitably to home permanent*,
boil-in-bag foods, spray-on bandages, blister packaged hardware and easy-opening beer
and soft drink containers. Ue are now in an era of open ended opportunity called con-
venience packaging.
Meanwhile, machinery has been developed for all the phases involved in handling, filling,
closing, labelling and shipping packaged products. Lines tailored to the needs of every
type of product and every type of container have been evolved and a science of packaging
management and packaging methods is currently in the making.
The history of packaging, since 1900, has been part of the history and romance of business.
Familiar package forms, famous brand names and we!1-1 iked trade symbols have become part
and parcel of everyday living. The COKE bottle, Campbell's canned soups, Kellogg's cereal
boxes, Hershey's candy wrappers, and an almost endless list of similar familiar packages
testify to the popularity and effectiveness of the package as a significant factor in
today's living.
Container materials and packages continue to experience growth over the years. Reported
value of containers shipped in 1939 was about $2 billion. In 1947, it was approximately
$5.4 billion. In 1957 the value was $10.1 billion. Miscellaneous and unreported categories
raised the 1968 total to approximately $18 billion. However, the value of packaging at
the retail or store level is now estimated to be at approximately $31 billion.
At one time, packaging was conceived, developed and carried on more or less as an adjunct
to the manufacture of the product. There was no distinct organizational or professional
approach for the packaging function. Today, packaging is recognized as being too important
to be assigned anything less than a specific responsibility and strategy in the goals and
management procedures of most companies. Packaging is too closely related to the company's
profit and loss picture, and it is too definitely connected to a firm's growth potential
to be left to chance.
Actually, there are vast numbers of different jobs that packages can perform in more than
ten distinct categories. Packages can be a major source for reducing unit costs; promoting
distributor and retailer acceptance; increasing turnover and sales—at a profit; extend-
ing shelf life and reducing waste; extending marketing areas and penetrating new markets;
helping customers make better and more frequent use of products; introducing new products
or products adapted to new forms and new uses; promoting a company, its products and its
image; meeting government compliance problems and manufacturer's responsibility for safety
and regard for the consumer's health, welfare and essential interests; and a major source
of the planned growth of product lines and profitability.
Packaging is in one respect a production activity concerned with the procurement of supplies,
packaging-line equipment, layout and operation, quality control, cost control and production
output.
-------
Packaging is, as well, a vital factor in research and development activities. The develop-
ment of a packaging concept has been known to open up entirely new product areas. Pack-
aging is also the province of marketing and sales.
Because of the varied aspects of packaging, it frequently employs an organization that
is marketing oriented in regard to policy, scientifically oriented in regard to research
and development, and engineering oriented in regard to production. Increasingly, companies
are heading the packaging organization with a director or a coordinator of packaging, or
a vice president of packaging. Frequently, especially from the standpoint of policy and
planning, a committee is appointed to be sure all factors relating to marketing, legal,
purchasing, production, promotion and distribution are considered. At one time packaging
was administered in many companies by a committee. This procedure seems to be waning in
favor of a director and packaging staff. Today, the function of the committee, if it is
used, is generally to review and coordinate. It is in the nature of packaging that many
requirements and interests will be in opposition or require balancing. A good sales
package may not be an efficient or practical container to produce. A package that produces
at highest speed and lowest cost may excite little interest and produce no movement on
store shelves. Increasingly, legal considerations may call for compromises.
When we talk of compromise we might consider some of packaging's shortcomings—and there are
many. Sales Management magazine had a recent article based on a fairly broad survey—the
housewives asked, "Why do they make tops you have to pry off, even on products as popular
and recent as Pillsbury's Cake Decorator?" "Why must the occasional milk carton leak?"
"Why don't they make ham cans you can open with a regular opener?" Many housewives com-
plained that key openers are impossible, and have scars to prove it. "Why don't most
plastic pouches have reclosures like bread's twist tie?" "What can be done about the deter-
gent carton that won't stay closed and is hard to carry?"
We all have had experience with packages like Aunt Jemima's package mix where you tear back
the top to make a jagged hole which won't reclose; rice boxes with windows that perforate;
the huge Heinz Ketchup bottle that doesn't fit on standard shelves; the un-reclosable spice
can; or, my favorite, the package that is too big for the shelves in our apartment kitchen.
Much of the problem is, of course, in the economics of the package. I don't know how many
of you realize that the beer can represents 43% of the product's sales price. Beer in a
one way glass bottle--36% of the product's sales price, cereal in a folding carton—15%, a
can of pet food—I 7%, and baby food in s. glass jai—36%.
Changes are coming in the retail store, in the home and in the way people live that will
greatly affect the next .generation of packages. Not that these changes haven't been in
effect or developing for a long time, but city living and affluence are influencing the
character and the rate of package change.
-------
There is clear evidence that managements are developing a new awareness of packaging as a
marketing tool, and as a major contributor to profitability. It is assured that packaging
will be called on to play a bigger and more important role in the 1970's. And, although
packaging has plenty of essential chores to do, just in protecting, moving and identifying
goods, it appears that the more exacting requirements today are facilitating retail handling,
checkout, motivating sales and repeat sales, performing useful and desirable work for the
user—providing convenience and taking on new responsibilities in the role of being a "good
ci ti zen."
These newer requirements, it must be noted, are frequently needed in concept, but often
contain strong elements tending to incompatability. The need will become more exacting
for striking a balance between motivational design and legal requirements, between conven-
ience and waste control, and between packaging development and marketing opportunity.
I am sure most of you recognize that the aims of a package manufacturer and the conserva-
tionist not only fail to coincide, but conflict. The conservationist would like to see
packaging homogeneous, easily degradable and uniform in size. The packager strives to
achieve marketability through more types of packages and combinations of materials that are
of the strongest possible nature.
Beyond this an even larger role can be seen for packaging as special containers and closures
are developed for large markets such as beverages, baked goods, meats, processed foods,
unit and disposable packs for hospitals. Perhaps the largest opportunities for packages
in the '70's will be in the packaging of fresh produce—fruits and meats—where problems of
central operations, transportation and retailing these items have denied them the efficien-
cies and advantages that packaging has afforded in other fields such as packaged mixes or
household cleaners.
It is recognized that agriculture in this country is undergoing fundamental changes, with
intensive farming and high-yield crops moving us into development that one authority terms
"the coming era of the food factory."
Packaging methods and equipment will find both challenges and vast opportunities in this
"green revolution", which world-wide will probably be one of the most noteworthy develop-
ments of our time.
It has been said by a number of authorities that the automated supermarkets will become a
reality of the '70's. Pallett load stocking of shelves is being tested. Facilities are
being developed for automated checkout. Packaging techniques must play a key role in these
developments if much advances are to succeed. There is, of course, continuing interest
in the work free kitchen. Work free packaged foods must be viewed as an area of great
opportunity. (But, more of this later.)
-------
If near revolutions involving packaging are coming in stores and in the home, then it should
also be recognized that so-called industrial and shipping packaging is moving into a phase
of new technology and new management approaches. While packaging that fulfills a selling,
retailing role has been evolving and is being made articulate, a whole new science of package
engineering has been evolving within an area largely concerned with the production, tran-
sportation and handling of parts, equipment, industrial and military goods. It would appear
that packaging where marketing functions are ultimate, and packaging where handling is
paramount will have an opportunity to learn more from each other than ever before.
The production of most types of containers and packaging materials is reaching record levels
in 1969. The growth continues at a rate that is faster than the increase in population,
the rise in disposable income and expenditures for consumer goods. The implication is plain
that packaging is far from reaching the maturation point. In fact, as packaging advances
in the area of performing useful work (such as carry-out foods), the more the variety in
types and functions of packaging required. For example, a spokesman for Carry-Out Foods
Company reported that his firm required 22,000,000 foam polystyrene containers in 1968,
31,099,000 paperboard buckets and 110,000,000 regular dinner boxes. The rising popularity
of carry-out foods is just one of the reasons packaging is growing so fast. The aerosol,
to cite another example, is growing at the rate of some 200 millions of units a year and
most of the growth is occurring because the aerosol takes on a new job and performs useful
work as in the case of aerosol hot shaves.
The statistics showing the growth of materials and containers showed that polyethylene
continues as a star material, with 1969 growth projected at almost 90 million pounds in
film, 27 million pounds in coatings and 38 million pounds for bottle resin. This performance
dwarfs all other plastics in packaging and should be considered one of the significant
packaging developments, material-wise. Vinyl is on the move as a film, a thermoforming sheet
for blisters and a thinner wall container, and in the bottle field. Tin plate cans used
5,800,000 tons of steel, an increase of 1,000,000 tons since 1960. Glass containers added
one-hundred million gross since 1960, to a total of 247,000,000 gross in 1969. Aluminum
cans have doubled since 1966 to 285,000 tons of aluminum. Corrugated boxes, the largest
of all container categories, is showing good growth climbing from 8,000,000 in 1960 to
13,000,000 tons in 1969. This mirrors the overall increase in packaging, but also reflects
approval of single wall corrugated boxes for Vietnam, advances in waxed cartons for iced
or wet-packed foods, and the development of rodent resistant board. Faster running and
wider corrugators, it is said, have helped offset factors contributing to high cost.
The rash of regulations affecting packagers and packages continues at a sometimes bewilder-
ing pace. The major shift in labelling procedures to comply with the Fair Packaging and
Labelling Act is behind us. Reportedly, more than 75% of food labels were changed. Now
the National Bureau of Standards is working with various industry associations to set pack-
age quantity standards, to avoid undue proliferation of sizes. To date, more than twenty
different product areas are involved.
-------
Meanwhile, packaging bills at federal, state and local levels are being enacted for a variety
of reasons-, including childproof caps, cautionary labelling of cigarettes, transparent
•
containers for meat, poultry and fish. And, of course, there is considerable agitation for
a tax on one way containers to help pay for disposal programs.
One of the outputs that keeps packaging vigorous and progressive is the continuing develop-
ment and improvement of materials. Present day packaging is clearly embarking on a
trend that authorities have characterized as the era of the multi-material. Examples in-
clude copolymers, co-extrusions, and various coated and laminated structures.
Actually, these materials are vital to the performance of the more exacting and complex jobs
that packages are asked to do. This demand is accelerating much to the dismay of the pro-
ponents of recycling of materials, and multi-materials make the economics re-use virtually
hopeless.
The multi-material must be multi-functional and many of the requirements are paired contra-
dictions. For example, deep draws may be essential, yet walls must be uniform in thickness.
Heat sensitivity and thermal resistance may both be required. The container may use a ply
of one color on the inside and another color on the outside. These various combinations
promise great strides in such fields as produce. Fresh poultry and meat are expected to
benefit immensely. Some of the materials that will contribute to the advance are poly-
propylene, coated nylon and such co-extrusions as polyethylene/saran and poly/polypro.
Co-extruded film consumption is now over 20 million pounds per year and will soar to 200
million pounds in 1973, thanks to meat packaging, snacks, baked goods, cook-in packages
and sterile packs.
Some of the major developments in 1969 as we have noted, involve shrink packaging, thermo-
form foam cartons, trays and thin wall containers and plastic bottles. The struggle be-
tween multi-trip and one-way containers continues to be enlivened considerably by the
competition between steel and glass and between steel and aluminum.
As Arsen Darnay, our next speaker, has pointed out in one of his articles, glass container
development looks ahead to stronger glass, improved coatings and new constructions, one
of which would combine a teardrop shape with a polyethylene base. It is interesting to
note how plastic bottles keep bidding for enlarged markets, especially foods. The first
vinyl bottles, for example, are being tried for whiskey in miniature and in 1/2 gallon size
containers.
Because of its lightness, the potential has long existed for using foam plastics exten-
sively. This promise is now being fulfilled on a widening scale, with thermoformed meat
trays and egg cartons winning favor.
-------
When we look only at beer and soft drink containers—bottles and cans--10 billion non-
returnable units were produced in 1958, 25.6 billion units in 1966, and 58 billion units
will be produced in 1976 unless legislative dampers are placed on this growth.
A good part of the reason for expansion in nonreturnable containers rests on their appeal
to both consumer and merchant. The consumer need not return the empties, and the merchant
need not receive, store, and handle them. Another part of the reason derives from the fact
that beverage packaging is a last growth frontier for package makers, especially glass
makers. Each deposit-type bottle displaced from the market means the sale of 20 one-way
containers, since deposit bottles make an average of 20 trips to the home before they are
broken. In 1966, for instance, 65 billion containers were filled, but only 28 billion
containers were produced. If all containers were of returnable type, a market for 37 billion
units would have been up for the taking, and that's a lot of bottles or cans.
Joe Murtha recently pointed out that if we stepped this moment into the store of 1980, we
would recognize few of the products and find almost no "familiar" or conventional packaging
as we know it today. Many of these changes will come gradually and naturally in the next
decade so as not to startle consumers, but to keep up with and ahead of their restless
demand for change.
The most important changes are going to come from the public's upgrading and changing pat-
terns of living which will vitally affect products and packaging. The keys in future
living will be increased service, leisure, convenience. To marketers and packagers, this
means changes in the nature of products and the packages they come in. For example, the
advent of the washing machine created a huge market for detergents and laundry products
sold in "big", "huge", "giant" and "super" sizes. This entire market could shrink as
affluence encourages more families to send their laundry out, eliminating the need for
anything more than miniature sizes of soap boxes or even pellets easily inserted in a home
dispensing unit.
Applying this same xprinci pie to other products, we see the large "family sizes" of many
products disappearing or lessening in sales significance. The packaging word for the future
will be "portion" packaging.
Let's take a new and closer look right now at institutional packaging because it may be
telling us something. These same little jellies, condiments, soups, entrees, etc.—all
portion-packaged for single servings and uniform in size for dispensing both in the home
and in the store—are likely candidates for the future as more individuals in the family
lead their own busy lives and want meals on the run with no fuss or muss. We'll be seeing
single servings in countless products, food and non-food, including liqueurs and liquors,
cigarettes, snacks, etc.
-------
Another major trend on the horizon is packaging standardization. This will come from
government demands, automation demands, and the need for better systems of getting products
out of the warehouse, through distribution, and onto the shelves of many different types
of retail outlets the fastest and most economical way.
Of the 7,000 items in the supermarket today about 3,000 are in packages with a one-time
use, i.e., packages that do nothing more than get the product from the manufacturer to
the consumer (such as packages for cake mixes, cereals, pet food, frozen foods, etc.).
These are the packages most surely headed for standardization. The panel facings as we know
them now will be gone. Instead, we will see more cube packages, certain sizes such as
6 by 6 or 9 by 9, which can be palletized, automatically shelved, or put into vending
machines. Not only will packages become more standardized, but whole product categories
will be forced into the same size in order to accommodate automation. Brand identification
will rest heavier with packaging graphics and materials. In distribution we will see less
than 24 to the case, or "break-up, break down" cases for easy handling and shelf stocking.
As the supermarket moves into the food service business, and this is almost sure to come,
whole new concepts in take-home packaging which carry strong store identification and serve
as eating containers will have to be developed, with emphasis on practicability and esthetics
both in graphics and in choice of materials. This will call for new considerations in the
use of knock down packages for prepared foods, and the initiation of new businesses to take
care of this need.
With convenience products and packaging at a premium, we will be designing and developing
more packages which become an integral part of the product such as the aerosols so that the
package becomes more than just a carrying home device, but rather one created to last the
life of the product. Thus, we may be seeing more things such as squeeze tubes for orange
juice and butter, the principle of encapsulation being applied to more products, cereals
sold in "eat-from, throw-away" bowls, soups and dinners in "eat-from, heat-up" cans and
dishes with their own electrical units to be plugged into the wall.
While much has been said about packages with built-in odors, or packages that make a noise,
or containers that light up to attract customers, we don't believe this will come to pass
in any great degree. It can be done technologically, but we sense this type of promotion
is not in temper with an era that decries phoniness or expensive gimmicks. Packages
that will be a true help to the consumer in using the product are much more likely to win
the consumer vote.
In sum, we feel that forging ahead is not going to come from new products so much as from
better products made possible by technology. Admittedly, today, there is a real question
as to whether most firms can really work back from a given need to the development of process
or product, or even the package. Creativity is required both to perceive needs and to
invent imaginative solutions to them, and creativity requires creative persons.
-------
Given the creativity, it is even more important that it be embodied in top packaging manage-
ment that has the authority for involvement in all phases which concern package performance
in the total marketing effort.
The American economy has, in the past, had the ability to respond to obvious weaknesses in
its system. And just as man is today beginning to respond in correcting the causes of the
destruction of his environment, so is a segment of our economy beginning to realize that
packaging management must be given the tools to implement solutions as a whole and not as
little jobs in the old pattern.
If I have sounded rather enthusiastic about the packaging industry, it is because I was an
active part of it for twenty years and recognize its ability to respond to need, with maybe
a bit of nudging. The presence of so many packaging executives here today is proof of the
willingness of the industry to recognize its role in the presence of the donut of its trash
forming around our cities. James Reston wrote recently in the New York Times that, "the
old optimistic illusion that we can do anything we want is giving way to doubt, even to a
new pessimism." But when I look around today, I have no doubt that the packaging industry
can and will, with the continued help of the various groups represented here, gradually
recognize its role in the responsible conservation of our environment and replace any of
our doubts with a renewed optimism.
10
-------
The Changing Dimensions
of Packaging Wastes
ARSEN J. DARNAY and WILLIAM E. FRANKLIN
I want to start my discussion by emphasizing that there is no such thing as a packaging
industry. There are materials producers, package fabricators, and packagers. But it is
misleading, although tempting, to collapse the complexity of activities that packaging rep-
resents and to see it as some sort of monolith that you can grab. The most superficial
investigation reveals that packaging is a complex activity pursued by a number of inter-
locking industries.
It is misleading to speak of packaging waste as if this were a well defined waste component.
Discarded packages appear as part of the waste stream, mixed with other wastes. In practice
it is nearly impossible to separate the effects of the packaging components from the effects
of other wastes.
Our forecasts should be viewed with caution. Although I am convinced that governmental
intervention is not likely to take place in any packaging sector on a scale large enough to
make much of a difference in our forecasts to 1976, nevertheless the possibility exists
that it may happen.
It is my personal view that the difficulties packages are said to cause are not the respon-
sibility of those who produce materials, fabricate packages, and package goods. I don't
believe that package producers and fabricators are responsible for litter and problems in
waste disposal. That they wish to assume these responsibilities I interpret either as the
concern of any responsible private citizen over a failure of the public sector or a public
problem or as fear that there will be government intervention which it is best to anticipate
and defuse. Furthermore, I don't believe in taxing packages to achieve disposal aims. I
maintain that effective regulation of packaging logically leads to regulation of all economic
activities.
Finally, I believe that environmental quality control is a governmental function and that it
is those who generate undesirable wastes who should bear the costs of clean-up. In the con-
text of packaging wastes, the generator is the consumer, not the producer.
11
-------
The numbers cited are a selected few taken from the report on The Role of Packaging in Solid
Waste Management, which is available to anyone from the Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
Public Health Service. The study was one of a number of important analyses prepared recently
under the leadership of the BSWM, the sponsors of our research effort. This was a unique
study effort and a very necessary one for understanding the fundamental relationships
between packaging and waste management. In it we showed past and future packaging materials
consumption in pounds of materials consumed and in units consumed, where possible, thus
reducing all packaging inputs to a common quantitative denominator. Since the study con-
cerned itself with the vast and complex field of packaging taken in its totality, updating
the findings would require considerable effort, and we have not tried to do so. Consequently
all the data on current consumption refer to the base year 1966. The technological trends
identified were those available to the research team in the early part of 1968. The co-
author of this paper, and my principal collaborator in the preparation of the study, Mr.
William Franklin, was unable to attend the conference, but I wish to acknowledge his sub-
stantial contribution to our work.
THE QUANTITATIVE ASPECT
In 1966, about 52 million tons of materials were consumed. About 10 percent of this tonnage
was recycled, leaving a burden of 47 million tons of waste—which we assumed entered the
waste stream in the same year. If our forecasts prove correct—and they appear to be low--
next year 60 million tons of packaging materials will turn into about 54 million tons of
waste.
Depending on whose estimates of total waste generation you accept, packaging accounts for
13 to 24 percent of total wastes generated—excluding such bulk wastes as scrapped autos,
mine tailings, and the like. A percentage somewhere between these two ranges is probably
the correct one.
The quantitative dimension of packaging wastes is certainly changing. The total tonnage
will rise, we estimate, to around 74 million tons by 1976. And about 20 percent of the
increase will be the result of higher per capita consumption of packages than today and in
previous years. Per capita consumption has been increasing for many years—404 pounds in
1958, 425 in 1960, 450 in 1962, 474 in 1964, and 525 in 1966. In 1976, it should have
reached 661 pounds unless we introduce artificial restraints.
The most important result of this higher package consumption is that waste collection and
disposal agencies will have proportionately more materials to handle per person than today.
The consumer who freely chooses to consume more packaging is reluctant to tax himself or to
raise the refuse collection fees he has to pay. Thus package consumption results in a squeeze
on those who must handle the waste—it puts them in the undesirable position of having to
ask for a raise. And unlike packages, which sell themselves, refuse removal service is
viewed as a necessary evil for which one pays as little as it is possible to pay.
12
-------
THE MATERIALS
Paper, glass, metal, wood, and textiles are all long established packaging materials.
Plastics are the most recent contestants in the field. Their entry is so recent, in fact,
that plastics have not yet found their natural place in the materials pecking order in
packaging. Unless we legislate against these materials, they will someday be second only to
paper in packaging. Now they are fifth in rank, with 2.4 percent of packaging tonnage.
Only textiles account for a lesser share.
The basic change in the materials dimension of packaging wastes that we see is the steady
and rapid growth of plastics over a number of decades—if present trends continue—and the
continuing decline of wood and textiles. Plastics are growing because of their technical
superiority, consumer appeal, manifold uses and applications, and increasingly attractive
economics. Wood and textiles are disappearing because they are technologically obsolete.
The trend I've just named is a long term trend. Packaging is a very large industrial ac-
tivity. Substantial capital investments in materials production, fabrication, and packaging
equipment do not permit sudden shifts from one material to another unless the new material
offers very handsome profits indeed. This is a highly competitive activity where the twin
pressures for higher product performance and lower product costs are constantly forcing
material producers, package makers, and package users to adjust to minor technological and
price shifts. No sooner is a material seriously threatened—as wax was by polyethylene--
than frenzied development work is launched to qualify the loser for another round of battle.
Thus wax came back in hot melts—this time as an ally of its chief adversary.
Consequently, the relative dominance of materials used to make packages has not changed a
great deal since the last 1950's, nor do we forecast any major change by the mid-seventies.
On a tonnage basis, paper and board will dominate with 57 percent of total in 1976, up from
55 percent in 1966; growth will be accounted for largely by increasing use of paperboard
cartons. Glass will have 18 percent of total, up a fraction; glass will maintain its share
by virtue of the growth of nonreturnable bottles. Metals will account for 13 percent, down
from 15 percent in 1966—but this decline in relative tonnage will be counterbalanced by the
fact that lightweight aluminum cans will have very rapid growth. Wood will decline to about
7 percent from about 9 percent. Plastics will continue their uphill battle and account for
about 5 percent of total tonnage, up from about 2.5 percent. Textiles will continue to lose
ground, representing a fraction of 1 percent by 1976.
The important change is the growth in plastics, especially because plastics will appear not
only as containers but also as coatings and laminants in combination with metals, glass, and
paper—thereby "permeating" the entire packaging field. The consequences of this development
for one aspect of waste disposal—materials recovery—are considerable.
13
-------
CONFIGURATIONS
Yet another dimension of packaging wastes is the configurations in which packages will enter
the waste stream. Changes in configurations are related to changes in packaging materials
and changes in the product contained, of course. Thus when plastics entered the shampoo
packaging markets, glass was displaced both by plastic bottles and by tubes. Metal tubes
which carry shaving cream that you have to whip into lather with a brush compete with aerosol
cans that dispense the product ready to use. Fashion and marketing factors have an effect
on configurations—they create new ones. For example, it is easier to sell a small item,
say a fountain pen, when it is sealed in plastic against a large, colorful poster. Changes
in configurations cause changes in the quantities of materials consumed, probably their most
important effect on waste disposal. Portion packaging consumes more material than bulk
packaging; a non-returnable bottle increases total glass consumption even as it reduces the
quantity of material needed for one container unit.
The most important configurational change in coming years is the disappearance of the re-
turnable bottle in beverage packaging. But first let us list some others. Aerosol containers
have had a very steep growth; 240 million units were sold in 1955, 670 million in 1960,
and 1.8 billion in 1966~a rate of 20 percent a year—and in 1976 total consumption will
probably reach 3 billion units. Plastic bottles will be very much more in evidence by
1976; in 1966 they consumed 152,000 tons of materials; they will consume more than five
times as much—850,000 tons—ten years later. Formed and molded plastic container consump-
tion will nearly triple; so will the consumption of polyethylene film. We will see fewer
wooden barrels, baskets, berry cups, and similar items, and textile sacks will lose nearly
half of the market they held in 1966, replaced by paper and plastic sacks, netting, pallet
bins, and other configurations.
Since 1958, beverage packaging has been moving steadily toward one-way containers. In the
1958-1966 period, consumption of throw-away beverage containers, both metal and glass, in-
creased by 151 percent; the corresponding increase in returnable containers—glass only—
was 54 percent.
Much of the growth of one-way containers has been provided by the entry of these packages
into the soft drink market, still dominated by returnable bottles; non-returns have been
established in beer packaging for some time. The powerful motive force behind the develop-
ment of the throw-away container market is the fact that each returnable bottle displaced
from the market means the sale of 20 non-returns.
Perhaps the best way to sum up what has been happening is to look at the changing ratios
of containers to fillings. In 1958, about 12 billion containers were produced and about 53
billion containers were filled. On the average, each container was filled more than four
times. By 1966, a container was filled more than twice. By 1976, the ratio will be roughly
one to one, and returnable beverage containers will have almost disappeared.
14
-------
If the container to fillings ratio of 1958 had been maintained through 1966, we would have
needed 15.5 billion fewer containers than we actually used. And in 1976, we would use 42
billion fewer containers than we will actually consume.
Consider what this means from a solid waste handling point of view. In 1966, 1.3 million
tons of beverage containers would have been kept out of the waste stream, saving about $12
million in disposal costs. In 1976, 6.3 million tons of waste would be withheld, at a saving
of roughly $60 million. If 42 billion non-returnable beverage containers were withheld from
the market in 1976, that would reduce the tonnage of packaging materials consumed by 8 per-
cent and would reduce the increase between 1966 and 1976 by 29 percent.
You can see that this one predicted shift in container configurations, from returnable to
non-return beverage containers, has a sizeable impact on waste disposal operation. Add to
this the fact that many containers are thrown away heedlessly and become litter, and it
becomes evident why all container manufacturers are so active in trying to curb littering
and why some are promoting the recycling of containers.
Throw-away beverage containers are not the only cause of the quantitative increase in pack-
aging wastes. The general trend is simply toward more packaging—partly because people are
consuming more goods, partly because the package is such an excellent salesman; thus more
goods are packaged and packaged in more imaginative ways. If the U.S. consumer could curb
his appetites and if package consumption per capita would consequently be the same in 1976
as it was in 1966, we would reduce the expected packaging tonnage by nearly 15 million tons
and save $135 million in disposal costs. But this is unlikely to happen.
PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY
Packaging technology is so complex, we could well spend the entire conference discussing its
manifold mysteries. So I can only give a few observations.
In discussing packaging, it is still fashionable to talk about materials like paper, metal,
plastics, glass. This is just as inaccurate as it is to think of a car as made of metal.
Most packages and cars are composites. One or the other material may predominate, may supply
the bulk of the package weight, but the base substance will be united with others. A milk
carton is a paper carton. But for a man who wants to re-use it in a paper mill, it might
as well be made of plastics. A tin can with a tear-top closure may be mostly steel, but the
aluminum top "pollutes" it. Before either the steel or aluminum can be reused, they must
be separated.
Excellence in package performance, both in the technical and cost sense, is a result of
materials combinations, and the chief technological trend is toward more and more exotic
combinations of materials. Cheap materials can be upgraded technically and visually by
combining them with expensive materials. The union of the two materials must be very solid.
Unmodified wax coatings on milk cartons tended to flake off causing such irritation to house-
wives that wax had to yield to polyethylene, which adhered firmly.
15
-------
The very success of package makers in marrying dissimilar materials has made packaging
materials virtually unrecoverable after use. And if reuse of materials is one solution to
solid waste handling, it is clear that trends in packaging technology shut out this avenue
of approach. To improve the recoverability of packages, you have to simplify the packages.
Simple packages are what we started with many decades ago; we found them wanting; therefore
we have come this way.
However, there is another way to recover values in packaging wastes. They can be burned, and
their heating value can be captured. After incineration, at least the ferrous materials
can be separated out from residues magnetically and processed for reuse. Technological
trends in packaging favor this approach by improving the heating value of the "fuel".
Unsegregated municipal refuse has a heating value of around 5,000 Btu per pound. This is about
half that of a low Btu anthracite coal. The corresponding value of packaging materials, on
an as-received basis, is 3,700 Btu/pound. This relatively low value is explained by the fact
that more than a third of these materials is incombustible. The Btu value of the combustible
portion of packaging wastes, again on an as-received basis, was 6,200 Btu per pound in 1966.
The average heating value of waste is rising steadily for a number of reasons. The moisture
content is decreasing as less and less garbage is thrown away; this is in part due to pack-
aging which permits delivery of meats and vegetables in ready-to-use form so that fewer
peelings and trimmings are introduced into waste. The ash content of refuse is declining
because on-site incineration is declining and because coal and wood are no longer used in
quantity for heating and cooking. Finally, packaging materials are a growing percentage
of waste; the combustible portion of these materials will increase about 2 percent by 1976
over 1966. The Btu value of packaging wastes will rise more than 8 percent, thanks to the
increase in plastics and paperboard. Packaging materials will consequently help to make
refuse a better fuel should we decide to recover heat as we dispose of waste.
WASTE DISPOSAL IMPLICATIONS
Obviously the generation of more packaging wastes will mean a correspondingly greater waste
collection effort. In addition, the changing materials mix will result in a packaging waste
that will have a slightly lower density in 1976 as compared with such waste in 1966. However,
we don't expect that this change will have any practical significance. From a collection
point of view, the only important change will be a higher pick-up load per person served.
Litter pick-up is another matter. Solid waste Management, formerly the Refuse Removal Journal,
recently cited a cost of 30 cents a unit in New York City to pick up bottles as litter. That
would translate to roughly $975 a ton—versus about $9 to $25 a ton for normal pick-up
services. Disposable containers will contribute to littering. But this is not the result
of packaging but of public attitudes.
Much is said about the processing problems that packaging materials cause in disposal
facilities—especially incinerators. I want to sidestep this question for two reasons.
16
-------
One is that I am not convinced that disposal problems are caused by packaging materials so
much as by inferior equipment and practices. The second is that a very high proportion of
total wastes, and consequently of packaging wastes, is not processed but dumped.
An extensive study of the economic and technical aspects of the recovery of materials from
municipal wastes is underway at Midwest Research Institute under contract to the Bureau of
Solid Wastes Management. It will be completed in the spring of 1970. It will be the first
large scale, comprehensive study of this subject and should prove interesting to all those
who believe that there is gold in the garbage—whatever our conclusions turn out to be.
We concluded in our packaging study that salvage of packaging materials is practiced to an
extremely limited extent, with recovery restricted pretty much to tin cans taken from in-
cinerator residues—at the rate of about 300,000 tons a year of 6 percent of the tin cans
discarded—and to paperboard recovered from commercial and industrial wastes—at the rate of
2.5 million tons or 20 percent of containerboard produced.
I alluded earlier to trends in packaging toward more and more sophisticated materials com-
binations. These trends work against recovery by making it much more difficult and costly
to reprocess the materials, even if we could separate them out from mixed refuse at a low
enough cost to justify the activity.
Thank you very much for your attention. I hope I have thrown out enough information to set
the stage for the interesting sessions that will follow and that I have suggested some
questions which we, as a group, should pursue further.
This paper is based in part on work performed pursuant to Contract No. PH 86-67-114 with the
U. S. Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
17
-------
-------
Must We Overwhelm Our Environment?
The Honorable HENRY S. REUSS
It is good we are here at last for a national conference on packaging wastes. But it is a
pity that this, our first conference, is held only now, instead of twenty or fifty or,
better still, two hundred years ago, at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
If this were our fiftieth instead of our first annual meeting, doubtless we would have many
solid achievements on solid waste to congratulate each other about.
As it is, we can only congratulate each other on being here. Trash has been accumulating for
200 years awaiting our meeting.
Every day, America's trash-men collect 5.3 pounds of solid waste for every man, woman, and
child in the country. About five more pounds per day are not collected. They are disposed
of by individual householders, building managers, and industries, or not disposed of at all.
A total of 360 million tons of household, commercial and industrial wastes were generated in
1967, plus 550 million tons of agricultural waste and crop residues, 1.5 billion tons of
animal wastes, and 1.1 billion tons of mineral wastes — a grand total of 3.5 billion tons
of solid wastes in a single year!
The total of solid wastes collected is increasing by about 4 percent a year — four times
faster than our rate of population increase. Packaging wastes make up about 13 percent of
the total of collected solid wastes. But they are increasing at the rate of 6 percent a year.
It is high time to get together.
Let me talk first about our environment -- everything outside our skins. For solid wastes,
like everything else, is part of it.
We live off our environment. To say we should do nothing to degrade the environment would
be to say we can't continue to live. We must breathe air, use water, cut down trees, mine
copper and iron and coal.
19
-------
So, the question is not how to avoid changing the environment. The question is how to change
with the least damage to its quality.
Last month my subcommittee on Conservation and Natural Resources held hearings here in San
Francisco on the environment of the Bay. I'd like to share with you our findings. Most of
you are not San Franciscans, but the Bay can be a sort of rock pool, a miniature of what we
are doing, in our thoughtlessness, to the whole country, and indeed, to the whole world.
Forty percent of the original area of San Francisco Bay has been filled in. Some of the fill
was truly necessary, for docks, bridges, and similar structures. But much of it was not.
It was a waste of waters that supported waterfowl and oysters and fish, gave esthetic
enjoyment to human beings, and helped preserve the cool and salubrious climate of this
unique city.
The fills continue. A consortium of Eastern financiers wants to fill in a large section of
the West Bay for apartments. On the East Bay, the airport developers propose to fill in a
mile of the Bay for new runways to accommodate the new jumbo jets and the supersonic trans-
port. This as yet non-existent airplane is to be subsidized by the Government to the extent
of $1.2 billion -- plus customary overruns -- for the purpose of whisking you across the
Continent in two hours instead of five -- plus stack-up time at the airports. Its justifica-
tion is to keep American prestige in all things ahead of poor old England and France, who
some time ago started their own mini-version of this monster.
The National Academy of Science says:
"Today some who might once have greeted the SST with unbridled
enthusiasm are asking whether it truly is a sign of progress to fly
from Watts to Harlem in two hours, vibrating millions of ears and
windows in between."
What are we doing to our land, in the San Francisco area and around the country? We are
encouraging the subdividers to scalp it, so that near our cities there is almost no land
left for pleasant new towns.
We all know that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points -- and so do
the freeway builders. If an architectural delight or a pristine trout-stream lies in the
way, they must go. Today a freeway cuts through the Monterey Migratory Bird Refuge,
South of San Francisco. A freeway cuts through Conner Pass in the High Sierra, and exposes
the valley below to new floods.
Trash dumps and auto graveyards cover our countryside. I rejoice that San Francisco's
plan to spread its trash over the deserts of Lassen County has fallen through. I hope that
Washington's plans to fill in the marshes of the Potomac come to the same happy end.
20
-------
Crowding and aging are ruining our cities. So we have urban renewal. The Federal Govern-
ment buys out the small land-holdings and shops, and clears out the inhabitants -- that is,
the poor people. Then it sells the land at a loss to developers of luxury apartments.
What happens to the poor people who are removed?
The Federal Bureau of Public Roads has suggested a place to put them: in the air space
above freeways! I quote from the Bureau's report of December 18, 1968:
"Most city dwellers are accustomed to noise and fumes, and the
poor have to be more tolerant than persons who can afford to choose
from a broader variety of housing types and locations."
This doesn't quite say, let 'em eat cake. It does suggest, let 'em breathe monoxide.
What is the condition of our waters? Those that haven't been filled in, I mean. Here are
some samples.
On the Mississippi at St. Louis, fish placed in a sample of river water diluted with 10
parts of pure water died at once.
On the Hudson between Albany and Manhattan, 200 million tons of raw sewage pour daily.
Scavenger eels are about all that can survive in that stretch, and recently one took a bite
out of a sanitary engineer.
Here in San Francisco, the aircraft carrier Enterprise dumps the raw sewage of a community
of 2,000 into the Bay every day.
If you visit Cleveland, don't flip a cigarette in the Cuyahoga River. The river is in-
flammable.
As Pogo says, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Our lakes are in worse shape than our rivers, because their waters do not flow and flush
out filth. Agricultural fertilizers are carried into our lakes from farms. The phosphates
and nitrates of detergents and human and animal excrement flow into them from sewers.
Conventional sewage treatment leaves these nutrients largely untouched.
So our lakes are over-fertilized. Algae flourishes, then dies, and in its decay consumes
the lake's oxygen. At the same time it releases the nutrients back to the lake water to
nourish more algae. Finally the scum of decaying algae piles up in foul-smelling mats on
the beaches.
-------
Lake Onondaga near Syracuse, N. Y., is a typical eutrophying lake that is dying from over-
fertilization. Its waters are unfit for drinking, swimming, boating, soon for industrial
purposes. Its shoreline is covered with rubbish. Its bottom is blanketed with foul-
smelling decaying sludge 12 feet thick.
Our air has likewise become a sewer. Coal-burning power plants emit 30 million tons of
sulfur oxides yearly. These react with rain and form sulfuric acid. The polluted rain
will kill your crops, eat holes in your clothes and your skin, and take the paint off your
car.
To this add 71 million tons of carbon monoxide emitted each year by automobiles -- the
nation's largest single air pollutant.
Each of these examples of environmental pollution represents waste -- the spending of our
materials and energy in an inefficient and extravagant manner for the things we need, or
for things we don't need, or for things we would be better off without.
Some environmental pollution represents economic waste — for example, oil spills and leaks.
Each barrel of oil that leaks into the Santa Barbara Channel is an out-of-pocket loss to
the Union Oil Company. In such cases, the financial interest of the polluter coincides to
a large extent with the public interest; both have strong incentives to stop the waste.
In such cases, at least some of the market forces work toward the public interest.
In most forms of waste, however, this is not true. Packaging is a good example. It is
almost always cheaper nowadays to manufacture packages from virgin materials than to salvage
used packages.
Automobile graveyards are another example. It is nowadays cheaper to use iron ore and home
scrap to make steel than to pay for collection, stripping and transportation of automobile
hulks back to the mill. So the cadavers pile up along the roads and in the backyards of
America.
Neither the manufacturer's decision to make a certain package or a certain automobile,
nor the consumer's decision to buy them, is much influenced by considerations of salvage
or disposability.
The market penalizes neither the seller nor the buyer of a wasteful product. Nor does it
reward those who would protect the larger environment. The whole cost of waste must be
borne by the public -- either in taxes to cart the trash away, or in the spiritual desola-
tion of living in a dump.
I have said that solid wastes are increasing at least four times more rapidly than popula-
tion. If the telephone company had not invented one dial telephones, by now every woman
22
-------
in the country would be working as a telephone operator. Unless we stop the growth of
waste, the day is surely coming when every man in the country will have to work as a trash
collector.
A promising way to stop waste would be to allocate the costs of waste collection and dis-
posal to the real producers and consumers of the waste. This is already done in some
communities for waste water by a percentage surcharge on your water bill for sewage treat-
ment. That is, your sewage charge may vary up and down, like your water bill, in proportion
to the amount of water you draw from the city mains.
It's a different thing with solid waste. The price of trash disposal is usually paid by
local property and sales taxes. They have no rational relationship to the production of
trash.
Let's take the dead automobile. Some years ago, the junk man would pay you to haul away
the mortal remains of your faithful chariot at the end of its days. Now you have to pay
him!
If you're poor, you leave it in. your back yard or abandon it in the street. The automobile
excise tax, currently seven percent, is scheduled to be phased out over three years starting
next January. Rather than phasing it out completely, shouldn't we continue it at a minimal
rate, put the proceeds in a trust fund, and use them to help local people dispose of the
cadavers? We might give the Secretary of the Treasury authority to adjust the rates up and
down at intervals, so that when the scrap market is good and market forces move the remains
back to the melting pot, the tax could fall to zero, to rise again as soon as they begin
to pile up in the roadside mortuaries.
Or take the throw-away bottle and the beer can, surely among the worst solid pollutants
of our roadsides and parks. Formerly, beer and soft drinks came in deposit bottles. Before
inflation, a cent or two was enough to inspire thrifty housewives to save them, and small
boys to collect them from the roadsides.
Today, 43 percent of the selling price of a tinplate can of beer is in the can -- probably
the highest packaging cost of any item of commerce. The can cannot be salvaged. The cost
of removing the tin is too high to make either the steel or the tin reusable. Tin is a
scarce material, and almost all of it is imported. Every time you buy beer in a tin can,
you help exhaust an irreplaceable natural resource and aggravate the dollar drain.
One wonders why market forces haven't eliminated tin cans, but they obviously haven't.
An alternative is the aluminum can, which is even worse. It won't rust away.
Again, some sort of an excise tax, to generate funds for local trash removal, should be
considered. Perhaps just considering it could spur the packaging industry to develop less
wasteful and damaging containers.
23
-------
Still, the packaging industry's contribution to our degraded ecology is small. For the
larger task of protecting our total environment, I can think of four things we desperately
need: more money, better organization, expanded research, and a world-wide view.
First, money.
Though we have just landed a man on the moon, we continue to make a wasteland of the earth.
In plain words, the Federal Government is defaulting on conservation. While subsidies to
large corporate farmers to grow unneeded crops, spending on the military, and wasteful
public works projects go largely unchecked, vital environmental programs are increasingly
short-changed.
For this fiscal year, Congress authorized $1 billion to help localities construct sewage
disposal plants. But the actual appropriation request is a totally inadequate $214 million.
The amount authorized for combatting air pollution is $134 million. But the budget request
is for only $95 million. Compare that with the $350 million we're spending this year to
discover new methods of chemical and bacteriological warfare. How's that for a sense of
priorities?
Under the Administration's April budget cuts, an advance of $7.5 million to accelerate the
acquisition of wet-lands for water fowl was cut by one-third, to $5 million. But in the
same budget, the Air Force's latest winged boondoggle -- the $8 billion Advanced Manned
Strategic Aircraft -- had its appropriation upped by $23 million.
Under those April budget cuts, allocations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund were
cut from $154 million to $124 million. The budget appropriation for wild rivers was cut
from $300,000 to $200,000. What are we to make of a federal budget that allocates $143
million for the National Park Service, and nine times that much -- $1.2 billion — for the
Army Corps of Engineers?
We are not going to get a sensible set of national priorities until the people tell their
government that our environment here on earth comes first.
Second, we're going to have to set up an adequate organization to cope with environmental
degradation.
Twenty years ago, confronted with frightening economic and atomic problems, Congress set
up in the executive branch a three-man Council of Economic Advisers and a five-man Atomic
Energy Commission, and counterpart joint House-Senate committees.
We must now make a similar effort if we are to improve the quality of our environment. We
must set up a permanent mechanism to guide us in our approach to soil, water, air, wildlife,
24
-------
forests, open space, and man. We need a high-level Council of Environmental Advisers,
independent of the President, able to follow through on every phase of environmental pro-
tection and clean-up. The Council would issue each January a report on the status of the
environment, what is being done to improve it, and what needs to be done in the future --
with costs. The Joint Committee would review the report and make recommendations to the
appropriate legislative and appropriations committees.
Third, we need more research on the environment. There has been no substantial advance in
sewage treatment technology in 50 years. Our principal methods of solid waste disposal,
burning and burying, come down from remote antiquity. We need research, development, and
demonstration of whole new systems of urban transportation if we hope to clean up our air.
Above all we need research into better methods of population control.
Let's ease up on space exploration for a while, and explore ways to make the earth worth
staying on.
Fourth, we need a world view. Since the environment covers the whole earth, we cannot
limit our concern to the United States. The air polluted in Chicago blows over the fields
of France. The pesticides we use in Iowa wind up in the fatty tissues of Antarctic penguins.
As Fairfield Osborn has said: "Every country is met with the threat of an oncoming crisis.
The tide of earth's population is rising. The reservoir of the earth's living resources
is falling. There is only one solution: man must recognize the necessity of cooperating
with nature."
Encouragingly, the United Nations General Assembly voted last December to hold a UN
Conference on the Environment in 1972. The Conference will consider enhancement of the
environment for all mankind. How can we stop contamination of Lake Baikal as well as Lake
Erie? How can we protect Cornwell from the Torrey Canyon as well as Santa Barbara from
Union Oil? How preserve the American eagle, the great grass-eating and predatory animals
of Africa, the Arctic snowy owl, the blue whale, and hundreds of other endangered species?
How save the grass and forests when Megalopolis is spread not just from Boston to Norfolk,
but from Paris to Peking and from Cairo to the Cape? How stop man from making a desert of
all the earth, as he has already done in much of Spain, Greece, China, Mongolia, North
Africa, the Middle East? How avoid making the earth a hothouse by overheating the atmos-
phere with the fires of our fossil fuels?
The UN Conference can be the starting point for a worldwide effort to protect our environment
from ourselves.
The UN Conference, like this Conference, is long overdue. For it must not be said of us,
as it was said of Jeremiah, "And I brought you into a beautiful country, to eat the fruit
thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered ye defiled my land, and made mine
heritage an abomination".
25
-------
-------
-------
Chairman: Leo Weaver
General Manager
Institute for Soli'd Wastes
1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Natural Biases Toward Packages and Packaging Wastes Problems-
C. Soutter Edgar
Dr. Virgil 0. Wodicka
Leonard Stefanelli
Honorable Hugh Marius
Alfred Heller
-------
Packaging in Perspective
C. SOUTTER EDGAR
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this conference and to be a member of this
panel. Certainly the subject is one in which we all have an interest and all have a respon-
sibility.
This panel has been given the task of considering natural biases toward packages and packag-
ing waste. I interpret this to mean a consideration of those things, physical and mental,
that adversely or favorably affect its disposal.
As one who has spent a third of a century in the packaging business, I have come to see
packaging as a cycle that consists of manufacture, use, discarding and disposal.
The packaging industry has devoted most of its energies to the first three phases: manu-
facture, use and discarding. In an economy based on free enterprise and specialization,
it is the function of the specialist to try to satisfy the needs of the community within
the compass of his capabilities. The basic role of packaging is to facilitate the distribu-
tion of goods, so that the products of other specialists become available to consumers in
a convenient form, at low cost, with their properties intact. This involves everything
from big ticket items such as electric refrigerators packaged in large corrugated shipping
containers, to sticks of gum, packaged in a combination of foil and paper.
As packaging has evolved, its functions have been expanded. Today, packaging not only
contains the product, and ensures safe delivery in the desired amount and condition; it
also attracts the buyer's attention, merchandises the product, advertises the price, and
provides detailed information about the product along with directions for its use. A
dramatic illustration is packaging of consumer goods in unitized packages of pre-established
quantities, or in multiple carry-home packages. This is the result of the self-service
concept of marketing that has extended the use of packaging to perform the job formerly
done by the grocery, drugstore, or hardware clerk. All of these developments are designed
to meet the fundamental demands of low cost, product protection and consumer convenience.
27
-------
Clearly, packaging today is a fundamental part of the entire marketing and distributive
process. This, then, is the area of the packaging manufacturer's principal responsibility,
and the reason why most of our efforts have been expended with the first three phases of
the packaging cycle.
However, and the record will support this statement, the packaging industry is well aware
of the fourth phase of the cycle, namely, the return of the package to the environment. We
have devoted time, money and energy to anti-littering programs. Recently the industry
created a new organization called the Materials Research Council. The Council will coordinate
the packaging industry's approach to the waste disposal problem, and serve as a clearing
house for technical and other information on the subject. I cite these parts of the record
merely to establish the fact that as packaging specialists, we conceive of packaging in >w
terms of the complete cycle, although our primary responsibilities and efforts are related
to the first three phases.
I think it is obvious that the problem of packaging waste disposal arises only with the
final phase of the packaging cycle.
The American Management Association defines a problem as a "deviation from an objective
that exceeds acceptable limits". We can state the objective, with respect to packaging
waste disposal, in this manner:
"The return of the discarded package to the environment in a manner that
is inexpensive, does not adversely affect the environment, and does not
adversely affect the ability of the package to satisfy consumer needs".
You will notice that there are three elements in this objective, low cost, preservation of
the environment, and preservation of consumer benefits. The actual situation is characterized
by increasing costs of disposal and increasingly deleterious effect on the environment.
So far, consumer benefits have not been affected. Clearly we have a problem, because of the
deviations from the cost and environmental parts of the objective.
The causes of these deviations are well known. Waste disposal is expensive because there
is so much of it, some 52 million tons at present, with the probability that it will increase.
Growth in the packaging market has been at about the same rate as the growth of the national
economy. Most projections indicate a more or less steady growth rate of about 3.6% annually.
Packaging waste of all kinds grew from 404 pounds per capita in 1958, to 525 pounds in
1966. It is expected to reach 660 pounds by 1976.
The per capita figure is very important because it suggests the most expensive part of waste
disposal which is collection. About 70% of packaging waste is from consumer packages. This %
means that collection consists of gathering up a vast number of small volumes from individual
households or, worse yet, gathering up individual packages that are the result of littering.
Gathering up household refuse is expensive but even this costly process is exceeded by the
expense of gathering and transporting litter.
28
-------
Once the waste has been gathered and transported to the disposal site, the actual disposal
process represents an additional expense. This expense is considerable because the problem
is not so much getting rid of the material as it is getting rid of it in such a manner that
it does not adversely affect the environment. After all, open dumping is not very expensive
in terms of dollars and cents. Our real objection to open dumping is its effect on the
environment.
Present practices in waste disposal involve reducing the volume of waste, generally by com-
pacting or incineration, and then placing the residue in a location where whatever adverse
effects it may cause will have a minimal impact on the environment where people live.
Reducing the volume of waste is complicated by the heterogenous nature of the waste as it
arrives at the disposal site. This makes it difficult to use the reduction techniques best
suited to the particular materials involved. For example, paper will burn easily. Metal
cans can be compacted effectively. Glass can be reduced to granular form without much
trouble. Plastic can be shredded. But it is hard to use these methods effectively when
everything is all mixed up in one conglomerate mess. To be sure, there are techniques for
separating waste into its various components but this, too, is expensive.
Packaging increasingly tends to involve a variety of materials. Glass bottles for years have
had paper labels and metal closures. Now we have paper packages laminated with plastic film
and steel cans with aluminum tops. This trend, I feel quite certain, will continue. More
and more, packages will consist of combinations of dissimilar materials engineered to
provide specific end uses, that could not be achieved as well or as economically by single
materials. These developments bring with them a whole new set of conditions from the stand-
point of waste disposal.
This analysis of the problem leads to the conclusion that cost is the key factor. I did some
rough calculations, which show that if all packaging waste generated in the next one hundred
years were subjected to compacting, which is technically feasible, the volume would be about
10 billion cubic yards. If this volume were put on barges or, thinking way down the road,
in air freighters, and hauled or flown to the ocean, which is also technically feasible,
it would have no noticeable effect on the environment. Indeed, the net result would be, to
cover one one thousandth of the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean with three feet of material.
The only trouble with this method of disposal, of course, is its cost. It would be very
expensive. Let me stress that I am not offering this method as a solution to our problem
because I am not qualified to even attempt such a task. I mention it only to emphasize the
important role that economics plays in the total picture.
What, then, are the biases that work against low cost disposal?
An obvious one is the contradiction between the first three phases of the packaging cycle
and the last phase. Packages are purposely made to resist absorption in the environment, not
to facilitate it.
29
-------
Another bias is the role of packaging in the distribution and marketing system. The function
of packaging in this area is so important that the volume of packaging will increase rather
than decrease.
A third is the demand of consumers for convenience and economy in packaging. This will
generate a greater use of packaging materials in combination, as well as continued emphasis
on the discardable feature of packages. The result is greater resistance to deterioration.
Still another bias is lack of direct consumer participation in packaging waste disposal.
Disposal costs could be reduced if package separation according to material was done by
consumers. Waste would then arrive at the disposal site in a condition that would allow
for the application of the easiest methods of disposal afforded by the properties of the
specific materials. Although this is done in some instances today, it poses political
problems that make it of dubious effectiveness.
Failure to appreciate the problem is certainly a bias. This is related to the previous one,
but involves another element as well. Disposal operations are paid for with tax money.
Possibly a greater appreciation of the problem would make taxpayers more willing to appro-
priate the necessary funds.
A common bias, not limited to waste disposal but certainly applicable, is a failure to analyze
the problem correctly. I have identified three objectives in packaging waste disposal;
namely, low cost, preservation of the environment and preservation of consumer benefits. If
this analysis is correct, then solutions to the problem must lie with reducing deviations
from these objectives. All that I am saying is that appropriate and effective solutions to a
problem depend upon an accurate analysis of the problem in the first place. As our computer
experts often tell us "garbage in -- garbage out".
The last bias that I suggest is a failure to put the problem in its proper perspective.
This, I think, may well be one of the most important. A striking characteristic of our times
is the almost incessant criticism to which we, as a society, subject ourselves. Hardly a
phase of our political, social and economic life is not publicly dissected and found wanting.
In such an atmosphere of self-flagellation, emotion rather than reason tends to influence
our thinking. The dangerous result of this situation is that proposed solutions to problems
are often emotional reactions rather than reasoned responses.
An example of what I am talking about is an article that appeared in the New York Times on
June 16, 1969. The article said in part "An avalanche of waste and waste disposal problems
is building up around the nation's major cities in an impending emergency that may parallel
the existing crisis in air and water pollution." "Scientists foresee the day when the
accumulation of rubbish and gases from its incineration will be as troublesome over the face
of the globe as are the wastes in a space craft."
30
-------
Now please do not misunderstand me. I am not attempting to argue that packaging waste
disposal is not a problem. What I am saying is that terms such as "crisis", "emergency",
"an avalanche of waste", "staggering under the load", "as troublesome over the face of the
globe as are the wastes in a spacecraft" are emotional words and phrases that distort the
problem and make reasoned approaches more difficult. After all, if one wishes to talk
about avalanches of waste one should consider the annual crop of leaves which is perhaps
20 times the volume of packaging waste. Yet no one but the home owner who has to rake his
front yard gives this greatest of all disposal problems a second thought.
It seems to me that a realistic appraisal of the packaging waste problem is needed to get
us out of the emotional fog that hinders a reasoned approach to the issue. To summarize
then, I have endeavored to establish these propositions:
1. Packaging is a cycle that involves manufacture, use, discarding and
disposal.
2. The packaging waste problem occurs in the fourth phase of the cycle.
3. The waste disposal problem must be considered in the light of the
economics involved.
4. There are biases that hinder the achievement of lower costs.
5. The packaging industry stands ready, indeed has already taken steps,
to work with other segments of the society to find solutions to this
problem.
And finally, I have offered the view that solutions to this problem lie with reason rather
than emotion. I believe that this problem can be solved, is being solved, and will exper-
ience even more effective solutions. I do not believe that the sky is falling. On the
contrary, I believe that a vast number of individuals and organizations, representing great
talent and great resources have recognized the problem, and are addressing themselves to
its solution. Together, I think we can lick it.
31
-------
-------
The Package User's
Point of View on Waste
DR. VIRGIL 0. WODICKA
I am here representing the package using industries. From the standpoint of contribution
to wastes, I am probably an appropriate choice because I represent a company concerned with
consumer expendables. Although packages are certainly involved in shipments from industry
to industry, it is the packages reaching the consumer that constitute the major problem,
both from the standpoint of volume and from the standpoint of difficulty of collection.
Of those reaching the consumer, the ones containing consumer durables may be larger in bulk
but certainly much smaller in number. I come from an industry, therefore, that certainly
must create the preponderance of the problem.
More specifically, I come from a food processing industry, and this I am sure, by virtue of
the necessary daily consumption, must represent the largest segment of the consumer expend-
able industry. I shall therefore talk about the industry I know about in full confidence
that this represents the largest segment of the problem area, and also that it is, in most
respects, typical.
Let me start the discussion by describing conditions before the problem arose, at a time
that most of us here can remember with difficulty, if at all. Food was purveyed in special-
ized shops. There was a butcher, a baker, and a grocer. Meat was cut to order from sides
or quarters of the animal, and wrapped in paper, if at all. Cheese came in large wheels or
blocks and was similarly treated. Baked goods were packaged in paper on the spot or put
into the housewife's basket unpackaged. Perishables similarly either went into the basket
unpackaged or were put into a paper bag or wrapping. Soft drinks did not constitute a
volume business, and beer was dispensed into the consumer's bucket from the tap. Milk had
progressed from the days of the dairy man stopping at the house with a bulk container and
dispensing into the housewife's bowl or pitcher; it was now supplied in returnable glass.
Canned foods, though used, were considered the mark of a poor cook and therefore moved in
limited volume. The housewife walked to the store and carried her purchases home. A high
proportion of them were perishable, and her refrigerated storage was not very satisfactory.
Her ability to hold food, therefore, was limited by what she could carry and what she could
store. She shopped often, perhaps even daily.
33
-------
Let us look at the situation now. The housewife drives to the supermarket. She probably
does not make more than one stop for food. She probably does not go more than once a week.
There are no longer the limitations on what she can carry and what she can store. She has a
large, reliable refrigerator for perishables; she has frozen foods of good quality avail-
able to her; canned foods are an accepted part of the way of life; and she would be most
unhappy to wait around while the clerk cuts, weighs, and packages her purchases. We now
have so many people that labor is scarce. The housewife herself does not spend full time
taking care of the house, except when she has very small children, and she is willing to pay
a little bit extra for service in return for the time she no longer has to spend in shopping
for and preparing food.
A part of this service is the division of food into portions. This is obviously most
efficiently done by machine. One of the functions of a package is to define and separate
these portions. The package, therefore, makes it possible to use labor-saving machinery and
thereby keep the costs down. This is true whether the function is accomplished in the back-
room of a supermarket or in a central commissary or in a food processing plant.
As the apportionment of the food is removed in time—and often in distance—from the sale,
and certainly from the consumption of the food, emphasis is placed on the ability of the
package to maintain the food in good condition during this time span. This means mostly
protection of the food from its environment: Dirt, micro-organisms, gain or loss of moisture,
oxygen from the atmosphere, or other deteriorative influences. The package must also have
sufficient physical durability to maintain the barrier against the environment unbreached,
and obviously to continue to contain the food.
Obviously, a package which is going to be sufficiently durable to hold a portion of food
and protect it against the environment will continue to resist the effects of the environment
after the food has been removed. Perforce, a package which performs its function satis-
factorily is automatically a waste disposal problem.
The consumer goods industry, as representative of package users, is extremely responsive to
the message of the marketplace. Anybody who thinks that the supplier leads the consumer
around by the nose needs only to see the list of new products that fail each year. Seldom
do they fail for lack of advertising or merchandising support. They fail because consumers,
of their own free choice, do not buy them.
An example of consumer choice is offered by the commercial baby foods. Originally, these
were all offered in cans. One manufacturer began to offer his line in glass. Glass is more
expensive and in some respects functionally inferior to the can. On the other hand, with its ^
image of purity, the young mothers chose it overwhelmingly, so that it soon became impossible
to sell baby foods in cans. Now it is essentially impossible to buy baby foods in cans.
All the processors had to shift over posthaste.
34
-------
It is not many years since pre-packaged meat was widely available in supermarkets in direct
competition with meat cut to order. There were long lines of women at the meat counter
waiting to have their orders prepared rather than to pick up one of the pre-packaged por-
tions. Now in most supermarkets, there is still a butcher available to cut meat to order
or to modify one of the pre-packaged portions in some desired way, but there are no lines.
Quite commonly, the butcher is not in evidence but is summoned by pushing a button. Pre-
packaged meat is an accepted way of life.
The same type of thing has occurred with vegetables. Increasingly, the vegetables are being
made available, with inedible portions removed and with the remainder washed and packaged
in a transparent film. Often, the same vegetable is available both ways in the same store.
I think the ultimate outcome of this competition is predictable.
As meat has gone entirely to pre-packaging, there is an increasing movement away from having
the cutting and packaging performed in the back room of the store in the direction of having
it done in a central commissary for an entire chain of stores. Similarly, the trimming,
washing, and packaging of vegetables tends to be accomplished at a point in or near the
growing area rather than at the store. It is usually at least partly mechanized, and leaves
the inevitable wastes in the field where they serve a constructive purpose rather than in
the home where they add to the sewage problem.
We find ourselves, therefore, with frozen, canned, and dehydrated foods already offered in
packages. Perishable foods are moving rapidly to join the crowd. In the case of the canned
food, enclosure in a durable, hermetically-sealed container is an integral part of the
preservation process and is therefore unavoidable. Not only are perishables joining the
list of packaged products as such, but there is a mounting trend toward the consumption of
these foods as non-perishables rather than as perishables, which is another way of pushing
them into packages. This is all happening not because somebody is trying to sell packaging
materials but because the consumer is willing to pay for the form and place utility provided
by the whole chain of handlers, which have been much facilitated by the use of packaging.
The key operation here, of course, is apportionment. The food is divided into portions by
high-speed equipment. It is not practical to use this high-speed equipment either in the
retail establishment or in the home. In order to achieve the efficiencies that it makes
possible, therefore, the separation into portions has to be done at central locations,
thereby making it necessary to keep the portions separate and protected until consumed.
The physical and chemical durability of this separating package is what causes the problem.
It seems completely clear that apportionment in the home is not a realistic alternative.
The bag or barrel of potatoes or apples in the root cellar, the side of beef and the big
can of milk in the cooler, and the hundred-pound bag of flour for the weekly baking of
bread are so far back that they do not even generate nostalgic recollection in most of us
today, and they are not likely to return. By the same token, it is not a realistic alter-
35
-------
native to ask the housewife to wait for the butcher to cut her order of meat and for the
clerk to weigh out and wrap her staples. Not only is the housewife unwilling to spend all
that time shopping, but the labor requirements would be so fantastic that it would undoubt-
edly be necessary to close down some other industries in order to keep us eating. It is hard
to see any alternative to mechanical apportionment in a processing plant and packaging
protection up to the point of consumption.
There has been talk about packages that will protect food against the environment until the
food is consumed, at which point the package will deteriorate under the influence of that
same environment. This begins to sound like the one-hoss shay. That was a poet's dream,
and I cannot help feeling that such a package is, too.
My bias in representing the food processing industry is that packaging has come to stay.
It will stay because it performs an economic service for which there is no suitable alter-
native. If the disposal of the waste generated is a part of the cost of that service, I
feel that the consumer will still pay the cost rather than to forego the service. Perhaps
one way of making the choice clear would be to distribute the costs of waste disposal as a
tax on the packaging materials, perhaps with rates graduated in proportion to the cost of
the disposal. This tax would obviously be built into the cost of the packaged items at
point of purchase. The consumer would then have the choice between buying the packaged
goods, including the cost of disposal, or of buying the corresponding item unpackaged at a
lower price and thereby doing without the services performed by the package. Even on that
basis, I think I know which way the choice will go.
I do not mean to suggest that the processor is yearning to pay any new taxes, or that this
approach is the only one available. I only suggest that this is one way to cope with the
mounting costs of disposal in an equitable fashion. Perhaps what I am trying to say is that
the problem is with us, and it is going to continue to be with us. It does not appear
to be open to any easy or miraculous solutions, and it behooves all of us to get on with
the job of coping with it by all means available.
36
-------
Natural Biases Toward Packages
and Packaging Wastes Problems
LEONARD STEFANELLI
As you know, I am the President of the Sunset Scavenger Company, one of the two companies
that services the entire City of San Francisco, as far as the refuse collection needs are
concerned. Our companies are also involved directly with the disposal of San Francisco's
refuse. However, I will direct my comments only to the collection aspects of solid waste
that is generated within the City limits of San Francisco.
Our company has been in existence since 1920. And, for almost 50 years, our company has
provided uninterrupted refuse collection service to the entire City of San Francisco. In
1953, I came to work with the company as a refuse collector and worked in that position
until 1965, resulting in the situation where you might say, "that I have had considerable
experience in all areas of refuse collection". Or in other words, started from the ground
up to the position that I hold today.
During this ten year period, working on the refuse collection vehicle, I have seen radical
changes in the physical composition of the refuse being collected. But, before I go into
detail, I would like to explain briefly that our company is one of the very few companies
throughout the United States today that practices extensive salvage operations and has done
so since 1920.
In 1920, prior to the incorporation of our company and during the years between 1920 and
1934, our company acquired most of the smaller companies within the City limits, making
the one company that we have today, competition was at a very strong level. Consequently,
resulting in a situation where our company reached for every possible source of revenue,
other than refuse collection revenues, to help keep our rates at the lowest possible level
to eliminate competition.
One of these areas of additional revenues was salvage operations.
37
-------
Up until 1964, the method of refuse collection and transportation was accomplished by a
large, open "bodied" vehicle, and the only physical change that took place since 1920 was
the replacement of the horse in front of the vehicle with a combustion engine.
Historically, each truck had a four man crew and all four of these crew members would collect
the refuse. As the front end of the truck filled up with refuse, one of the four men would
be required to stay "inside" of the collection vehicle to handle the refuse as it was brought
up by the other three collectors. During the interim, it was also this man's responsibility
to squeeze the refuse, as we sometimes refer to as "Italian power", and shake out the bags
and salvage any rags, bottles, plastics, aluminum, newspaper, cardboard, etc. These segre-
gated materials were preliminarily sorted inside the truck, by placing them on the side of
the truck until the vehicle was taken to the dump for the disposal of refuse.
As he reached the disposal area, special facilities were provided so that the driver, at
that time, could dispose of the metals, etc., in one area and corrugated and paper products
in the other area, and bottles and rags in another area. And then, he would drive on to the
dump where his truck was weighed, and then discharge his load at the sanitary landfill.
At this point, the salvaged material would be graded and classified. Rags would be separ-
ated, and any type of ferrous metals, etc., that was salvaged and newspaper and corrugate
would then be segregated and each of these items would be baled and resold. Bottles would
be washed, packaged and sent back to the distributor for re-use. This income continued to
grow until 1954, where we grossed more than a half a million dollars in salvage sales.
In 1955, we noticed the decided decline in the sales of salvageable materials. This was
the beginning of the "no deposit no return" era of packaging materials.
For an example, champagne bottles which had a value of almost 15 cents per bottle, were of
no value because of the wonderful invention utilizing the plastic cork instead of "natures
cork" for sealing the tops of the champagne bottles. The plastic corks dictated the con-
struction of a "perfect round neck" of the champagne bottle. Consequently, resulting in
no further use of the old standby, hollow bottom champagne bottle.
The reason for this was that the plastic cork would not swell to the "non uniformity" of
the old style champagne bottles, consequently, resulting in the end of the era of "re-use"
of old champagne bottles and resulting in the disposal of some 16 thousand champagne bottles
that would not be utilized again, which ended up in the disposal area. And, the newer
champagne bottles that the plastic cork would facilitate were made of less material, lighter
in weight and fabricated at a much lower cost, consequently, resulting in a situation where
it cost more to process, re-wash and ship back to the wine maker, than a new bottle would
cost directly from the bottle manufacturer. Even all other bottles, even the ones which had
deposits, such as beer bottles, have given way to the "no deposit no return" container,
38
-------
resulting in another situation where we had in storage some 7,000 beer bottles of the re-
usable type, which had to be disposed of because not even the breweries wanted these bottles
free of charge.
Another area where "no deposit no return" items have dominated the market because of the
quantity of glass being delivered was the market for white glass. This was broken bottles
which we stored in quantity until we had approximately 80 or 90 tons of material, whereupon
it would be loaded into gondola cars and transported to Los Angeles.
During the years, and up to 1954, "re-use" in the manufacture of new white glass, where this
material was sold for approximately $20.00 a ton, the price dropped to less than $3.00 in
1965, whereupon a situation arose where it costs us more for freight than we received in
return for the sale of the material, resulting in the termination of this type of salvage.
Still another area in which we have seen a considerable decline is the old clothes and
rags. In this particular situation, as rags were brought in quantity to our facilities,
they were then graded, washed and baled and then sold. This material was principally used
as "wiping rags" and sold for as much as 25 cents a pound. With the exception of materials
such as towels and other materials that are primarily used for absorbing liquids, the balance
of the so-called "rag market" has slowly declined to the point and almost disappeared because
of the marketing industry's use of acetates and other synthetic materials which are primarily
made to repel moisture rather than absorb it, consequently resulting in a situation where
there is no demand for these type of rags and they must be sent to the landfill for disposal.
Probably the single, largest contributor to the "no deposit no return" item has been the
creation of plastic. This material is practically indestructible and about the only thing
that could be done to dispose of this material properly is incineration, because, if you
put it into a sanitary landfill, it will remain in the same form a million years from now,
if it was to be dug up. Whereas, other refuse such as newspaper, rags, tin cans and other
materials will slowly decompose and return to some form or another back into the soil, hence
it came from.
Although incineration will dispose of this material through high temperature burning pro-
cesses, air pollution control people are extremely concerned about its effects on the atmos-
phere, and claim that the burning of plastics does indeed, create considerable problems
to air pollution control.
As a side thought concerning plastics, our company contracts with the City to remove
"screenings" from the primary sewage treatment plant. Aside from the normal "bathroom tissue"
in this material, we dispose of more than 2 tons daily of "plastic" cigarette filters from
this "screening" process, keeping in mind that these are only the filters that are flushed
down the toilets in the San Francisco Area. And, it is interesting to note that even though
the filter has passed through the entire sewage treatment system, its physical form has
remained unchanged, other than it has absorbed some moisture.
39
-------
Regardless of the concept of refuse disposal adopted by any given community, there is no
concept known to man that will ultimately reduce waste material of all shape and forms into
"nothing", consequently, resulting in a situation that regardless of what method of refuse
disposal is adopted, a landfill of some form or another must be depended on as a part of
the "total solution" to refuse disposal.
The quoted figure for waste disposal in the State of California has been in excess of 77
million tons per year that must be disposed of throughout the State of California. This
of course includes animal waste, cannery waste, demolition material, dirt, plaster and what
we commonly refer to as garbage.
Garbage is something that is commonly referred to as what the householder discards on a
weekly basis. Only eight percent of the total weight can be classified as actual garbage.
This is the material referred to as petrogible or something that has bacteria in it, such
as carrot tops, etc. The balance is plastics, paper, cardboard, glass and metal, which, as
far as weight is concerned has not increased appreciably over the period of years. But the
"volume" has increased approximately 50 percent over the past ten years in our City alone.
This volume increase can be attributed only to the packaging industry, who are creating
"no deposit no return" items, such as soft drink containers, aerosol cans, the plastic
lined milk containers and other materials similar to this concept of packaging. In other
words, instead of one can, ten years ago for each family, we have two and sometimes three
cans of refuse that must be disposed of at the same household with no increase in the size
of families. To overcome this problem, we have utilized a new piece of refuse collection
equipment commonly referred to as the compaction truck.
The refuse is disposed in these compaction vehicles and a hydraulic mechanism squeezes the
refuse inside an enclosed compartment and has done a great deal to overcome the "volume"
problems that packaging industries have created. However, the utilization of these types of
trucks makes it practically impossible to salvage anything once the refuse is disposed of
inside these vehicles, and then to compound the problem, even though it was available, there
is no market available to sell the materials that might be obtained through a salvage
operation. Consequently, resulting in a situation that Sunset Scavenger Company no longer
salvages anything but newspaper and corrugated, where special trucks are sent to obtain
these materials from the larger producers, which in turn is brought to our company, baled,
and then sold.
On the other hand, newspaper creates other problems in as much as, once it is inside of the
compaction vehicle, it has a tendency to absorb all the moisture that might be in the refuse,
consequently resulting in a situation where the newspaper becomes "contaminated" and cannot
be re-sold to the paper mills for re-processing. Therefore, the company must acquire this
material before it is deposited inside the compaction vehicle. To overcome this problem,
our company has advertised periodically, that newspaper will be picked up, if properly
tied and placed along side the container on collection day. And, I might add, this program
40
-------
has met with moderate success over the period of years. However, it does require a special
collection vehicle to perform these services as the storage area on the normal refuse
collection vehicle is limited.
Between the salvage of newspaper and corrugate, which represents some 12 hundred tons per
month, does in a sense, help re-cycle some of the waste back into the economy. It also is
an economic move. It saves our company some $4,500 a month in disposal charges and also
preserves the life of the existing landfill. And, if incineration or some other higher
priced method of refuse disposal is adopted by the City and County of San Francisco, whereas
the disposal charges was upwards to $7.00 a ton, it could, indeed, save the company in
excess of $100,000 a year in disposal charges alone, aside from obtaining additional revenue
to offset the cost of refuse collection and disposal.
To summarize, all I can tell you is that the packaging industry has created "one hell of a
situation" as far as refuse collection is concerned. But, we have overcome this problem
for the present, with the use of compaction vehicles to reduce the volume that is being
created by the packaging industry. However, because of the limited areas that are made
available for refuse disposal, not only here in San Francisco, but throughout the United
States (and it's becoming less and less each year), this tremendous increase in volume of
refuse is posing a tremendous threat to this civilization of the United States, and I might
go even further and say the World. But, the United States being one of the most productive
countries in the world, has charged forward in the development of more beautiful "packaging
concepts" to attract the consumers, has also created another problem of what to do with these
"beautiful products" after they have been used only once.
It has been suggested on numerous occasions that people could separate their refuse at home,
but as a contractor in the refuse collection business, I cannot see the economics in this
type of situation, because if refuse was separated and graded at the source, which let's
say, for example, we had five different classifications of refuse, it would require five
different collection vehicles to pick up the "graded refuse", instead of the usual one that
is servicing the area now. Therefore, in my humble opinion, once the regional concept of
refuse disposal is realized, any salvaging of material for re-processing should be done
at this "central point", whether it be incineration, transfer systems, composting, atomic
destruction or whatever magic solution may come along in the future. It will require pro-
cessing prior to going into the system that will ultimately dispose of the refuse, therefore,
at this point, it would become economically feasible because of the large volumes of refuse
being processed, to initiate large scale salvage operations where each material that would
be salvaged could be processed, baled or whatever else has to be done to it to sell it,
could be done at this central receiving point. Thus, reducing the volume of refuse that must
ultimately be disposed of.
The chemical makeup of plastics could possibly be changed by the manufacturers to either a
form that could be burned without problems of air pollution or be developed to a point where
41
-------
they would decompose after a certain period of time without any fear of ground water pollu-
tion, etc. Aluminum should be eliminated from use in tin cans because it is "non magnetic"
and cannot be extracted from the refuse by a "magnetic separation process" that would
normally remove all other ferrous metals in the refuse as it is being processed.
In my humble opinion, glass is not a big problem, as people make it out to be. As in most
cases, as refuse is being picked up and compressed in the collection vehicles, most of the
bottles are broken, resulting in a situation where there is no "volume" problem. The new
concept of refuse disposal are concerning the use of "grinding" before ultimately disposing
of refuse. This grinding process will result in a situation where glass is ground up into
very fine particles, resulting in a material which is not difficult to dispose of, and
certainly does not create any problems as far as volume or pollution is concerned, once it
is placed in this state.
To conclude, if the packaging industry is going to continue along its present lines (which
they have indicated are extremely difficult to change because of the basic concept of
present day packaging methods) in my opinion, the materials can be "salvaged" from the
refuse at these proposed "central receiving points".
However, the real problem is the creation of a market for this material once it has been
salvaged after the processing is completed. And certainly, further research can and should
be done in this field that would develop markets for the re-use of these materials.
In closing, I would like to say that it is extremely difficult for me to try and offer a
solution to this problem, other than those which I have briefly mentioned in this report.
All I know is that there is a problem here, you people have helped to create it, and I have
tried to define it. You people have made my job a tremendously more difficult one to per-
form, but between all of us, I think we can solve it.
My sincere thanks and gratitude for allowing me to be present here. I congratulate the
people who have worked so hard to put this program together bringing forward to the people
represented here today the problems of waste disposal, and the fact that something must be
done in the near future. Otherwise we, the citizens of the United States, face problems of
magnitude beyond description.
42
-------
Packaging Problems From the
Perspective of the Public Official
HUGH MARIUS
In my fifteen minutes or so near the end of this first day of the Conference I would like
to put each of you for a moment in the position of a public official. Specifically, I
would like you to look at the packaging problems we have discussed today from the perspective
of a public official in New York City: say the Mayor John Lindsay, or Merril Eisenbud,
the Administrator for Environmental Protection; or Griswold Moeller, the Sanitation Commis-
sioner; or myself.
All of us see the packaging problem as part of the larger problem of solid waste management,
including household and commercial refuse, bulk items, derelict cars, construction wastes,
and street litter. These require the collection and disposal of some 20,000 tons of material
daily in New York, with a $180,000,000 annual expense budget for the Department of Sanitation.
Packaging is a particularly large contributor to the problems of household refuse collec-
tion and street litter. But before I go into detail, fitting packaging into the context
of the larger problems of solid waste management, let me focus on what I think are the
three generic problems of packaging per se.
See Diagram #1.
The first problem is that producers and consumers are not motivated to consider the environ-
mental costs that are generated by their actions. This is evidenced in the fact that pack-
aging wastes are growing quite rapidly while the local resources required to handle them
are quite limited in growth; in addition, some new packaging materials may make new
disposal possibilities—such as heat retrieving incinerators and a variety of techniques
for eventual sea disposal—impossible to implement as presently designed.
The second problem is that recycling of packaging materials is not supported by the private
market. As the Darnay report has indicated, some 90% of packaging materials by tonnage
43
-------
PACKAGING
PRESENTS
PROBLEMS
PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS
NOT MOTIVATED TO CONSIDER
ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
RECYCLING OF PACKAGING
MATERIALS NOT SUPPORTED
BY PRIVATE MARKET
NEW COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL METHODS
SLOW TO DEVELOP
DIAGRAM #1.
goes immediately into the waste material stream following use. This occurs as a distinct
change from the patterns of twenty or thirty years ago when nearly all materials but
putrescibles were recycled for further use. It may be occurring in some cases where the
total costs of producing products with recycled materials, although greater than the cost
of producing with raw materials, are less than the total costs of producing with raw
materials plus the cost of collecting and disposing o£ the waste products j_n_ a^ manner tp_
maintain satisfactory levels o_f environmental quality.
The third problem is that new collection and disposal methods are distressingly slow to
develop. In refuse collection we still spend nearly a third of the energy handling the
metal garbage can. Collection from cans is made less and less efficient as packaging makes
refuse less and less dense. For disposal we still rely on burial in sanitary landfills
even though these waste product "cemeteries" are becoming impossible to find.
I shall not explain these problems in detail until later in this presentation. The impor-
tant points, from mv_ perspective a£ a^ public official, are that packaging contributes ^tp_
the problems and constrains the possible solutions without contributing i_n_ full measure
tp_ the solutions.
Step back again now into the larger context of solid waste management problems and the
position of the public official in New York. The overwhelming fact that cannot be escaped
is that the solid waste problem has grown with frightening speed in the last ten years.
It shows no sign of letting up. Furthermore, packaging is a major contributor, particularly
to street litter and household refuse.
44
-------
GROWTH IN THE USE OF PACKAGING MATERIALS HAS CONTRIBUTED
TO INCREASING REFUSE, PARTICULARLY STREET LITTER
PACKAGING AS %
OF 1969 LEVELS
10%
Household Refuse
Street Litter
Bulk, Abandoned Cars,
Commercial Waste, etc.
Total Solid Wastes
10 YEAR GROWTH
40%
35%
45%
43%
DIAGRAM #2.
This diagram illustrates the growth in refuse that has strained the system. The greatest
resource drain has been caused by the 40% growth in household refuse over the last ten
years. Please note that the 20% share of household refuse assigned to packaging material
is on a tonnage basis; since volume is also important in a system that relies heavily on
metal garbage containers, and since packaging materials are the least dense refuse sub-
stance, the packaging share of collection resources required is probably greater than 20%.
It may go as high as the 60% figure quoted in discussions earlier today.
The roles defined for the private and public sector to handle refuse materials have not
changed very much in the past thirty years. Under the growth in waste products, the roles
have been found inadequate. At least, they are now inadequately performed, resulting in
uncollected refuse, dirty streets, and a generally unattractive urban environment.
Let's look at the strains that have been felt on the system for handling household refuse,
and at the inadequacies that have developed.
See Diagram #3.
Note that CAPITAL letters have been used to highlight those problems relating most closely
to packaging.
45
-------
MAJOR PROBLEMS OF THE
HOUSEHOLD REFUSE SYSTEM
Refuse inadequately containerized by private sector
1. Growth of refuse, PACKAGING
2. Changing socioeconomic conditions
3. Inadequate facilities
4. INEFFICIENT INCENTIVES THROUGH THE COURTS
Collection schedules missed by public sector
1. Growth of refuse, PACKAGING
2. RESOURCES LIMITED FOR COLLECTION
- INELASTIC LOCAL TAX BASE
— Rising demand for other services
— Rising labor costs
- RISING DISPOSAL COSTS
3. FEW IMPROVEMENTS IN COLLECTION METHODS
DIAGRAM #3.
The public official looking at the household refuse system in New York first sees that
refuse is inadequately containerized by the private sector. Private residents are expected
to place their refuse in properly covered metal containers at curbside on collection days
and remove them from curbside immediately following collection. In reality, compliance
with these roles is far from complete. The problem is particularly severe in the low
income areas of the City where as much as 20% of the material is not in cans at all and
awaits collection piled in small boxes, grocery bags or loose. The material that is in
cans is often in overflowing, dented cans without tightly fitting covers. Such inadequate
containerization makes it difficult to collect refuse efficiently.
There are many factors behind these failures on the part of private citizens. The growth
in refuse is a major one, particularly the growth in packaging and the volume increases
mentioned earlier. Another factor is the change in socioeconomic conditions, including
migration from rural areas into the central city which has brought increasing population
deprived of exposure to the disciplines of urban life. In addition, these urban new-
comers are often confronted with inadequate housing facilities which do not provide onsite
incineration, home compaction, or, in many instances, janitorial service.
The incentives traditionally provided by the court for enforcing private sector compliance
with the Sanitary Codes are no longer efficient. Many summonses are ignored. Indications
are that, as with traffic violations, as much as 30% of summonses issued are not answered.
To pursue these scofflaws by personally served warrants requires costly manpower for little
return. In general, the public official in New York finds that court enforcement procedures
cost the City nearly $100.00 for each summons, while the average fine levied by the courts
is less than $4.25. The courts are simply too busy with crimes of more immediate damage
46
-------
to life and property to be concerned in more than a perfunctory manner with the landlord
who has not provided an adequate number of garbage cans for his tenants. Courtroom mandated
penalties are therefore ineffective incentives for improving public behavior. In addition,
the high costs of this system are borne by both innocent and guilty citizens alike—since
they are supported by tax levy funds out of real estate property assessments and City income
and sales taxes.
The public official concerned with household refuse collections must also note that there
is significant slippage by the public sector in meeting collection schedules. Because
New York has more scheduled collections than any other city in the country or the world
(a minimum of three times per week and five and six times per week in substantial portions
of the City) and because all collections are at the front curb (with no alleys to keep
the process out of sight and mind) missed collections in New York are a particular problem
of public concern.
The basic factor behind missed collections is simple: the refuse load has grown more
rapidly than the tax base required to handle it. We have already seen how the refuse load
has grown. In New York, the taxes for sanitation come from the general tax base—not from
user charges as is the case in many other cities—and this base is severely limited in
growth potential. To the degree that the general tax base does grow, the needs for sanita-
tion must be balanced against growing needs for other services such as Police, Education
and Welfare. The resultant squeeze on the sanitation budget must somehow make room for
rising labor costs which are now above $12,000 per year for a Sanitationman when fringe
benefits are included. The story of limited funds is the grim one we have all heard, but
from the perspective of the local public official in New York City, it is all too real.
As collection costs have been rising, so have disposal costs. We must travel further and
further to bury our materials, 37 square miles have already been filled in, representing
eleven percent of our total land area and some of our most famous airport and parkland
space. Our current principal fill area is a 3,000 acre site in Staten Island which we
estimate will be exhausted within five years. It is increasingly difficult if not impossible
to locate new sites that are economically feasible and yet acceptable to resident commun-
ities. Alternatives to massive new landfill areas are programs for modern, air pollution
controlled incineration plants, or possibly grinders, shredders, slurries, other capital
intensive techniques currently being examined for waste processing and eventual sea disposal.
Yet another possibility is composting and a variety of separation and re-use techniques.
All of these, however, are increasingly costly to develop. Many are constrained in their
application by the changing nature of packaging materials.
The general cost squeeze has rarely been alleviated by improved efficiencies. There have
been few improvements in collection methods since the beginning of the century. Using the
metal garbage cans which have long been prescribed by the City Health Code, refuse collection
costs the City $50.00 per year for the average household of four persons. Under Mayor
Lindsay we have begun a series of new programs to reduce these costs.
47
-------
With the new collection vehicles which have been put into service over the past year, we
are reducing the cost to $47.00 per household per year. With the introduction of one to
three cubic yard containers (presently being tested) the cost would be $40,00 per year.
We have just completed an extensive test to evaluate the effects of using disposable plastic
and treated paper refuse containers; where refuse is put out for collection in these
containers the costs are reduced to $30.00 per year. We are now collecting about 5% of
our refuse from large detachable containers of 8 to 12 cubic yards which can be mechanically
loaded and cost $22.00 per household per year. By the introduction of the newest tech-
niques for handling these containers, we are cutting the costs of this service to $15.00
per year and expanding its range as rapidly as possible.
A problem of concern to us almost equal to that of household collection is street litter.
Street litter generates the greatest public indignation and street litter—unlike household
refuse—is almost completely generated from packaging material.
MAJOR PROBLEMS OF THE
STREET LITTER SYSTEM
Curb access denied, sidewalks not swept by private sector
1. Parking problems
2. TRADITIONAL ACTIVITIES RESTRICTED TO
CURB LINE
Packaging not placed in container by private sector
1. GROWTH IN PACKAGING
2. COURT INCENTIVES INEFFICIENT
Manual and power broom sweeping below schedule
1. Growth in refuse, PACKAGING
2. RESOURCES LIMITED FOR SWEEPING
DIAGRAM #4.
Since almost all street sweeping is done by mechanical broom, curb access is vitally
important. Unfortunately, due to the lack of citizen cooperation in observing parking
restrictions, mechanical brooms experience great difficulty in approaching New York City
curbs. Surveys by our Sanitation officers have indicated that over 60% of curb space is
inaccessible in many areas of the City.
Much of the "street litter" problem is really caused by sidewalk litter. However, tradi-
tional cleaning activities of the New York Sanitation Department are restricted by the City
Charter to streets and roadbeds from curb to curb. Therefore many unsightly situations
are the direct responsibility of the abutting owner or lessee. We have recently begun
experimentation with community aides whose work responsibilities include the operation
of vacuum sidewalk sweepers and the containerization and removal to the curb of refuse
48
-------
accumulated on vacant lots and in backyards. The aides are employed under the federally
sponsored Model Cities program primarily in those areas where it is difficult to find the
actual landlord. The community aides have been launched on a newly created career ladder
program within the Environmental Protection Administration.
A further failure of the private sector is littering. This is a direct result both of the
explosive growth in packaging materials and the tremendous temptation to the passerby to
discard small consumer packaging in the nearest available spot (which is usually the side-
walk or street). An example of this temptation is the tear-off strip on packages of
cigarettes. Note that when the strip is unfurled in a clock-wise direction there is an
almost unbearable temptation, as it is left hanging from the thumb and forefinger, to allow
it to drop. I have questioned myself as to whether industry might not design a tear-off
strip with an equally unbearable temptation to be stuffed into one's breast pocket. It
is clear in any case that containing the street litter problem through enforcement measures
is sorely restricted by the inefficiency of court incentives that we have already examined
in regard to household refuse.
A final problem contributing to the street litter situation is that schedules of both manual
and power broom sweeping are maintained with difficulty. The litter load has increased
markedly with the growth in packaging refuse which we have already observed. In addition,
as we examined earlier, the capital and personnel resources required for street sweeping
are limited in urban tax levy budgets.
In sorting back through the problems the public official sees with household refuse and
with street litter, we can separate out the basic problems most closely related to packag-
ing. These are represented in the diagram which began this presentation. From my per-
spective, these problems strongly suggest solutions which deserve serious consideration
and which I would now like to discuss.
See Diagram #5.
To solve basic problem No. 1: i.e., motivate producers and consumers to consider environ-
mental cost, it may be necessary to establish user charges on packaging to account for the
environmental costs. These would put the burden particularly for street litter--more
directly on those responsible rather than on the general tax paying public. The user
charges, which could be most simply levied on the producers, would establish economic
incentives to reduce the most troublesome kinds of packaging. Further, it would produce
revenues to cope with the collection and disposal of the increasing generation of wastes
due to packaging. I suggest that such user charges be federally administered because of
the national nature of packaging production and distribution and because of the more
efficient economics of national rather than multiple local administration. The revenues,
however, should in some fashion revert to local jurisdictions for operating expenses and
for research and development.
49
-------
PACKAGING
PRESENTS
PROBLEMS
WHICH MAY
REQUIRE
PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS
NOT MOTIVATED TO CONSIDER
ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
• PACKAGING TAX, PRODUCT BANS
• COMMUNICATION OF
REQUIREMENTS
RECYCLING OF PACKAGING
MATERIALS NOT SUPPORTED
BY PRIVATE MARKET
• SUBSIDIES, FOR R/D AND
OPERATING EXPENSES
NEW COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL METHODS
SLOW TO DEVELOP
• DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH
FOR CAPITAL INTENSIVE
METHODS AND NON-TRADITIONAL
APPROACHES
DIAGRAM #5.
User charges might also balance out unusually high risks of damage to the environment or
to capital plants, as for example, is evidenced in our present concern over the effect of
polyvinyl chloride on municipal incinerator grates. On the other hand, these most trouble-
some products might even require the imposition of product bans. Dr. Merril Eisenbud, the
Environmental Protection Administration of the City of New York, at a meeting earlier this
year with the Disposal Committee of the Society of the Plastics Industry, indicated that,
if need be, the City can outlaw a material. He stated there are precedents for doing this,
citing the hazards caused at the turn of the century by red phosphorous, when Congress
placed a prohibitive tax on this material and corrected the situation. He made it clear
that a City like New York cannot allow industry to damage a quarter of a billion dollars
worth of incinerator equipment with a particular packaging product. In regard to the
environmental costs of packaging, it is highly desirable that there be increased communica-
tion between government and industry so that the needs and requirements of government
administered disposal plants can more quickly be shared with industry before it moves into
general production of a particular packaging material.
Problem No. 2 is that recycling of packaging material has not been adequately supported
by the private market. The economic formula used by industry in judging the fiscal merits
of recycling has been based on the relative cost of raw material obtained from primary
sources against the cost of salvaged material. From the standpoint of all society, a truer
economic comparison must include the total costs of allowing packaging materials to enter
the waste disposal stream. These costs include sanitation personnel required for collection
50
-------
and disposal, the court system for enforcing the sanitary code, and more difficult to
measure costs to the health, aesthetics, and psychological well-being of society. In many
cases it may be that the subsidy required for recycling would be less than the environmental
costs of not recycling. These cases should be identified and the recycling processes
developed. A funding source to develop and operate recycling schemes for various types
of materials could be the packaging user charges already mentioned.
To solve problem No. 3, to develop new collection and disposal methods, we must invest
greater resources in research and development. The Bureau of Solid Waste Management of
the United States Public Health Service, under Richard Vaughan, has been doing a remarkable
job in this area with relatively limited funds. They have provided to New York City a
substantial grant for development and research on a giant shredder for construction waste.
Unfortunately, there is unquestioned need for expansion of research and development in
disposal and collection hardware. Further, there is an equally strong need for serious
examination into the employment of community workers for collection beyond the curb lines,
for positive motivation of neighborhood residents, and for other non-traditional, community
oriented programs to improve the urban environment. Funds from the proposed user charges
could also be used to finance this research.
In concluding this presentation I would like to thank you for your time and your attention
in listening to the problems of packaging as viewed by a local official. I think you can
see that packaging contributes most substantially to the problems of household refuse
collections and street litter. I hope that you agree with me that serious consideration
should be given to federally administered user charges on packaging producers, with
revenues to support collection and disposal, recycling subsidies, and greatly increased
research and development.
This paper was prepared and presented with the advice and cooperation of Mr. Jerry Mechling,
Director of Program Analysis, Environmental Protection Administration, City of New York.
51
-------
-------
The "Bias" of the Concerned Citizen
Toward Packaging Wastes
ALFRED HELLER
Having been assigned the task today of speaking from the "Natural bias of the concerned
citizen," I am here to tell the industry that after careful research in my own kitchen,
including extensive interviews with my wife, our four children, the cat, and two dogs,
I have discovered that the packaging industry will have to find someone other than the
consumer to hide behind. Now, let us face it, the consumer buys what he is offered and
what he is offered is designed and marketed so as to make him buy as much of what he is
offered as he can afford to buy, and more. The relationship between packaging wastes and
actual consumer needs is at best tenuous and indirect. Hy wife is told at her market that
henceforth, because she prefers to use no-deposit bottles, only no-deposit bottles will be
sold in the soda pop section. But her feelings are actually much more complex. She likes
to buy no-deposit bottles, yes. She doesn't enjoy returning bottles to the grocery. She
is willing to pay the extra cost of using no-deposit bottles. But -- and here is the
point — she says she has always wondered, isn't it wasteful to be using so many no-deposit
bottles? The notion of thrift is still ingrained in people everywhere.
Although no-deposit bottles may be made out of material which is easily and cheaply come
by on the crust of the earth, still isn't there something wildly out of balance about usiny
and tossing out a huge chunk of molded glass, requiring in the process an expenditure of
great energy in its manufacture, delivery, and eventual burial, not to speak of excavating
the earth to find the material to create it and further excavating or disturbing of the
earth to get rid of it -- all for the sake of a few ounces of sugar water?
Well, I must not dwell on no-deposit bottles. The Glass Container Manufacturers Institute
has warned me, in the "Litter Fact Book," that "one-way bottles account for only part of
the glass in litter which accounts for only about 10% of the total." So glass is a small
problem -- if you think that 26 billion bottles thrown away each year is a small problem.
(I read the other day that they have discovered from the astronauts' samples, that half
the moon is composed of glass. Do you suppose that under that mound of glass on the moon
lies a civilization which simply drowned itself in one-way bottles?)
53
-------
Cans are not a problem either, because in this country people discard only 48 billion cans
each year. And we have to take care of only 30 million tons of paper and 4 million tons
of plastics.
Rolf Eliassen, Professor of Environmental Engineering at Stanford and a science advisor to
the White House, says
the trend towards plastic containers of all types made of
such durable materials as polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride
poses a great problem. How can you dispose of these in
sanitary landfill which you expect to become compressed and
reusable land after a number of years, through organic de-
composition? These things never decay. The same is true
with the aluminum can which has become so significant for
packaging of drinks ...The social costs of collection, proc-
essing and disposal of these indestructible items is
tremendous. In sanitary landfill they take up a great deal
of room and we are running out of land. Witness the big
problems of San Francisco at the present time. If inciner-
ation is utilized, the polyvinyl chloride containers will
burn but will give off hydrochloric acid and will corrode
the incinerator parts or it will contaminate the environment
with acid. These social costs should be borne by those who
are responsible for them. In our affluent society we can
probably afford to use non-returnable containers from the
standpoint of purchasing goods. But can we afford them from
the standpoint of disposal?
I don't know whether we can or not, but a few figures may shed some light on the question.
Most people here know that the costs of solid waste collection, estimated last year as
$5.40 per person annually, are climbing fast as quantities increase. And there are the
costs of disposal, running from an average of $1.27 per ton for sanitary landfill to $4.00
and over for incineration.
But when a housewife asks, isn't it wasteful to be throwing away all these bottles and cans
and packages? she doesn't have all these figures before her. She is simply expressing
good common sense. It is what she really feels, no matter how many one-way packages she
is induced or forced to bring home. Remember the willingness with which American house-
wives saved and flattened their cans for re-use (recycling is the popular term today),
during World War II?
The recycling of packaging wastes is no less necessary now. The real question is, how do
you put it into effect? How do you stop the industry from hiding behind the consumer,
which it does, by inducing him to buy packages against his instincts and then declaring
that the proliferation of packaging wastes is only a response to "consumer demand," the
very demand which industry itself has created?
I realize that subsequent sessions of this conference will be devoted to searching for
solutions to the complex problems of solid waste management, but I want to mention, at
random, a few ingredients which it seetns to me should be in any set of solutions.
54
-------
We should aim at making it economically worthwhile for someone to come along and collect
every can or bottle thrown out of a car window, within half an hour after the evil deed
has been done.
We should aim at keeping much of our solid waste out of land-consuming fills by putting
sufficient value on it so that it will be salvaged.
Industry will have to find it worthwhile to buy back these wastes and re-use them in one
way or another.
We should institute a federal tax on containers -- cans, bottles, plastics, paper -- at the
point of their manufacture, to promote streamlined, efficient regional solid waste collec-
tion and disposal practices and to encourage the re-use of solid waste.
To encourage re-use, the government could use the receipts of such a tax to establish price
supports so that salvaged wastes could be sold back to industry at competitive prices.
At the same time, funds collected could be used in part to conduct research into and to
sponsor development of new, efficient, economical re-use processes.
The average citizen could be expected to cooperate willingly in any general program of
efficient solid waste management. Perhaps he could not be induced to wash his cans and
return them with this bottles to the grocery store without the imposition of a deposit on
them in the first place. But he would probably be willing to separate out cans, bottles,
paper, plastics, etc. in his garbage cans. In any case, he could be required to do so.
I suppose my main interest is in getting packages re-used, or, to be quite honest, not used
at all. A tax on packages might even restore salami to its own skin. The same goes for
sugar in restaurants, tape recorders and radios (God save us from those hollowed-out styro-
foam blocks), teddy bears, whipped cream -- the list is long.
I was talking like this the other night in front of the research team in my home. They all
looked blank but perhaps vaguely approving, but the dogs nodded in complete agreement.
They have given up cans anyway, for those little plastic-wrapped dogburgers.
"Can I still have popsicles?" one of the kids asked. I assured her she could. And I told
my wife whe could still have her Diet Pepsi -- without feeling guilty about the bottle.
You can no longer assume in your plans that Americans are willing to see their land become
the trash basket of the world.
55
-------
-------
-------
Chairman: Dr. Ray B. Krone
Civil Engineering Department
University of California
Davis, California 95616
Developing Strategies for Packaging Wastes Management
Prof. P. H. McGauhey
Technical Problems and Possible Answers
G. Keith Provo
Dr. L. P. Gotsch
Thomas Becnel
E. R. Owens
Charles W. Lincoln
-------
Developing Strategies for
Packaging Wastes Management
Prof. P.M. McGAUHEY
INTRODUCTION
In the presence of 63 million tons per year of empty packages, the public works official
stands at the junction of two different philosophies and two different zones of responsi-
bility. Looking up the road he sees private enterprise converting resource materials into
the products on which our standard of living depends; engaged in a healthy competition
for the consumer's dollar; and generally considering that physical acceptance by the
buyer of a product constitutes "consumption" and that discard to the refuse can defines
"disposal". Looking down the road he sees the public reluctantly assuming responsibility
for the discards, or residues of resource utilization, and delegating that responsibility
to him with the stipulation that the public hear no more of these residues anywhere in
the environment. To him, "disposal" becomes the process of sequestering the residues
somewhere in the land or sea; or flinging them unnoticed into the air or water resources
for transport elsewhere.
In such a situation, the public works official can hardly be blamed if he dreams of
reducing the flow of empty packages by heading them off at the area of origin, especially
since that is somebody else's zone of responsibility. And it might be expected that the
less the public works man knows of the role of packaging in industry and commerce, the
more he is inclined to look up the road for a solution to the disposal problem. Conversely,
the less the producer of packages understands of environmental management, the more he
is inclined to omit ultimate disposability from the design objectives of packaging.
As we come today to consider alternative strategies in packaging wastes management, I
think we must place ourselves alongside the public works official and look both up and
down the road. Moreover, we must recognize that an optimum solution to the packaging
wastes management problem cannot be achieved by any single measure any more than one
can play a tune on a flute by stopping a single hole.
57
-------
SOME FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
In order to entertain the widest possible spectrum of feasible alternatives, it seems
appropriate to explore some fundamental concepts and to consider the extent to which they
might be restructured to relieve the boundary conditions within which packaging wastes
management is constrained. Three such concepts are of particular importance:
1. What nature permits.
2. What people will accept or tolerate.
3. What science and technology affords.
WHAT NATURE PERMITS
The limitations imposed by nature are so obvious that one hesitates to catalog them to
any mature audience. Nevertheless they are so constantly ignored that the problems of
wastes management are compounded. Out of the law of conservation of matter emerges the
unpleasant truth that our wastes are destined to remain a part of the earth in its journey
around the sun. Into the air, into the water, and into the land in some combination of
gases, liquids, and solids represents the entire range of possibilities for dealing with
empty packages, or with the residues attendant to their birth. Thus we may as well forget
about any great "atom-splitting" breakthrough and recognize that the task is a tedious
one of materials handling which, although challenging the ingenuity of man, will not
likely lead to any Nobel prizes.
The next unpleasant truth is that on the time scale with which we are here concerned,
both the land and the ocean are sinks, each having a considerable reservoir capacity.
In contrast, the atmosphere and flowing water are fundamentally transport systems which
lead but to the sinks. Moreover, they have only quite limited reservoir capacities.
Thus, while we may attempt to take advantage of the free transport provided by gravity
and planetary circulation, we must expect that the atmosphere will dump its load on the
ocean and on the land and vegetation over a wide area in a manner which we can not
regulate. Similarly, flowing water deposits its load on land and sea in its own complex
fashion. The most uncomfortable reality is that the reservoir and load capacity of the
atmosphere, however low, is still greater than man and other components of the ecosystem
can tolerate. The same may be said of the streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters.
WHAT PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT
By far the most complex of fundamental constraints on wastes management are those imposed
by man himself. It is a basic truism that "you can only do what people will let you do",
however ingenious the solution or logical its application. Thus in the solid wastes
management field today we find the number one problem to be one of siting, or in the
words of one public official, "of finding any place in the environment to do whatever it
is you have to do - build a transfer station, incinerator, or you name it". We find
people lying down in front of collection vehicles because they resent the noise, the
58
-------
traffic, and the hazard to children of trucks converging on some necessary point in the
system. And we find labor increasingly unwilling to accept jobs in activities which society
does not applaud in at least some modest degree. In the case of refuse management, one
might say that we have a negative applause, as news media, particularly the news writers,
seldom miss an opportunity to polarize people against the very problem their social and
cultural patterns create by using such words as "garbage" and "swill" to describe your
lovely packages once their contents have become "sewage".
An outgrowth of the public's unconcern and, often, downright contempt for the refuse
problem is its concept of the economics of the system. The idea that it is absurd to
invest money in something you don't want in order to throw it away is, no doubt, a natural
response, given our scale of values. Nevertheless, it is a concept with which we must
deal in solving the packaging wastes management problem. This does not mean that people
do not spend a lot of money each year on solid wastes handling. Three billion dollars
is by no means a trivial sum - even to government. The point is that it is spent grudgingly
and, I might add, probably inefficiently because of a relatively primitive technology of
wastes handling. In any event, it is not enough to do the job, else this conference on
packaging wastes management would not have occurred.
WHAT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AFFORD
In the area of technology of wastes management, constraints derive both from what technology
is capable of doing and what we ask it to do. It is currently popular to state that "if
we can put a man on the moon we can certainly solve the solid wastes problem" (or any
other problem that bedevils society, and with which the speaker is concerned). The
implication is that if society placed top priority on wastes management, or government
classed it with national defense and the war in Vietnam, we could certainly find a way to
sequester wastes commensurate with the environmental goals of society. This is undoubtedly
true as far as technology is concerned. It fails in logic because of the multiplicity
of objectives of environmental control; the low level of investment society is willing
to make in such objectives; and the priority we assign to refuse disposal and the un-
romantic tasks which it involves.
The extent to which technology imposes constraints of wastes management has never been
adequately explored. In the absence of a full awareness of the realities of nature,
technology has been directed primarily to landfill ing or to the conversion of solids into
gases, liquids, and unburnable residues. In this, particularly in conversion, private
industry has been interested because hardware is involved. Private enterprise, however,
has had little incentive to bring its inventiveness and know-how to bear upon wastes
management because most refuse belongs to the public; and the public limits management
alternatives through limited concern for the problem, economic concepts, and a need to
consider air and water pollution which is more urgent than quality of the land resource.
Thus is created the illusion that inadequate technology is a major constraint in solid
wastes management.
59
-------
It may be said in truth that we have not applied what we know about burning fuels and
oxidizing of organic matter to the problem of incinerating refuse, but it is not true
that a lack of technology per se limits our ability to manage such things as packaging
wastes. What is true is that we have applied technology only to the management of mater-
ials once they become discards; and then only with limited goals essentially uncoordinated
with our overall environmental quality objectives. Once constrained by such a limited
concept there is not, as I have said in relation to what nature permits, any great need
for sophisticated new technology if the task is one of escorting wastes to sinks. Organ-
izing and implementing a system of materials handling involving existing technology which
has not been applied to solid wastes is the most important aspect.
The real problem of technology is that we have not identified the most worthwhile goals
of technology, and hence have precluded the objectives which might generate technological
development. To overcome this, we must look up the road instead of down, or at least
before we look down the road.
CONCLUSIONS
Relative to the three fundamental concepts which I have suggested—what nature permits,
what people will accept, and what technology affords—three major conclusions seem justified.
1. There is not much that can be done to change the constraints of nature; the pro-
blem is to recognize them and to design our systems in harmony with them.
2. The major constraint on refuse management is the social, cultural, and economic
attitudes of people. The unsolved, and almost unfaced, problem is one of under-
standing why people react as they do to wastes problems, and of enlisting public
acceptance of methods and of economics commensurate with public goals of environ-
mental quality.
3. Technological inadequacy has erroneously been blamed for the inability of society
to solve its wastes management problems because too narrow a set of objectives
of technology has been pursued.
LOOKING UP THE ROAD
Because most of the participants in this conference represent those areas of economic
activity which produce and utilize packages and packaging materials, the strategies in
packaging wastes management most important to them lie in the direction which I have
chosen to call "up the road". At least, it is before packages become a public charge
that industry has its greatest opportunity to help achieve the national goals of clean
air, pure water, high quality of environment, and conservation of resources with a minimum
of regulatory proscription.
To set the stage for a panel discussion of the technical problems in this upstream area,
I am going to assume that the scientific and technological genius that creates packages
60
-------
from resource materials can also create resource materials from packages. Further, I am
going to assume that the psychological approaches which orient people favorably to a pro-
duct through the appeal of the package can also overcome the social, cultural and economic
roadblocks to solving the problem of packaging wastes.
Without regard to constraints other than those imposed by nature, there are two ways in
which the problem of management of packaging wastes might be resolved. In declining order
of severity they are:
1. Don't make it.
2. Don't throw it away.
Although our first reaction to either of these alternatives may be one of unrelieved horror
and visions of economic chaos, cultural shock, social collapse, and an all-out plunge
back into the Stone Age, mature reflection will, I think, suggest that a little of each
has some real potential in resolving the problems of managing packaging wastes. Further,
that the application of such measures to the problem of packaging wastes management
rests primarily in the hands of the packaging industry. It is only necessary carefully
to evaluate the constraints imposed by the objectives of packaging in relation to the
environmental and resource conservation goals and needs of the nation in order to develop
a program of action.
Leaving to the panel which is featured on this morning's program the task of dealing
with technical problems, I would suggest several possible ways of combining the "don't
make it, don't throw it away" concept in the program of "up the road" reduction in the
amount of packaging wastes which must be handled by the public works department.
1. Reduce volume at the source.
2. Reuse packages for initial purposes.
3. Reuse packages for a sequence of purposes.
4. Design packages for disposability.
5. Limit variety of materials used in packaging.
6. Recycle packaging materials to the resource inventory.
The first of these alternatives could be achieved by decreasing the package-to-product
volume ratio. This would, of course, mean some changes in concept and would be subject
to practical and economic limitations. For example, it is not necessary to utilize 25
square inches of plastic sheet or 50 square inches of cardboard in bagging or displaying
a dozen small screws. However, the cost of providing clerks to locate such items for a
customer is prohibitive under our present living standards. Nevertheless, there exists
a great deal of excessive packaging the purpose of which would seem to range all the way
from competing with other producers to attracting, and even deceiving, the buyer. The
ways in which the volume of packaging might be reduced without seriously interfering with
the valid objectives and needs of packaging is a matter which the packing industry can
best decide. Nevertheless, reduction in the overall volume of wastes to be managed "down
the road" is one alternative worthy of serious consideration.
61
-------
Reuse of packages for their original purpose can be considered in two different contexts.
The first is within industry itself; the other in the industry-to-consumer relationship.
If I am reliably informed, the inhouse reuse of packaging is a growing practice, partic-
ularly where components are delivered to assembly departments. This results in a reduction
of the packaging wastes which industry, rather than the public works official, has had
to deliver to the downstream disposal site. Its effect is to reduce the overall volume
of packaging materials discharged to the environment as waste and so reduces the problem
of managing packaging wastes.
In the industry consumer relationship, the trend has been quite the opposite. In fact,
a major cultural pattern has been developed, based on the ease with which the consumer
can pass the packaging waste along to the public works department. Recent estimates of
61 billion containers from the beverage industry in the year ahead gives dimension to
the problem created by not reusing packages for their initial or original purpose. Al-
though I am not suggesting that we return to the days when the producer got his containers
back only when every home garage ran out of storage space, reuse of packaging is one
alternative which may have to be re-evaluated if other alternatives do not reduce the
amount of packaging wastes which become a public charge.
Reuse of packages for a sequence of purposes would seem to have limited prospects in an
affluent society, at least in the industry-to-consumer relationship. Although many a
geranium grew in the tomato can of yesterday, the cans now far outnumber geraniums and
the culture which did the planting is no longer held in respect. The package which
became a child's toy likewise has no place in a culture which gluts the sensibilities
of its young and fragility seems to be the first objective of design of toys. The prospect
that the package surrounding today's purchase is a suitable repository for yesterday's
sorry gadget on its way to the refuse heap has interesting cultural implications, but
reduction in the volume of wastes is not one of them. I think we may as well forget
sequential use as one of our alternatives.
The last three of the alternatives listed are closely related one to the other. To
design packages for disposability quite likely means a limiting of packaging materials to
those kinds of chemical compounds, alloys, or combinations which can either be tolerated
by nature or reprocessed for reuse as resource materials. In the context of an alternative
in packaging wastes management, "design" includes everything from the structuring of a
chemical molecule to a combining of materials in an automobile in such a manner as to make
possible their easy segregation. Ideally, a packaging material might be one which can
serve all of the objectives of packaging about which we heard yesterday, then be converted
to the normal products of the biodegradation and weathering processes of nature under
conditions which man can control. This is, of course, a large order, and obviously can-
not apply to all types of packaging. However, the alternative of deliberate design and
materials selection holds some prospects of easing the problem of packaging wastes manage-
ment although it may not in fact reduce the volume to be hauled.
62
-------
In the context of degradable packaging materials, I want particularly to take exception
to those alternatives which merely transfer the solid wastes problem to one of air or
water resource management. Both the air and fresh water systems are demonstrably more
critical to man than is any range of mountains he might build on land from refractory
packaging materials. As I implied in connection with the constraints of nature, sinks
are the closets in which you can hide skeletons. There isn't much sequestering capacity
in the transport systems. This means, for example, that whatever fraction of the 61
billion beverage containers are glass, our water resource simply cannot accept it in
the form of dissolved solids. If current research to develop a water-soluble glass con-
tainer should prove successful, I would expect its use to be prohibited by national legis-
lation. In fact, I would consider society remiss if it did not so legislate, given the
prospect of solids buildup already confronting the nation's water resources. The same
may be said for any scheme which converts wastes into air pollutants. The ancient wish,
or fear, that something would "vanish into thin air" specified, you will note, both
"vanish" and "thin air", not reappear in an already thick atmosphere.
LOOKING DOWN THE ROAD
Once the packaging industry has identified the role it might play in reducing the amount
and variety of packaging materials which ultimately become wastes, it is reasonable to
inquire why it should any longer stand beside the public works official for a look down
the road. The answer is of course to be found in the environmental goals which the
official must meet and in the alternatives open to him in achieving these goals. Certainly
it is in the best interests of the packaging industry to make certain that its activities
do not result in others being asked to do the impossible. But more importantly the envi-
ronmental constraints upon the public limit the design objectives open to a packaging
industry concerned to make a product more amenable to disposal. Moreover, it is from the
public refuse heap that the raw materials for reprocessing must be drawn. This is to
say that if the freedom of industry to exploit the benefits of nonreturnable packages
is not to be constrained, then the packages must go into the refuse can and so become a
public charge before they return for industrial reprocessing to the resource inventory.
The alternatives in packaging wastes management open to the public works official operat-
ing after the fact of discard are basically few, although the problems associated with
them are complex and involve considerations beyond the scope of today's program. Some
of them, however, depend upon what the packaging waste industry does up the road. The
most important alternatives are:
1. Deposit mixed refuse on land.
2. Deposit mixed refuse in the ocean.
3. Segregate mixed refuse for separate handling of
a. Components returnable to resource or industrial processor
b. Combustible components
c. Components to be disposed on land or in the ocean.
63
-------
Depositing mixed refuse on land requires that the refuse be collected and transported to
some site where society is willing to dedicate land permanently to storage of its rejected
artifacts or to a limited spectrum of uses to which filled land may be put. As noted in
a previous section, people are generally disinclined to dedicate any site to landfill
with refuse. Land use planning to the extent that it has been practiced at all in the
United States has never included refuse disposal as a necessary use of land. Low-lying
areas have been filled to produce useful land for parks, but reclamation of land rather
than disposal of wastes has been the basis of public acceptance in general. Normally,
land is considered suitable for landfill only if it is unfit for any other conceivable
beneficial use. In this situation it is important that the volume of wastes to be deposited
on land be minimized and that the landfill be constructed as densely as economically
possible. In relation to the packaging industry, this means that the package-to-product
ratio is a matter of serious concern, as is the amenability of the packaging material to
shredding and compaction. The sheer volume of packaging wastes inevitably makes the
public look to the packaging industry for a partial solution to its overall waste manage-
ment problem.
Depositing refuse in the ocean is an alternative open to only a fraction of the land area
of the United States. Nevertheless, a disproportionately large percentage of our popula-
tion is concentrated along the seacoasts. Although the early practice of dumping of
refuse at sea has been abandoned for reasons of economics and environmental standards,
the scarcity of landfill sites in urban areas, together with a growing concern for preser-
vation of shoreline resource values, is causing public works engineers to consider the
possibility of underwater landfills. Experiments have shown clearly that refuse discharged
to the ocean at some 50 feet below the surface will, with some notable exceptions, become
waterlogged and sink to the bottom. The major exception is plastics, a very large fraction
of which represents packaging materials. Experiments have also demonstrated that mixed
refuse can be compressed into bales of such density that they will sink to the bottom of
the ocean. However, concern for the coastal environment on a long-term basis must cer-
tainly preclude acceptance of underwater fills with bales containing floatable components
unless the fill is covered with inert materials. At the present state of technology,
underwater landfills involving cover are economically infeasible, and there is little
likelihood that regulatory agencies will accept compressed refuse containing materials
which will appear on the surface if the bales should disintegrate with time. This means
that if packaging materials were designed for underwater fill as the ultimate disposal,
compressability and probably ease of shredding would represent the minimum of desirable
characteristics. The optimum characteristics might include density or change of density
under pressure as well. The extent to which such characteristics are compatible with the
objectives of packaging is, of course, a critical matter.
Assuming the more likely case of refuse management by a combination of methods, the ways
in which packaging wastes are involved in down the road wastes management become more
complex than mere compressability and ease of shredding. Of first concern is the matter
64
-------
of segregating of materials for return to the reprocessing cycle. This introduces as
many problems as there are types of packaging materials. To begin with, there is no
present prospect that municipal refuse can be collected as other than a hetrogenous mixture
because of the vast variety of materials that flow into the household in relatively small
amounts. With a few exceptions such as newspapers and magazines, household segregation
of wastes is impractical. If the convenience of "no return" containers exploited by the
packaging industry is to have any meaning, city officials can hardly require the citizen
to keep a private museum of empty bottles and cans, or to separate them according to color
of glass, alloy of metal, and so on. And even if such an alternative were feasible, the
cost of collecting and keeping separate a multiplicity of materials at infinite points
in a system would doom the idea to failure. Clearly, the problem is one of segregating
material after they have been mixed together. This is not the occasion to dwell upon
the details of the technology of segregating refuse, particularly the many types of pack-
aging material. Magnetic separation, vacuum pickup, and ballistic or cyclone separation
of uniformly shredded particles, are among the common approaches. The point to be made
here is that one of the major "up the road" problems of managing packaging wastes involves
the ease of recovery of the material from a downstream mixture for reprocessing to resource
materials.
The second concern is for destructability of material. Some 50% of municipal refuse is
oxidizable by such methods as incineration, composting, digestion, wet oxidation, or
pyrolysis. Incineration is, of course, the alternative most commonly undertaken by cities
today but it is by no means the ideal approach. Until an incinerator is capable of con-
verting organic matter to carbon dioxide and water, and until carbon dioxide and water
are the principal end products of combustion of synthetic materials, the problem of air
pollution will be a factor in refuse incineration. Some plastics merely melt or remain
inert at customary incinerator temperatures. At the higher temperatures required to burn
them, oxides of nitrogen are produced from the air stream and plastics containing chlorine
generate hydrochloric acid in the stack discharges. Similarly, few packaging materials
are biodegradable by composting or digestion processes, or amenable to wet oxidation or
pyrolytic processes. However, these are processes available to one degree or another to
the public works official. Thus it is to the question of degradability under various
conditions that the packaging industry must look in designing for disposability of its
product as a measure of packaging wastes management.
DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
In the foregoing discussion, I have purposely avoided any attempt to evaluate the problems
confronting the packaging industry in meeting the objectives of packaging, whether they
relate to management of the product or to its acceptance by the consumer. Instead, I have
tried to summarize in a general fashion the constraints within which strategies for allev-
iating the problem of packaging wastes management might be developed.
65
-------
My two general alternatives - "Don't make it" and "Don't throw it away" might be inter-
preted as criteria for developing strategies for managing packaging wastes. That is:
Don't make it without first looking down the road, beyond the consumer, to its final
resting place in the environment.
Don't throw it away as long as it has a resource value.
From these lofty objectives we now turn to a consideration of the hard realities of
accomplishment.
66
-------
Technical Problems Associated
with Wastes from Paper
and Paperboard Products
G. KEITH PROVO
Reviewing the technical problems associated with wastes from paper and paperboard packages
in this forum will hopefully contribute in part to implementing more effort in every sector
toward solutions. To use a rather overworked cliche of recent weeks: "We can solve the
technical problems of space, but seemingly not enough of the myriad of problems facing us
on earth today." If we learned one lesson from our successful space exploration, it must
be that few problems are without a solution given the proper mixture of recognition, effort,
and money.
Several weeks ago one of our newspapers here carried an editorial entitled, "San Francisco
Five Feet Under". The gist of it was that Americans generate enough solid wastes in one
year to bury San Francisco under five feet of garbage, and that such might be our fate if
long range solutions to the solid waste problem are not found. Being a resident of this
city, I can only say that I'm pleased that this First National Conference on Packaging Wastes
is being held here so that hopefully it will call further attention to the fact that while
we have at long last decided not to complete the filling in of our bay, we appear in the eyes
of many to be a millennium away from a satisfactory alternative.
Certainly the protection of our environment has assumed increasing national significance
within the last several years. Up to now the legislative response to the environmental issue
has been largely in the area of air and water pollution control. But the mounting problem
of solid waste disposal -- referred to at this conference as the "third pollution -- is
bound at some point to have legislative consequences as well.
If we cannot do a better job at controlling our wastes than we seem to be doing at the present
time, then controls of some kind are sure to come. We in the packaging industry are keenly
aware of the issue as we are of the definite possibility of controls at the federal, state
and local levels. We know that we have to contribute our share of the national effort
needed to bring solid waste disposal into more manageable proportions.
67
-------
It has been said that the growing solid waste problem is not only attributable to our mush-
rooming population, but also our affluence. The greater purchasing power and our penchant
for new things obsoletes items much faster today. Also, we like convenience and are willing
to pay for it. The housewife who buys tomatoes and lemons in a carton rather than from a
bulk display likes the ease of selecting and handling. Quite aside from convenience of
handling and protection for a product, packaging of smaller items subject to pilfering in
drug stores, supermarkets, etc., is increasing sharply. Statistics indicate per capita
consumption of packages is growing much faster than population -- up about 30% in the last
ten years and prognostications of slightly more in the next decade.
In 1968 almost 12 million tons of waste paper, or paper stock as it is called, was utilized
by paper mills, paperboard mills, and other industries. This represents about 20% of the
paper and paperboard consumed in the United States including the balance of imports over
exports. Some countries where resources are low recycle as much as 50%. At the end of
World War II we were recycling about 35% of wood fibre products, but since that time the curve
has been directed downward. In the earlier days of the corrugated box industry, much of the
production utilized the jute, or waste sheet, but unfortunately some of the liner mills were
less than meticulous about maintaining quality standards. In the last twenty-five years with
the significant increase in kraft pulp and paper mills, the corrugated industry started in
earnest to make the transition from jute to kraft. Packaging in addition to being functional
was to become a marketing tool and the demand for the better strength characteristics and
cleaner appearance of kraft was assured.
While this decline in the percentage of paper stock utilized as secondary fibres has con-
tinued over the years, there are indications that the trend may reverse itself in the for-
seeable future. For example, several mills have recently completed the installation of
secondary fibre systems on Fourdrinier machines that previously utilized all or almost all
kraft pulp. A system such as this could reduce the kraft pulp demand by as much as 50%
to 60% in some grades of paper or paperboard.
Unfortunately, as it relates to the solid waste problem while secondary fibre systems are
a possibility, the economics in many areas do not justify the capital expenditure. Southern
mills, generally speaking, can produce a ton of pulp ready for the paper machine at costs
below those for a ton of waste. The improved technology of tree farming, the development
of mechanized equipment for cutting, hauling out of the woods, loading and shipping have in
the aggregate contributed measurably in the past to holding the line against increased costs.
Unfortunately, like so many other industries today, we don't seem to be able to innovate fast
enough to offset these costs. If forest reserves ultimately prove inadequate to support
the paper industry's growth, or if wood costs increase to the point where waste can be used
economically, there should be an upward trend in the use of secondary fibres, particularly
when better collection, sorting, handling, etc., is achieved.
68
-------
The paper and paperboard segment of the packaging industry has, through extensive research
and development, opened new vistas for its product. In some cases, this has been accom-
plished by additives, impregnants and laminants which provide water resistance, gloss, fire
resistance, etc. The paradox here with respect to waste is that we have aggravated tne
disposal problem. While it is not impossible in all cases to salvage this waste, it is
quite frankly simply not economical.
One of the new products of the corrugated container industry is a poultry box which is
impregnated with 15% to 50% paraffin and then in many instances coated both sides with a
wax copolymer hot melt material. This provides strength for wet icing of chickens so our
wives can purchase fresh chickens rather than frozen. At tne present time the corrugated
plants burn their production generated waste from the poultry box. Another example of
limited waste potential would be a container with pressure sensitive adhesive applied to
the flaps. A unique type of package for the user but one that cannot or rather should not
be recycled at the mill. The paper stock industry sorts waste collections to preclude
contamination of high grade or reusable corrugated waste with poultry boxes and pressure
sensitive adhesive boxes.
If contaminants such as I have mentioned get in the stock system of a mill, they cause
operating problems. For example, wet strength paper will not defibre in the beater and
ultimately the screen through which the waste pulp must pass becomes clogged. This requires
a shutdown for cleaning. Obviously the amount of this contaminant in baled waste will nave
a marked effect on the operating costs of a mill. Some contaminants sucn as polyetnylene
bags, polyurethene beads, asphalt laminated sheets can be purged or dispersed by the more
recent and sophisticated secondary fibre systems.
Our industry has awakened to the problem of solid waste disposal. Such organizations as
the Fibre Box Association, American Paper Institute, and National Committee on Paper Stock
Conse-vation have been active in this area. This latter group, for example, nas been
working with municipalities to improve the collection of paper, and with the paper stock
industry to improve the sorting and handling of waste for reuse as secondary fibres. A
binder of hand sheets illustrating paper stock contaminants is available from the NCPSC.
Hopefully this will help to further emphasize to those involved in the collection and
sorting of waste paper the problems associated with various contaminants.
Research and development of new equipment and techniques which will reduce the cost of
collection, processing, handling and transporting will ultimately result in a greater
utilization of secondary fibres. Much progress has been made in recent years in increasing
the density of baled waste. High density bales not only reduce freight cost but simplify
the storage of the required tonnage at a mill.
69
-------
Considerable work has been done to develop equipment to produce pellets of waste paper
with densities almost double those which we presently use. One of the problems presented
by pellets is the handling and storage of what is in essense a bulk material. This would
not be so much of a limiting factor if the paper and paper stock industries had the proper
equipment. Unfortunately, at this juncture, we might parallel our situation to the television
industry a few years ago when the question relative to color was which comes first -- the
programs or the sets.
More effort on the part of the packaging industry to develop new products which will allev-
iate rather than aggravate the contamination problem and equally important more effort
toward finding economical means to consume a higher percentage of paper stock for secondary
fibres may obviate the need for additional restrictive legislation relative to the disposal
of solid wastes. Hopefully this effort will for the paper and paperboard segment of the
packaging industry minimize our contribution to the problems we are here to discuss at the
conference.
7Q
-------
Waste from Metal Packages
DR. L.P. GOTSCH
INTRODUCTION
We will define the agenda title to mean all metals from packaging because, as far as the
solid waste problem is concerned, there is little difference between the metal in the crown
of the beer bottle or the cap of a baby food jar than that from an all-metal can. Similarly,
the aluminum foil layer laminated to paper or plastic in flexible packaging differs insig-
nificantly from that used in the all-aluminum container. We can simply include these package
components in the quantitative considerations and our purposes will be served.
METALLIC PACKAGING MATERIALS
In order to discuss metals technology in solid waste, we should have an understanding of
the variety of metallic packaging materials in use. In Figure 1. is shown that the base
metal is essentially the same for all three steel packaging materials. It is simply an
unalloyed, mild steel. When used as is, with no metallic coating surface or chemical treat-
ment, it is known as blackplate. Tinplate can have anywhere from 15 to 60 microinches on
each surface depending upon the corrosion resistance requirements of the end use. This
extremely thin but useful layer is only 1/4 to 1.8% of the product, averaging at the present
time at .53%. An even thinner layer of chromium and chromium oxide is applied to make TFS
(tin free steel), a recent newcomer. Depending on the thickness of the steel which it
protects, it comprises only .01 to .02% of the product.
BASE STEEL -05 - 12% CARBON, -25 - .60% MANGANESE
Si, P, S, Cu, Ni, Cr, Mo, As < .06% EACH
PRODUCT COATING COATING THICKNESS % COATING
BLACK PLATE NONE
TINPLATE TIN 15-60 MICROINCHES .25-1.8
T.F.S, Cr-Cr OXIDE .3-.5 MICROINCHES .01-.02
FIGURE 1, STEEL PACKAGING MATERIALS
71
-------
Aluminum, the other major metal packaging material, is used in greater variety as shown in
Figure 2. There are minor differences in specifications for metals other than those shown
but the major differences involve varying the amounts of magnesium and manganese to impart
desired degress of strength and ductility.
ALLOY % Mg % Mn
3003 0.8 - 1.3 1.0-1.5
5052 2.2 - 2.8 0.10 max.
5182 4.0 - 5.5 .20 - 70
1100 (Less than 1.02)
FIGURE 2. ALUMINUM PACKAGING ALLOYS
The third significant metallic component is the solder used for the side seams of conven-
tional tin cans. The three basic types are shown in Figure 3.
LOW TIN
HIGH TIN
PURE TIN
98 Pb
70 Pb
2Sn
30Sn
99.6Sn
.04Ag
FIGURE 3. SOLDERS
QUANTITATIVE FORECASTS
The Midwest Research Institute projects ' that the use of materials for packaging will
increase 40% between 1966 and 1976 while predicting that metals alone will increase only
17%. As we shall see, industry forecasts made in 1969 indicate a somewhat larger growth
in metal packaging amounting to 27% for the decade 1968 to 1977 which is about 10% to 15%
in excess of what would be an increase based directly on population growth.
(21
Figure 4. is a forecast for tin mill products made by one major producer^ . The most
striking feature is the change in product mix between tinplate and TFS. What we see here
is largely the result of two decades of research aimed at reducing the industry's dependence
on tin. In brief, it was found that the benefits of corrosion protection by tin coating
could largely be replaced by the use of organic coatings in combination with metal surface
stabilization. To the surprise of many it was learned that the most critical function of
the tin coating was to enhance the solderability on high speed automatic canmaking machines,
and tinplate has remained in existence strictly for this purpose for many products which
otherwise could be held in properly treated and organically coated steel. In recent
years, the development of two alternate methods of side seam closure using organic cement
or resistance welding has eliminated this roadblock, hence the projection on the increase
conversion to lower cost of TFS material.
72
-------
0-
Total
Black Plate
70
FIGURE 4. GROWTH IN TIN MILL PACKAGING
,(3)
The effect of this change in product mix on the use of solder is interesting^'. Figure 5.
shows the decrease in total solder use which will result from the conversion to the cemented
and welded side seams. Despite this decline, the tin involved in soldering will increase
slightly because:
1. The containers being converted to TFS normally use the low 2% tin
solders.
2. The use of pure tin solders will increase as lower tin coating weights
are used for certain types of food products.
The overall use of tin will decline, however, because of the switch to TFS.
SOLDER TIN
SOLDER LEAD
TOTAL SOLDER
COATING TIN
TOTAL TIN
1968
6.3
72.4
78.7
67.0
73.3
1970
6.4
66.2
72.6
55.0
61.4
1977
6.9
39.5
46.4
46.4
53.3
FIGURE 5. TIN AND LEAD FORECASTS
73
-------
An interesting sidelight here is that the other 0.4% of the 99.6% pure tin solder is silver.
Today this involves annually about 17,000 pounds which will increase to 21,000 or 22,000
pounds by 1977. At $1.75 an ounce, this calculates to be around $600,000 of silver used
per year.
The forecasts for aluminum in packaging are shown in Figure 6. They are shown as ranges
representing the Midwest Research Institute projections along with those made by two major
aluminum producers. The latter generally are higher but have the advantage of being made
in 1969 as compared with the 1966 MRI work. The major growth is forecast for rigid metal
cans. Rigid containers utilize the higher manganese and magnesium alloys, and these will
become the major aluminum contribution to solid wastes by packaging.
Million
Tons
1.2-1
1.0
.8-
JB-
.4-
.2-
0
68
70
72
i
74
FIGURE 6. GROWTH IN ALUMINUM PACKAGING
74
Total
Riqid Cans
and Ends
Flexible Foil
Formed Foil
•all others
r
76
-------
CONTRIBUTION TO WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION
With this picture of the nature and quantity of metals contributed by packaging to solid
wastes, we can now consider how it affects some of the problems of handling these wastes.
From the standpoint of collection and transportation, 7.5 million tons of metals from con-
tainers contribute 4.5% of the total weight, using the 165,000,000 ton municipal waste PHS
figure . (See Figure 7.) The figure of 4.5% by weight agrees fairly well with the quan-
tities found in incinerator residues. Analysis by the Bureau of Mines^ and NYIT ' , show
a range of 13% to 20% of the residue being steel cans. Assuming a 70% to 80% weight reduction
by incineration, the steel cans originally constituted 3% to 6% by weight of the raw refuse.
This is a pretty crude way to develop statistics but in the absence of more extensive data,
it illustrates that we are within a ball park figure of finding what we expect to find.
ESTIMATED MUNICIPAL REFUSE 165 MILLION TONS
STEEL CANS 7.5 MILLION TONS
% CANS 4.5%
INCINERATOR RESIDUE
TOTAL FERROUS 19 - 33%
RECOGNIZABLE CANS 13 - 20%
REDUCTION FACTOR 70 - 80%
% CANS IN RAW REFUSE 3 - 6%
FIGURE 7.
SECONDARY POLLUTION EFFECTS
Any secondary pollution effects of metal containers which may arise during collection and
disposal will not result from the metals themselves but rather the organic materials which
they entrain. This includes not only the paper labels and the paper, paperboard, plastic,
adhesives, sealants, coatings, and inks of flexible and composite packages, but also food
and other product residues left in when the package was discarded. One study' ' on com-
bustability of refuse constituents showed a surprising 9.5% combustible organics associated
with the metal containers. These were ascribed mainly to "labels, coatings, and the remains
of contents of containers."
The metals themselves, on the other hand, can be dismissed entirely as noncontributors to
secondary pollution. While not strictly stable chemically, their chemical changes within the
environments of incineration and landfill are extremely slow and the products of decomposi-
tion are primarily a reversion to the metal oxides, the form in which they came from the
ground in the first place. Thus, for all practical purposes, we can say that the metal
materials do not contribute to air pollution on incineration or open field burning. When
used as landfill they do not leach into ground waters, decompose into gases, support un-
desirable microbiological growth, or attract insects and rodent pests.
75
-------
It is because of this great stability that the material makes such excellent containers in
the first place, with maximum possible protection for its contents. At the same time, un-
fortunately, this stability will render the metal a persistant blight when irresponsibly
discarded as litter. Steel cans will require six to ten years of average exposure to the
elements before oxidation proceeds far enough to cause the structure to begin to collapse.
Aluminum cans under similar circumstances will remain essentially unchanged. To solve this
problem, it will be necessary to construct a metal package which will have the stability to
protect the contents in the manner required and at the same time the instability to disappear
immediately as soon as someone throws it along the roadside. This great technical dilemma
recently moved one of my colleagues at American Can to verse, which he has given me permission
to quote anonymously.
A proposal for disposal is what we dearly crave.
For package items we've a glut from cradle to the grave.
So give us now a package new that holds the product well,
but after it has served that use it blows itself to hell.
To some people, blowing things up might be a way of getting rid of them, but all of us know
that it is really still there only in smaller pieces. And it is just this way with some of
the ideas which have been brought forth for disintegrating or self-destruct containers of
metal or whatever. It must be remembered that the disintegration must be such that the resi-
dues themselves do not defile the ground, pollute the air, or contaminate the surface waters
with undesirable solubles.
Whether one considers metal, paper, glass, or plastics, no sound technical approach to elim-
inating or even lessening the effects of littering has appeared so far. Basically, littering
is a human behavioral problem, and it is possible that the real solution lies in this science
rather than natural science. If it cannot be stopped or controlled this way, perhaps the
best short range technical approach might be directed at the development of effective means
of litter collection.
RECYCLING METALS FROM REFUSE
So far we have seen metal packaging contributing some 4% or 5% of the solid waste collection,
transportation and landfill problem. If the disposal involves incineration of the combus-
tibles, metal packaging causes no problems and comprises about 20% of the residue which must
be disposed to the land. This already minor role will become even less as the growth in
metal packaging is not projected to grow proportionately as fast as the total municipal
waste . This doesn't present a picture of crisis proportion, so why are we concerned?
I think the answer lies in the fact that technology can play a dominant role in another aspect
of the solid waste problem -- the waste of natural resources. The 12 million tons of steel
which are scattered irretrievably by landfill ing represents about 10% of the annual steel
production. Also lost are one million tons of nonferrous metals of which almost half is
aluminum from packaging.
76
-------
One of the first to recognize and do something about this shameful loss was the Bureau of
Mines^ , which set up a major program on the recycling of metal and mineral wastes from
municipal refuse immediately after the passage of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Their
emphasis at the moment is on incinerator residues, having recently completed a continuous,
mechanical system designed to process one thousand pounds of residue per hour. It is inter-
esting to know that, by using well-known mineral benefication techniques such as rod and
hammer milling, screening, magnetic separation and hydraulic classification, this line will
automatically separate the incinerator residues into seven potentially useful fractions.
The metallic fractions are shredded, steel cans, and iron concentrate consisting of wire,
nails, clips, mill scale, etc., and a mixed nonferrous melt fraction.
Coupled with this program of benefication is one of research to upgrade the metal fractions
(8)
to enhance their usefulness, and I am indebted to thenr ' for much of the remaining information
on the technology of recycling metals from solid wastes.
Normally, tinplate scrap from can manufacturing plants is collected, the tin removed and
salvaged, and the detinned scrap either sent back to the mills for reuse or to the copper
producers for use in leaching and precipitating copper from low grade mine and commercial
dump materials. If one could separate and collect tin cans from raw refuse, presumably
this method of salvage could be used. After incineration, however, it is another matter.
Normally, the coating on tinplate is two distinct layers, one of free tin and tin iron
alloy (FeSn2), and both can be stripped chemically from the steel base. One might hope that
the prolonged high temperatures on incineration would merely convert the free tin to a sur-
face layer of alloy or oxide. This does not happen and much of the tin can no longer be
stripped from incinerated cans. The Bureau has shown, through electron microprobe studies,
that this is the result of diffusion of the tin into the steel. This penetration has been
found to vary, depending, presumably, upon the temperature — time cycle and the initial
amount of tin present. The penetration has been observed to depths of 28 microns as compared
to the original thickness of the tin and alloy layer of .4 to 1 micron.
A typical electron beam photo of this is shown on Figure 8. This is a composite color print
made by printing the iron scan in green, the tin in red, and the tin diffusion zone in yellow.
The blue is the nickel backup coating applied for metallographic cross-sectioning purposes.
It is interesting to see that essentially all of the tin on one surface has diffused while
a considerable amount of free tin is still present on the other. Since no appreciable
temperature differences would be expected, one might suspect that this was a differentially
coated plate with one side heavier coated than the other.
Analyses (Figure 9) of the ferrous metal fractions which were remelted, corroborate this
evidence by showing higher values for tin in the steel remelted from cans as compared to
the other sources. There is also a higher than expected value for copper which we will
discuss in a moment. The 0.1 to 0.4% tin value can be compared with Figure 10. showing the
trend in tin content of steel used in cans as a result of the changes in product mix fore-
casted earlier. Tin is a big troublemaker in steel and its presence here is a strong
77
-------
(Ni)
(Sn)
(Fe)
(Ni)
Original magnification - 230 x
Bureau of Mines
Figure 8. Cross Section, Incinerated Can
78
-------
MATERIAL
CANS
MASSIVE IRON
IRON WIRE
0.1-0.4
0.02-0.1
0.05-0.06
%Cu
0.2-0.5
0.5-1.4
0.9-1.0
0.02-0.06
0.1-0.6
0.05-0.2
%Mn
0.02-0.2
0.06-0.3
0.08-0.1
< .01-0.2
0.04-0.3
0.05-0.2
FIGURE 9. RANGE OF COMPOSITION OF FERROUS REMELTS
(Bureau of Mines data)
STEEL (MN TONS) TIN (MN POUNDS) % TIN
1968 7.2 73 0.51
1970 7.1 61 0.44
1977 8.2 53 0.33
MAXIMUM TIN ALLOWABLE (FOR ALL PRODUCTS) .01%
(FOR MOST PRODUCTS) .05%
FIGURE 10. % TIN IN STEEL CANS
deterrent to the use of incinerated scrap cans. Maximum allowable for unrestricted use
would be 0.01%. For most products, the limit would be higher, around .05%. Thus, the scrap
from incinerated cans today would require at least 10 to 1 dilution with tin-free metal.
Frequently, copper deposits are observed on cans and other pieces of iron which accounts for
unexpectedly high copper content of the remelt pointed out before. Figure 11 is a photo of
a can removed from the incinerator at Alexandria, Va. The copper deposits are observed in
two forms: one, a massive glob which could come from a molten copper dropping and the other
a thin film which appears to be a chemical plating. One theory to account for the latter
is that HC1 gas given off during the burning of PVC will react at high incinerator tempera-
tures with molten copper to form copper chloride. This, in turn, will be leached out in
the waters used to quench the residue and will precipitate on the iron surfaces present by
chemical replacement. This copper content would also be of some concern to those who want
to use the steel for remelting.
Insofar as the use of incinerated scrap for commercial cementation of copper is concerned,
the presence of tin causes no problem, and the free copper riding along with the scrap
shipment is merely an unbargained for bonus.
The nonferrous metals in solid waste, primarily aluminum, zinc, copper and lead, melt in
the incinerators. Some of this deposits and solidifies on the residue which comes off the
grates, but a substantial amount drips through the grates and fuses together to form a
79
-------
Figure 11. Incinerated Can.
80
-------
nondescript alloy with widely varying composition. Typical analyses carried out by the Bureau
of Mines is given in Figure 12. Such a mixture is not useful as a commercial alloy.
ALUMINUM
ZINC
COPPER
LEAD
SILICON
IRON
TIN
MANGANESE
MAGNESIUM
NICKEL
38.6 -
10.8 -
0.7 -
1.4 -
0.7 -
0.7 -
0.1 -
0.1 -
0.05-
0.03-
78.2%
55.4
3.3
3.3
5.8
1.4
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.08
FIGURE 12. RANGE OF ANALYSES OF NON-FERROUS RESIDUES
(Bureau of Mines data)
Work is being done at the Bureau to develop processes for upgrading the metal residues.
Leaching to remove tin and copper from the steel is one possibility. Experiments with
vacuum distillation of the nonferrous portions have yielded high grade zinc concentrates and
an aluminum fraction which is suitable for secondary aluminum smelters. How commercially
feasible and practical such procedures will be remains to be seen, but it is obvious that
these added costs could be eliminated if the metal were segregated and recovered from the
raw waste prior to incineration. The Bureau is going to work on that next -- presumably
under the assumption that the benefication techniques which have been found so successful in
the classification of incinerator residues could be made to work on raw refuse as well.
Tin cans segregated from raw waste could be detinned and recycled in a manner similar to that
now carried out with factory scrap. To make this a go, perhaps the steel producers would
have to expend some technical energies aimed at reversing the recent trend in the develop-
ment of steel-making processes which are decreasingly tolerant of scrap usage.
Aluminum cans and rigid foil containers similarly recovered from raw refuse are immediately
suitable for reclaiming in secondary resmelting operations.
CONCLUSION
It is fair to say that the major technical problem to be solved in the practical recycling
of metals from municipal solid wastes is the development of techniques and equipment for
getting them out of the raw refuse in a systematic and practical manner. The basic tech-
nology exists on how to handle the metals once they are segregated. If this is still lacking
a bit in practicality, at least the metals could be buried or stored as a highly concentrated
source for future exploitation.
81
-------
SUMMARY
The chemical and physical nature of metallic materials used in packages are described. The
magnitude of the problem these create in solid waste collection and disposal is discussed
in terms of the quantities presently used and predictions of future trends. The quantitative
growth will not be explosive and will exceed population growth patterns by only 10-15%. The
product mix, however, will change more decisively with a continuing trend away from tinplate
to tin free steel (TFS) and aluminum. Black plate is expected to remain at about its pre-
sent level.
The trend away from tinplate has been made possible in recent years through the development
of new can fabricating techniques to replace soldering which requires the tin. The change
in materials mix thus brought about will have only a minor effect on the solid waste disposal
problem over the next decade.
When discarded metal packages will, in general, entrain appreciable quantities of other
materials such as organic coatings, adhesives, sealants, paper, and residues of the packaged
products. These can have secondary pollution effects upon disposal characteristics of these
materials, but the metals themselves do not. When used for landfill , they create no evolu-
tion of gases or highly soluble and noxious solids. They constitute no bacterial or pest
hazard. When incinerated, the metals do not contribute to air pollution problems and remain
to form a stable portion of the incinerator residues when used for landfill .
As a constituent of litter, metal packages are effectively a permanent blight which must be
removed by collection. Steel cans will require six to ten years of average climatic exposure
before oxidation proceeds far enough to cause disintegration of the structure. Aluminum,
under similar circumstances, will remain essentially unchanged.
The possibilities for recycling metals from municipal refuse is discussed in terms of the
metallurgical considerations involved. Under conditions where metals can be segregated from
raw refuse, aluminum affords the least problems in reclamation. A journey through the
incineration, however, increases the problems of recycling for both metals, more for aluminum
than steel, and reverses their recycling potential.
82
-------
REFERENCES
1. Darnay, A. J. and Franklin, W. E.
The Role of Packaging in Solid Waste 1966 - 1976
Public Health Service Publication No. 1855.
2. Annonymous Steel Producer
Private Communication
3. National Research Council Materials Advisory Board
Panel on Tin
Private Communication
4. Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Urban Health Affairs
Solid Haste Handling in Metropolitan Areas
Public Health Service Publication No. 1554
5. Rampacek, C.
Reclaiming and Recycling Metals and Minerals Found in Municipal
Incinerator Residues
Proceedings, Symposium on Mineral Waste Utilization, Chicago, March 1968
6. Kaiser, E. R.
Refuse Reducation Processes
Surgeon General's Conf. on Solid Waste Management, Washington, D. C., 1967
7. Kaiser, E. R.; Zeit, C.D.; McCafferty, J. B.
Municipal Refuse and Reisdue
Proceedings, 1968 National Incinerator Conference
New York, N. Y.
8. Bureau of Mines, College Park, Md.
Private Communication
83
-------
-------
Wastes from Plastic Packages
THOMAS B. BECNEL
Plastics are relative newcomers to packaging wastes. While paper, glass and metals have
been around a long time, plastics were insignificant in packaging until around 1950. Even
by 1958, only a little over 730 million pounds of plastic were going into packaging
applications, and over half of that was cellophane which is really a wood pulp product
and not a true plastic.
About 1960, when polyethylene prices began to drop, plastics for packaging uses began to
grow rapidly and by 1967, well over 2 1/2 billion pounds of plastics were produced for
this use. By next year, this figure will be up to 3 1/2 to 4 billion pounds, and by.
1976 plastics for packaging will nearly double present poundage.
It is easy to understand why plastics have grown so popular as packaging materials. They
have numerous desirable characteristics which I don't have to detail for this audience.
I mention them only because it is ironic that the very molecular structure that has made
them so popular also creates certain disposal problems ... which I will elaborate on in
a moment.
First, let me attempt to put plastics in packaging in a proper perspective. On a weight
basis, plastics constitute only 2.4% of total packaging wastes, and since packaging wastes
account for only 13% of total solid wastes, plastics seem virtually insignificant. If
you choose to look at it in this light -- and there are those who have elected to do just
that -- disposability of plastics is seemingly no problem.
To a large degree, this may be true ... at present. But if every producer of packages
took the point of view that his materials represented only a small part of wastes, and
thus he felt no obligation to help solve the total problem, you can imagine the enormity
of the situation.
The volume of plastics refuse is expected to increase, but the proportion of plastics to
other constituents of refuse is not expected to change significantly. This may not be
85
-------
the case, however, with many commercial and industrial waste systems. Concentration of
plastics in refuse of manufacturers is expected to be higher. Mass feeding systems in
industrial cafeterias, and institutions such as universities, hospitals, airlines, res-
taurants, etc., are adopting completely disposable serviceware of plastics and plastic-
coated materials. These operations will undoubtedly have high concentrations of plastics
in their refuse.
Recognizing that we do, indeed, have a responsibility, let's then briefly review current
disposal practices and consider the alternatives. Finally, I would like to discuss tech-
nical problems and propose at least possible solutions.
Most of you, I'm sure, are aware of the amount of packaging materials discarded today by
each man, woman and child in this country. It is estimated by Midwest Research Institute
to be about 560 pounds. Of this 560 pounds, about 17 1/2 pounds are plastics.
There are a number of methods being employed today to get rid of these waste materials.
In most cases, they are simply part of all other solid wastes which, ultimately, are dis-
posed of in pretty much the same manner. Sorting is simply out of the question. We expect
215 million tons of residential wastes alone by 1970 — about 21$ of this as packaging
wastes.
Probably the oldest method used by man to get rid of wastes is the dump. The dump was
once cheap and convenient. But a dump has serious drawbacks. It takes up large areas of
land. And, as the cost of land nearer cities rose, dumps moved farther out and transporta-
tion costs grew. Dumps breed rats and flies and create health hazards. They also occas-
ionally burn and smell. And they are always unsightly.
Another method is the sanitary land fill. The day's collection is spread out and covered
with 6 to 8 inches of soil. While adequate in some ways, it is far from ideal. In 1968,
the Public Health Service surveyed 6,000 so-called land disposal sites. Only 6% could be
reasonably characterized as sanitary land fill. Less than 14% were covered daily; 40%
got no cover at all. About 75% had unacceptable appearance and some form of open burning.
Sanitary land fill still requires expensive, long-range hauling; it chews up land at an
alarming rate; and it puts the city in the mining business. It ij^ cheap and requires
little technical knowledge to operate properly and many cities have gone to great lengths
to use this technique.
One of the most publicized examples is right here in San Francisco where the city proposed
to have its solid wastes hauled by rail -- after compaction and baling — to the Lassen
County Desert. The city and the Western Pacific Railroad were unable to come to a mutually
acceptable agreement. I believe that the price to do the job was $8.50 a ton. But that
would be only after all the refuse had been collected and brought to a central point.
86
-------
Compacting always conies up as a possible method of disposal. I personally consider it
somewhat less than adequate. It requires handling twice, and if not completely encased,
it will rot, smell and burn. There have been some elegant ideas for super-compacting
encasing in concrete for roads and fill. But, unfortunately, it costs money to make
solid waste inert.
Burial at sea is another idea. But again costs are steep and transportation costs could
be enormous. Besides, if not weighted and packaged properly, wastes would pop up to
litter beaches and pollute oceans -- which, incidentally, have their limits, too. You
would have an ironic situation where you would be packaging your packaging wastes.
There have been other proposals of various kinds and all have drawbacks. All are also
getting more expensive. In 1966, total costs for waste removal exceeded $3.2 billion,
or $9 a ton. Even if costs could be lowered -- which they can't -- the removal of solid
wastes is just THAT ... the problem is merely moved from one place to another. The
greatest part of it is not destroyed.
One known method that DOES reduce these wastes to practically zero is incineration. It
is currently one of the most expensive, and certainly one of the most technically challeng-
ing, methods of disposing of solid wastes. Unfortunately, there are very few incinerators
in tm's country that are both properly designed and properly operated.
One of the best incinerator operations in the world is right in my backyard. The Dow
Chemical Company at its Midland, Michigan, location, operates an incinerator facility to
get rid of scraps and waste products from over 500 chemical processing plants. We burn
polystyrene foam; we burn polyvinyl chloride; we burn a variety of other plastics as
well as scores of other materials including oily wastes and tars, and residues from stills
and kettles. And we do this without polluting the air or the small river on which the
plants are located.
Ever since Dow began its incinerator operation, we have been faced with one disturbing
fact: Despite the many outstanding components — kilns, furnaces, fuel systems, wet
scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and so on — there was no one who offered all of
these components in a complete system. No one had sufficient information on the variety
of materials that Dow expected to burn to design a complete facility. It requires tre-
mendous amounts of technology about materials being incinerated.
But before you jump to the conclusion that Dow has all the technology and equipment to
solve all the problems of solid waste disposal by incineration, let me point out that
it has barely scratched the surface in this area. There is only scanty information
available on what happens when you mix a variety of certain material wastes together.
Millions of dollars, and hundreds of manhours, of research and development, will no doubt
be required to see the incinerator become a competing or preferred method for disposing
of municipal wastes.
87
-------
Despite all of the technical difficulties involved, I firmly believe that incineration
will become the most common and the most practical solution for disposing of solid wastes
in years to come.
Designers, engineers and contractors must, necessarily, become more sophisticated than
they are now. Each city produces different wastes; each manufacturing location also has
different wastes. And all these differences must be taken into account in the incinerator
facility. But advances in incineration ARE being made. And because some of these will
be discussed tomorrow morning by Mr. Elmer Kaiser of New York University, I'm not going
to dwell on incinerator hardware. I would, however, like to touch upon the type of tech-
nical data which will be needed to make the incinerator — municipal, industrial or home
facility -- work properly.
A number of incinerator designers and manufacturers feel that they CAN design facilities
to handle most any waste material provided that they are furnished with sufficient data
about these materials. They feel they can do this without creating hazards or violating
present and future pollution-control codes.
At least some of this data might come from the Federal Government. The Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1965 expresses concern about inefficient and improper methods of solid
waste disposal that may be hazardous to the health and welfare of the people, but it
restricts activity to providing leadership through the sponsoring of research and develop-
ment and providing technical and financial assistance for disposal programs.
Most states and municipalities have enacted codes or ordinances, and more controls can
be expected in the future. But present feelings among municipal authorities indicate
future legislation will be aimed at controlling the by-product of waste disposal rather
than the method of disposal. For example, emission gases from incinerators may well
be restricted to specified levels, but not the amount and type of material that may be
incinerated. Restrictive codes or ordinances generally relate to all solid waste, and
not to specific constituents.
While we might expect the Federal Government to provide certain technical assistance,
we must face the fact that the government is principally concerned with over-all solid
waste disposal. As a result, I believe we in the packaging industry, including those of
us in plastics packaging, will be expected to provide information about what happens to
our materials when they are incinerated.
Just what kinds of information? I am talking about complete technical data on every
material and every combination of materials. That's a big order.
Technical data on what happens to plastics when they are incinerated may be relatively
difficult to obtain. Plastics are considered the fourth most difficult to dispose of.
88
-------
Paper and paperboard are generally the easiest, followed by textiles, wood and plastics.
Metal and glass are considered more difficult.
However, let me go back now to my earlier remarks. You will recall that I pointed out
that the very molecular structure of plastics which makes them so popular also presents
certain problems when it comes time to dispose of them. But with sufficient data on
the major plastics being used in packaging today, I still believe incineration is the
ultimate solution.
The major plastics used in packaging today are, in order of volume consumed: Polyethylene
(low and high density), polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride and polypropylene. In far less
volumes are cellulosics, urea and phenolics, and saran.
The key to burning polystyrene in an incinerator is controlling the rate of heat release
which is approximately 18,000 BTU/lb. as opposed to 4,000 BTU/lb. for normal refuse.
The very high rate of heat release must be retarded to insure complete combustion. Three
common methods to control the heat release are to cut the air supply, and/or to maintain
a small ratio of polystyrene to normal refuse, and/or to package polystyrene parts in
cardboard or paper. The end result of the last technique is that the polystyrene "cokes"
before combustion which slows the burning rate considerably.
Two additional problems experienced in burning polystyrene are the thick, black smoke
generated, and the deposit of plastic left in the incinerator by dripping through the
grate. An efficient after-burner helps eliminate the smoke problems and removal or
modification of the grate helps to insure that all of the plastic is combusted.
The products of combustion resulting from the incineration of polystyrene in an incinera-
tor designed specifically for plastics consists mainly of oxides of carbon and contain no
toxic substances other than the equilibrium carbon monoxide present as a result of all
high temperature combustion of carbon bearing substances. The technique of burning in
these special incinerators involves the use of an excess amount of air, and flue tempera-
tures in the area of 1,000 degrees F. and higher to obtain the minimal output of smoke
and carbon monoxide.
Polyethylene, polystyrene, and other plastics which do not contain halogens will incinerate
satisfactorily under adequate conditions of time, temperature, and turbulence. Gaseous
products of this combustion are carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen, and excess oxygen.
Incomplete combustion, however, will produce traces of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and other
organic gases, as well as smoke and soot.
There is a growing trend toward more fire-resistant plastics, which usually contain halogens
(chlorine and bromine). These halogens may either be contained in their molecular structure,
such as PVC, or in flame-retarding plasticizers and other additives. When the plastics
89
-------
are exposed to sufficient temperatures, the halogen gases are released and inhibit com-
bustion. They appear in the form of gaseous hydrogen chloride and hydrogen bromide, which
can form acids that will attack and corrode any exposed metal parts inside the incinerator.
If discharged into the atmosphere without dilution, they will contribute to air pollution.
Halogen containing plastics in large volume require higher temperatures, more vigorous
turbulence, and often after-burners to complete combustion, avoid smoke, and prevent the
release of concentrated amounts of hydrogen chloride or hydrogen bromide into the atmos-
phere.
Low temperature burning of plastics often produces offensive odors and dense, black smoke.
This is also true of many other components of refuse such as rags, rubber, and leather,
so it is difficult to isolate or identify the contribution plastics will make to air
pollution in the vicinity of dumps. Generally, the smoke and irritating gases such as
hydrogen chloride released by plastics are proportionally diluted by the combustion
products of other constituents of refuse.
I mention these characteristics of plastics when incinerated only to point out that we
are aware of many of the problems, and know just enough to feel that with more data,
incineration on a widespread basis is entirely feasible.
Gases from combustions of some plastics, notably polystyrene and PVC, have been scanned
by gas chromatography for levels of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, phosgene, aldehydes
and total organic level. Human tolerance levels in parts per million of emitted com-
bustion gases have been determined. Methods for further testing, including trapping and
identifying by mass spectroscopy and other techniques, have been devised.
Through all known tests, it is possible to determine what technical data would be necessary
for the incinerator designer to have to make incineration practical, and competitively
closer in cost to other methods of disposal in the future.
Major problems right now include lack of an organization or an association wherein knowledge
of materials can be shared, and the lack of sufficient monies to conduct in-depth studies.
Neither of these is impossible -- not half as impossible as it might be to find a dumping
area in 15 or 20 years from now.
The question has been asked many times of the plastics industry: Why can't you develop
a biodegradable plastic? I might say just this about biodegradables: It might be
technically possible to develop a plastic such as this in, say 10 years. Such a material
would be far more expensive, I'm sure, and probably wouldn't perform near as well as
today's materials. Over and above that, I see such an idea as contradictory. Consumers
and customers on one hand demand tough, durable materials that might conceivably last
forever, and on the other hand ask that they magically disintegrate and disappear whenever
they're through with them. Let's not forget that there are various degrees of biodegrad-
ability.
90
-------
To sum up, incineration appears to be the best bet for the future. There are great
technical problems to be solved, and it's going to cost somebody a lot of money. The cost
of incineration will have to be weighed against all other forms of disposal, if in fact
you can realistically consider some forms, such as dumping and burying, true disposal.
An optimum incinerator today will burn 2,000 tons per day for a price of $12 - $15 per
ton. This includes the operation of the plant and the amortization. It also includes the
provisions needed to comply with both air and water pollution regulations. This cost is
expected to increase by about $2 - $4 per ton due to anticipated increases in the cost
of labor, and the fact that new materials in solid waste will require various design
changes over the years.
If you agree with me that incineration represents the ultimate, acceptable alternative,
more data on plastics materials, as well as others, must be provided. I hope you can
help provide that needed data.
91
-------
-------
The Role of Glass Containers
in Solid Waste Disposal
E.R. OWENS
PROBLEM
There is a constantly growing problem of solid waste disposal in all areas of our country,
and the people are not yet fully aware of the critical need to solve this problem along
with those of the other pollutions. I would like to talk briefly about glass containers,
not only as to their disposability and relation to this problem, but also the part they
play in the overall ecology of our country, which involves the relation of man to the
natural resources on which his whole life depends. There is danger in discussing just
disposal of discarded consumer materials without regard to the whole cycle in which pack-
aging materials come from the land, and how they return to the land or atmosphere if they
are not salvaged. For the good of all it is essential that we approach this subject as
conservationists and not simply as packagers or waste processors.
I would like to make a plea to adopt the term "solid waste management" instead of the
worn verbiage "solid waste disposal", because I am sure we will all agree the need has
recently become very pressing for doing far more than just "dumping it somewhere".
With that thought in mind, we find that we don't manage waste very well. Many people
will not identify with their responsibilities to the problem of waste pollution and litter.
They don't like to become involved, and it is always "someone else's problem". Almost
all people will agree on the beauty of our environment, and the need to maintain it, and
will also be against waste, litter, and pollutions. It's a little like motherhood—everybody
is for it--but in this case, let someone else manage waste. Then we have the matter of
economics, which is always with us. Heretofore, we have hauled waste relatively short
distances, and disposal has been easy so that costs use to approximate $4.50 per capita,
a very reasonable figure indeed. Faced with longer hauls or more sophisticated methods
of disposal, and inflated costs, we no longer have an easy assignment. The general public
is less than enthusiastic about governments spending more tax dollars on an increased
cost of handling waste. Sometimes, also, we just don't know how to dispose of waste
without causing other pollutions. Incineration, in all likelihood would add to air
93
-------
pollution—and dumping in the ocean or bay would increase water pollution. In a sense
we are groping—for good answers—and finding few.
Many people are working on this problem. There are combinations of compaction, incinera-
tion, sterilization, segregation and many suggested uses for new or different materials.
All have some drawbacks, but from them we must make a selection.
FUTURE
What does the future hold for us? The problem of waste disposal or management will certainly
continue to get more difficult, because of the steady increase in population—people cause
waste and pollution—they don't happen by themselves.
Some time ago you heard of the so-called "degradable" beer container announced by the
Warby Breweries in Sweden. Due to an error in translation, the original two years for
self-destruction was reduced to "two months" and this was published widely in the United
States. This error led some public officials and private citizens to believe a major
breakthrough in container materials technology had been made. This container has been
withdrawn from the market because of the insufficiently founded claims regarding degrad-
ability, and Mr. Richard Cheney, Executive Director of the Glass Container Manufacturers
Institute—who is in the audience today—has stated that there is no suitable beverage
container material known to the packaging industry today, either in the United States or
in Europe, that has the quality of degradability envisioned by those concerned with the
role of packaging in litter or waste.
ACTIVITIES
What is happening now? Whereas many people have not taken an active part in solving the
problem in the past, more are getting into the activity and are more concerned with our
total ecology as it is made up by wastes and various pollutions. Hardly a day goes by
that we don't see some article in the paper or some public official talking about environ-
mental change. This is all good, because the sooner we all realize the seriousness of
the problem with total ecology, the better off we will all be. Unfortunately, it is still
a long way off.
There is much work going on, however, and I would like to identify some of the areas in
which effort is being made.
For one example—Dr. Samuel F. Hulbert, of the College of Engineering at Clemson University,
is pursuing on a federal grant a scientific inquiry into the structure of glass and coatings
for glass that may make them, under certain conditions, water soluble. Dr. Hulbert is a
reputable scientist with distinguished credentials, and I am pleased that he is here and
on the program, and will probably tell you of his work himself.
94
-------
Several firms on their own are trying to recycle waste from their own products. Most
notable is one of the aluminum companies who has made an offer and is attempting to buy
back used aluminum containers. This has only started recently in some areas and we cannat
report on the results at this time.
There is also a project at the University of Missouri in the School of Engineering, where
Dr. Delbert Day is investigating with the aid of a grant from the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management of the U. S. Public Health Service, the use of glass fragments as an aggregate
for asphalt paving material. Our industry technical people have kept in touch with Dr. Day,
as they have with Dr. Hulbert, on the results of these experiments.
We are presently discussing with Dr. Day and his associates, ways in which we can assist
his project either by providing glass materials or by paving a test area with the new
glass-asphalt material.
The Glass Container Manufacturing Institute, the association for the glass container
manufacturers (represented by Mr. Cheney, as I have noted, and also by John Abrahms, the
Staff Director of the Environmental Program—who was formerly with the Public Health
Service and the Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal) has had an environmental study with various
projects operating since 1967. They have three basic long range objectives:
1. The resolution of any problems glass containers may present in present
day waste disposal systems.
2. The development of a means of recycling used bottles back into the
container making process.
3. Development of secondary uses for waste glass, as in the manufacture
of building materials, insulation, specialty paints, and road aggregates.
The Institute's Committee on Environmental Pollution Control, made up of members of the
glass container industry, also is working on some specific problems that are a little
different.
1. Color sorting and separation of glass from solid waste. This program
has been funded and is underway with this committee working with the
Stanford Research Institute. The Sortex Company is working on cleaning
and separating glass by color if it can be satisfactorily separated
from solid waste. This might be an excellent program for recycling
glass.
2. The effects of glass containers on sanitary land fill. Glass is not
as much of a problem as some other materials because it is almost
95
-------
completely chemically inert. It does not decompose and thus will
not react with adjacent land or water to pollute it. Since it is
inert, it will not leach, rust, rot, mold, putrefy nor cause disease
or noxious gases. Glass can be reduced to small particles thus
eliminating porosity that in other forms of material might trap liquids
and gases and possibly be breeding spots for insects. Small pieces
of glass will not contribute to settling and will create a firm founda-
tion for land fill. Glass is one of the few, perhaps the only,
packaging material which can be returned to the soil in nearly its
original form.
3. Questionnaire on collection of litter and solid waste. This program
is in the proposal stage, however it bears directly on an important
part of the solid waste problem and is probably one of the most impor-
tant questions that we have to answer. The matter of collecting litter
and solid waste so that we can properly dispose of it is one of the
most illusive problems that we have to contend with.
4. Investigation of incinerator residue. In this program the committee
is working with the Bureau of Mines and will bear more results follow-
ing the start-up of a new pilot operation by the Bureau of Mines.
Ue have no real results to report from all of this work because it is only recently started
and some of it is extremely comprehensive.
Last November, Owens-Illinois announced an entirely new concept in beverage containers called
the "glass composite package". It is a glass container that is bulb shaped and sits
permanently affixed in a plastic base that serves also as a labelling surface.
Our technical departments have been working diligently on the possibility of recycling
the plastic and glass materials in this new container and are hopeful of coming up with a
new material that may have various uses in new products. This work is in addition to
work that is done on present glass containers which I have already mentioned. I have
some samples of the early developments in this reuse search for materials and as I show
them to you I want you to remember that they are preliminary and early stage ideas and the
final conclusions we reach may be far different from these. I have here some tile-like
materials that are made from a combination of glass and plastic formed by combining under
high pressure. Perhaps they could be used as floor tile, serving trays, supermarket
displays, office wall partition materials, other containers, or other uses. We don't know
yet what we have here, but we will find out in technical investigation. More finely ground
glass can be used with an additive to make a thin type of board that could be used for
many other products, such as boxes, beverage cases, or other uses that would require a
tough, waterproof, strong material. This material has also been formed into a type of
shingle that can be nailed to wood and we think it will be very weatherproof and durable.
96
-------
Along with this effort we are devoting time to counselling and advising public officials
in conferences like this to be of assistance in disposing of waste products.
In addition to the above work there are many sophisticated programs, some underway, that
are treating solid waste by grinding, roasting, sterilizing, etc. One of these is called
the "garbalizing" process and a firm in Salt Lake City is having this process tested. You
are all familiar, I am sure, with the Japanese process of treating solid waste and compact-
ing it into building or paving brick. There are undoubtedly many others working in this
field and the activity is accelerating at a rapid pace.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE
We need recommendations on how to use information that we already have. Similar to the
problem of litter, which is being carried on by education of all people from the elementary
through the secondary and college levels to adult seminars, to the critical problems of
litter, pollutions, and solid waste, it will be necessary to educate all of these people
to the need for economical disposal of solid waste so that it cannot affect the total
ecology of our country. A little different to the litter problem, solid waste disposal
presents problems that cannot be agreed upon by those working in the field. So far we have
not been able to decide on one uniform method of disposing of our wastes. We know consider-
able about the methods of incineration, land fill, recycling, and more sophisticated methods
of treating waste, but decisions have not been made on a wide scale that are uniform as
to how best to handle this problem.
I would like to digress for a moment and tell of my own experiences when I lived in
Southern California some years ago. At that time each household separated their waste
into three separate categories: first, wet kitchen garbage was put in one container;
the second contained all non-combustible solid materials, such as metals, glass and plastic;
a third container included combustibles, such as paper and wood. Since that time burning,
both backyard and industrial, has been curtailed so that the combustibles were added to the
other materials, making only two separations. The wet garbage was sold to feed livestock
and the non-combustibles were taken by the Los Angeles Byproducts Co. where they formed a
part of the recycle operation. The City of Los Angeles was paid some $750,000.00 per year
for this material and this company extracted the tin from the tinned cans, then salvaged
all of the ferrous and nonferrous metals, including both iron and steel, and baled them.
Glass was separated, washed and broken into a usable size, and additional contamination
was removed from it. The glass was sold back to the glass container people to be used
as "cullet", an already melted glass that is mixed with raw materials in the making of new
glass, and the metals, both ferrous and nonferrous, were baled and sold to foundries and
processors of these materials. The revenues paid to the city for this waste material
would go a long way in making the separate collections that would be required. By recycling
these wastes the residue was reduced to only a fraction of its original volume and this
then was used as land fill. I have talked a little about many of the possible solutions to
97
-------
the problem, such as education, recycling, the objectives of the Glass Container Manufactur-
ing Institute and its sub-committee which has received the plaudits on the floor of the
U. S. Senate by Senator Randolph of West Virginia, and this is included in the Congressional
Record. Garbalizing, compaction into building materials, incineration and land fill have
been mentioned. There may be others that will come along as we learn more about solid waste.
Many of us did not agree with Mr. Heller when he said yesterday that he recommended a
tax be placed on all types of one-way containers so that they could be returned and re-used
01* we shouldn't use them at all.
Vermont tried this once—they banned one-way glass bottles for beverages and beer in an
effort to curtail litter. Actual counts before and after indicated that there was no
reduction in litter, and so, after 2 or 3 years they returned to using the one-way container.
A rather striking experience occurred in New York City recently with the Pepsi Cola Co.
This company started marketing a 16 oz. bottle and thought they would get the bottles back
for re-use if they used a returnable bottle, and increased the deposit to 5£. They bought
a float of 600,000 cases of 24 bottles each, and in 9 months they were all gone. The
deposit and the returnable bottle did not work. A nickel doesn't mean as much anymore as it
used to. The public threw away $720,000, which Pepsi Cola had invested in Solid Waste
Disposal.
This was proven in a recent experience in Oregon. At a hearing in Salem on a "tax the
container" bill, those people who thought the one-way container was the culprit collected
several sacks of litter from roadsides and dumped them on the table at the hearing to show
the effect of the one-way bottle. It was interesting to note that on identification of the
bottles by knowledgeable people at the hearing, that at least half of the bottles were
deposit, returnable bottles.
Neither special taxing or banning is the answer. This has been proven many times. We
must find a better solution, free from politics, that will work.
I would like to leave you with a recommendation that I think would at least serve in the
interim until a better program comes along:
1. I would hope that we could recycle much of our waste by separating
out either mechanically or by hand, those usable materials that can
be sent back to the original user. It is only by getting the used
bottles back, that we can capitalize on the many possible uses we are
experimenting with in thus reducing the volume of total waste. If
other materials can successfully be recycled and reused, then in my
opinion, this is a "must" in solid waste management. I am thinking
of the process once used in Southern California which was a profitable
98
-------
one for all concerned and provided additional jobs and revenue to the
city. Special collecting trucks with divided compartments have already
been designed for collecting different kinds of material. I think
it is a small burden to ask the householder to separate various material
from their solid waste. We all must take part in this program and I
know from experience that this is a small imposition and we should
ask all people to cooperate so that we could minimize the amount of
waste that we must manage. This is the total involvement that we need.
2. The remainder of the wet garbage and other materials could be used
to provide a feed for livestock, either in its present condition
or processed and pelletized.
3. The remainder of solid waste should be incinerated to further reduce
its volume, and
4. The remainder, which should be a small amount by comparison to our
present tremendous volume, could be satisfactorily used as land fill.
We will run out of land fill in 5 years, said Commissioner Marius, so
volumes of waste should be reduced as much as possible.
99
-------
-------
The Solid Waste Disposal Problem:
What the Packaging Engineer Can Do
CHARLES W. LINCOLN
The problem of solid waste disposal is to a significant extent a packaging problem. It
is therefore a problem which we as packaging engineers have a responsibility to solve.
We would be both remiss in our responsibilities as citizens and guilty of failure in
discharging our full duties as packaging engineers if we ignore this problem instead of
helping to solve it.
In brief, the problem is this. Packaging, according to estimates made by the Midwest
Research Institute, accounts for 20 percent of residential and 12 percent of industrial
and commercial solid wastes. This year, it is estimated that more than 50 million tons
of packaging materials will be thrown away.
This tremendous tonnage is straining the capacity of waste collection and disposal systems
throughout the country. It is also adding to the critically growing problem of air, water
and ground pollution.
Consequently, immediate action is required at all levels of public and private life to
achieve improved packaging waste management. As packaging engineers, we are in a unique
position to help in this effort. This is because we are the ones in many cases who trigger
the design, construction and selection of materials used in packaging. Some of the solu-
tions to effective packaging waste management are thus within our sphere of influence.
But why us? Why not let somebody else worry about this problem? Why should we as packaging
engineers become involved in what happens to a package after it is used? We have enough
to think about simply to insure that the package performs its proper functions in use.
It's really none of our business what happens to a package after it's done its job.
Right?
101
-------
Wrong! We are involved whether we like it or not, whether we think we should be or shouldn't
be.
First of all, we are involved simply because we are citizens of this country and therefore
responsible for what happens here. If we're only concerned with what goes on inside our
own four walls, we're nothing but technicians...and shortsighted ones at that. As citizens,
it's our duty to see that the country is not used as if we have a spare in the trunk.
Secondly, we're involved professionally because it's one of our main jobs to help reduce
packaging costs. And you can be sure that if we don't do something now to help reduce the
costs of packaging waste management, these costs will come back to haunt us in the future.
Now, why is this? Packaging performs a legitimate and useful public service, doesn't it?
Without packaging, as a matter of fact, it is difficult to conceive how our economy might
function for even a day. Not only that, consumers want improved packaging and they want
more packaging. This is proved every day by consumer dollars in the marketplace.
All of this is, of course, true. But it doesn't tell the whole story. It completely
ignores, for example, the hidden costs of packaging waste management. And these costs are
mounting rapidly, due to both increasing population and increasing per capita use of
packaging.
To state the full economic case, it is necessary to tell the consumer not only that packaging
makes his life better but that it also costs him more in taxes to support governmental
solid waste collection and disposal and pollution control services.
Fully informed concerning cost alternatives, the consumer can make his own economic decision.
Is he willing to pay the cost of increased taxes made necessary by packaging? Or would he
rather reduce his taxes by using less packaging? Nobody probably knows the answer to this
question. Perhaps only time and experience will tell.
But it is important that the question be raised, and that it be raised in economic terms
enabling the consumer to make a fully informed decision which can be effectively imple-
mented in the market place. This is because the alternative is political intervention on
behalf of an uninformed public.
This will create a twofold problem for packaging. First, although packaging accounts for
a minority of all solid wastes, it is also the most visible of all wastes. It has been
estimated, for example, that on any given Fourth of July the American public discards
enough waste products to fill every ballpark in the country six feet deep. The vast bulk of
this litter and all litter, for that matter, is packaging. It may therefore be expected
that packaging will be the initial and perhaps even the most frequent target of legislation
in the solid wastes management field.
102
-------
Second, one way or the other we in packaging are going to have to pay some of the costs
involved in solving the packaging waste disposal problem. But if we leave it to government
to solve the problem through legislation, it's going to cost three times as much than if we
do the problem-solving ourselves.
Nor does it change the picture to say that any added costs will eventually and inevitably
be passed on to consumers anyway. In the process, the increased costs will have a decidedly
negative impact on annual reports, in addition to unnecessarily causing packaging to be
more expensive than it otherwise has to be.
It should be noted there is already a trend in the direction of governmental intervention.
A user's tax on packaging materials, for example, is now being discussed at the national
level. In addition, one state is currently considering restricitng the entry of products
based on the dtsposability of their packaging.
It is consequently in our own responsible interest not only as concerned citizens but as
packaging engineers dedicated to increasing the growth and profitability of the companies
which we represent to do everything possible to reduce waste disposal and pollution problems
caused by packaging.
Actually, this basically does not mean doing anything differently from what we have been
doing. What it does mean is expanding the total concept of package engineering to include
disposability — what happens to the package after it is used — as a major package cri-
terion. It also means placing even greater stress on the economical and efficient use of
packaging both inside and outside our plants.
We recognize the importance of working closely with local, state and federal agencies in
helping to improve methods of collecting and disposing of packaging wastes. We also believe
in cooperating fully with suppliers who are attempting to incorporate a greater degree of
disposability in their packaging materials.
However, these approaches to the problem are going to take time. Meanwhile, there are
functions within each of our companies where we can apply our package engineering skills
right now to the improvement of packaging waste management.
At Bell & Howell, we divide these functions into seven major areas which we believe are
important. These are areas in which we as packaging engineers not only become involved
but can exercise responsibility and, in some cases, control. These areas are:
1. Packaging materials and methods used for incoming production parts,
supplies and materials. Make sure that incoming supplier shipments
are not overpackaged. Is there an internal handling method which can
be used to completely eliminate the need for packaging? Or can the
supplier's package perform multiple functions?
103
-------
We receive one part, for example, whose package does four different jobs for us. After
receipt, the part is removed from the package, processed and then placed back in the package
and shipped to an outside vendor for further processing. This vendor uses the package to
return the part to us, following which we do additional work and ship the finished part
to the consumer in the same package.
2. Packaging materials and methods used for incoming packaging materials
and supplies. Materials used to package incoming packaging materials
and supplies can also be examined for re-use, reduction or elimina-
tion. There are many packaging materials, for example, whose containers
can be designed to serve a secondary in-plant handling or refuse
collection function, thus eliminating the need for special containers.
3. Methods and procedures used in_ the salvage or disposal p_f packaging
materials used in-pi ant. Salvage and disposal are often considered
as maintenance costs. But, insofar as they relate to packaging
materials, they are packaging costs. What are the disposal methods --
compaction, landfill, incineration -- used by your local government?
Based on these methods, how can you best cooperate in the disposal of
packaging materials used in-plant? Should a compactor be used? Would
it be more practical to separate materials in-plant before discarding
them? These are questions in which packaging engineers should become
involved in order to reduce the disposal burden on their local com-
munities and thus reduce or at least hold the line on taxes.
Plastic packaging materials, for example, raise special problems because they tend to resist
incineration. However, a proper mix of plastic and grass cuttings, which are also difficult
to burn, will create a booming bonfire in any local government's disposal facilities. It
pays to know the problems and the people involved in disposing of your in-plant packaging
wastes.
4. Product manufacturing methods and materials which determine minimum
package requirements compatible with the need for product protection.
It makes little sense to put 50 percent of the cost of a product in
its package if a portion of this percent could instead be incorpo-
rated in the product, resulting in a better product at the same cost.
No product leaves the Bell & Howell design laboratory without a thorough analysis to see
how much money is being spent on the product and how much on the package. The idea is to,
wherever possible, use materials or methods in the manufacture of the product instead of
in the package, thus improving the product while reducing package requirements without
lessening the protection requirements for safe distribution.
104
-------
. 5. Marketing and distribution functions that determine package requirements.
6. The total package design function, including structure, selection of
materials, graphics and methods of packing.
7. Consumer intermediate and final needs, including use-out, re-use and
disposal requirements. Take, for example, the package used for tape
cassettes which Bell & Howell provides for use with its Filmosound 8
movie system. We sell the tape cassette but not the 8mm film which
is used with the movie system. Yet the package is designed to hold
both the tape cassette and a processed reel of film, making it possible
for consumers to use the package as a storage container for keeping
film and synchronized sound tapes conveniently together. In other
words, wherever we can, we design the package for re-use by the con-
sumer, eliminating the problem of disposal.
The toothpaste tube is perhaps a classic example illustrating the disposal problem. Why
use plastic instead of metal for the tube? The collapsible metal tube is convenient to
dispense and becomes smaller as it is used, providing a visual means of inventory control.
When it is disposed, it occupies one-tenth the space of a non-collapsible plastic tube.
Perhaps it's because the plastic tube has a lower initial cost. But this does not take
into account the increased cost of disposal due to greater bulk which makes this cost
advantage highly questionable.
The first question we now ask about any new package is what happens to it after it is used?
Then, we proceed to analyze package requirements from the standpoint of the consumer,
marketing and distribution, and our own product needs.
Overall, if Bell & Howell can, for example, remove just three square inches out of every
package we receive and ship, we can take 30,000 pounds of packaging waste out of the dis-
posal cycle.
This is the end goal: To reduce the packaging waste problem by reducing the amount of
packaging which is discarded in the first place. We may not be able to completely solve
the problem, but we can certainly buy time until effective long range solutions in the
areas of disposal methods and disposable materials are developed.
We have the technical skills necessary to achieve this goal. To do so is part of our
social responsibility as citizens as well as inherent in our primary package engineering
function of developing packages which are as efficient and economical as possible.
105
-------
We are presently in a position to control packaging waste disposal costs by recognizing
them as a problem and promptly attacking them. The unacceptable alternative is to permit
these costs to continue to grow unchecked to the point where they come back and control us.
The overall result of our efforts will be reduced packaging costs from initial purchase
through final disposal, an improved public image in the market place, and the minimization,
if not elimination, of the call for governmental intervention.
Every packaging engineer should begin today to learn more about methods of packaging waste
disposal used both in his plant and in the community in which he lives and works. I can
promise from experience that it will be a real eye opener.
106
-------
Environmental Problems
The Honorable PAUL N. McCLOSKEY, JR.
It is a pleasure to be here with you today and try to give you a report on what Congress
is presently doing and to perhaps talk with you about what we may do in the future. I have
no real expertise in the field of solid waste disposal and I think it's important that you
know that most of us in the Congress do not.
Yesterday, you were addressed by a very mature, seasoned, Congressional leader -- Henry
Reuss -- a veteran of 15 years in the Congress, Chairman of perhaps one of the two most
powerful committees in this field, the Conservation and Resources Subcommittee of Government
Operations, of which I am the junior member after 18 months in the Congress. I think it
is important that you hear today from a new, inexperienced member of the Congress, because
there is some 69 of us in our first and second terms this year on the Republican side, a
number of others on the Democratic siae--as far as I can remember perhaps 30--, but the
younger men in the Congress, spurred on by public demand and the growing sense of awareness
of the problems of pollution -- and I might say to you at this point, backed-up by a tre-
mendously forceful group in the body politics today, the young people, the younger genera-
tion of this country who are beginning to insist that pollution and the attacks on pollution
have perhaps a higher priority than fighting wars in Southeast Asia or other efforts on the
domestic economy here in this country. This force that I want to describe to you in this
Congress against the background of the laws that we have passed and the laws that we have
considered, should not be underestimated in the particular fields of business and industry
which you gentlemen represent because I would like to tell you that in the 18 months that
I have seen the Congress operate and the government operate, coming to politics and the
government out of private life. As Henry said yesterday, he is a Democrat; I am proud to
be a Republican, and I am proud to be a Republican because having a good government in
action, I know of no agency or of no governmental bureau or office which is ever going to
be effective in handling the problems that this country faces and if there is anything that
those of us who are new to government are learning, it's that we would like to see the free
enterprise system stay what it is, the real source of the strength of this nation. Govern-
ment is not the strength of this nation, and yet you are discussing and have discussed in
107
-------
the last day and a half, major problems which government is beginning to tackle and which
inevitably will tackle in the next decade unless those same problems can be handled by
private industry, by private research, by self-discipline and communication in the various
fields that you gentlemen represent. And I hope you will do this, I hope you will continue
conferences such as this, I hope you will continue the communications that are represented
in the last day-and-a-half and the next day because if you don't, we face the necessity to
come in with government operations, government regulations, government control, none of it
effective, none of it necessarily efficient, much of it costly and time consuming; the
expenditure of time and effort of most government agencies is almost unbelievable. Washing-
ton expands its power these days not deliberately but because it is finding it essential to
fill gaps and voids that are not being handled by local communities, by state governments,
because we find that we are the accidental recipients now of the real growth in our gross
national product. The income tax will add some additional $50 billion in additional reve-
nues to the federal government in the next 3 years, at the same time that the federal income
tax has increased federal funds in the last 15 years, I think local costs of local and state
governments have gone up 250% as against maybe only 160% for domestic problems on the fed-
eral side. But with the federal funds increasing and the local problems increasing, the
answer of our system of government has been to divert these federal monies back to solve
local problems and I think that you immediately can see in the packaging industry, where
we are discussing solid waste disposal, that solid waste disposal is essentially a local
problem and if we try to solve local problems, we are forced more and more to use federal
funds. This is what caused the Congress in 1965 to pass the Solid Waste Disposal Act. I
would like to read to you from the preamble of that act because this is the keynote of past
federal involvement, and I think in comparing the bills which we are now considering with
this act, you will perceive the changes in federal laws and attitudes which apply to the
subjects you discuss. In 1965 the Solid Waste Disposal Act said this: "The purposes of
this Act therefore are (1) to initiate and accelerate a national research and develop pro-
gram for new and improved methods for proper and economic solid waste disposal including
studies directed toward the conservation of natural resources by reducing the amount of
waste and unsalvageable materials and by recovery and utilization of potential resources
in solid wastes, and (2) to provide technical and financial assistance to state and local
governments and interstate agencies in the planning, development and conduct of solid waste
disposal programs".
Now what did we do under that Act? We set up funding in 1966 of $10 million, in 1967 of
$20 million, 1968 of $30 million, 1969 of $32-1/2 million. Those were the authorization
figures, We actually appropriated a little less than one-half that amount because of the
impact of the Viet Nam War. Last year we spent some $16.1 million, most of it parcelled
out in research grants to private, non-profit agencies, to cities and states, and to
academic institutions to do research in the disposal of solid waste. Now that disposal,
you will note from the Act, is only half of the purpose of the Act; and let me read to you
again from the language a little further in that Act, it says not only the disposal of solid
waste is important to the Congress, but also that we reduce the amount of waste that is
108
-------
being generated and the statistics which have been so startling in the previous day-and-
a-half of this conference. I read from the Act: "That while the collection and disposal of
solid wastes should continue to be primarily the function of State, regional and local
agencies, the problems of waste disposal as set forth above have become a matter national
in scope and in concern and necessitate Federal action through financial and technical
assistance and leadership in the development, demonstration, and application of new and
improved methods and processes to reduce the amount of waste and unsalvageable materials,
and to provide for proper and economical solid-waste disposal practices." The stress in
the past has been on waste disposal. The changing emphasis today, in the Congress, is to
go after the source of the waste materials themselves, and this is where the packaging
industry, who is a very important part of the picture, could face up to the situation. Let
me give you a parallel situation that we have in jet noise. In jet-engine noise, they
recently took a private poll in the White House that indicated that pollution is now the
number two problem in the minds of most Americans, and it's the pollution of water and air,
and the preservation of open space in part, but the greatest concern that is expressed by
the ordinary American today is the matter of landscape and jet aircraft noise. Now the
Federal government in past years has been spending substantial sums, not substantial in the
sense of the figures you heard yesterday, but nevertheless, we have been spending $4-1/2
million or so in jet-engine research. The results have not been too satisfactory until in
the past year the government let out a contract to the Boeing and the Douglas people with
the instructions for them to try to apply the profit-making abilities, talent and management
of private industry to reducing jet-engine noise. And now for the first time, Boeing and
Douglas report back that aircraft engines can be designed which reduce jet-engine noise
by as much as one-half, which would be noise just above normal. But industry itself, under
government incentive, has, in this field at least, come up with proposed solutions which
government regulations and the operation of government bureaucracy had been previously
unable to attain. Now I think this might be a parallel to the solid waste disposal question,
and it is the responsibility of industry itself to come up with a solution that proposes
the means of incentive by which we reduce the amount of solid waste, not dispose of it,
but reduce the actual amount of the solid waste itself. This is true in jet-engine noise,
and I think it can be true in the generation of the bottle, the can, the paper products
which become ultimately solid waste.
Following that act of 1965, no new legislation was adopted until this year, when we now
have had recently proposed what is called the Resource Recovery Act of 1969, and I would
like to read to you from the language of this bill as an indication of the changing thrust
in the Congress. We emphasize now, with this new Resource Recovery Bill, which we add to
the resource and development language the emphasis on the following words, the reduction,
the reuse, and the recycling of wastes. "The Secretary of HEW is directed to conduct
studies and report to the President and the Congress on economical means of recovering
useful materials from solid wastes, recommended uses of such materials for national and
international welfare, and the market of such recovery, recommended incentive programs --
including tax incentives -- to assist in solving the problems of solid waste disposal; and
109
-------
recommended changes in current production and packaging practices to reduce the amount of
solid waste". Now there, gentlemen, I think is the challenge to your industry in the next
day of this conference, because if the government is left to its own devices to come up with
these programs, if we are without the communication from experts such as yourselves, if
we are without the input and the priorities assigned to the economy of the other problems
which we face, then I think we are operating blind and we have the possibility that govern-
ment, as it often does under emotional stress, will enact unwise legislation.
Let me give you some idea of the priority which the sponsors of this bill, Senator Muskie
in the Senate and a number of others, Congressman Rogers and a number of others in the
House, have assigned by way of financing. Unlike the $10 to $16 million that was authorized
to be appropriated in the last five years, these are the figures projected for the next
five years under this bill: $46 million in 1970, $83 million in 1971, and on and on pro-
gressively until it reaches $236 million in the year 1974. We laid out some priorities
yesterday, Congressman Reuss did, indicating we spend:
$350 million for chemical and biological warfare research,
one-fourth of that for air pollution;
$30 billion for an infantry war in southeast Asia -- but we can't
find $30 million (1/1000 of that sum) for the Point Reyes Seashore;
$10 billion for an ABM possibly obsolete when it is built --
$200,000 for wild rivers.
Now these priorities are changing, and as a younger, newer and inexperienced member of
Congress, I would like to convey to you in some way the urgency that most of us feel that
these priorities should be changed, and changed quickly in the expenditures of the resources
of this country.
Let me go forward with one other action of the Congress which reflects this feeling. Many
of you may recall that during the Korean War some 17 years ago, there was a National Mater-
ials Policy Commission of the President. They made a comprehensive survey of the national
requirements of supplies and materials, including energy sources and water. This Spring,
a blue-ribbon panel has recommended to the Congress that a national and permanent commission
be set up to reevaluate the materials and resources that are available to us now and in the
future, and to set up a national policy on the uses of materials. I think that the perma-
nency of some agency in the government is now established which will give top priority to
environmental quality matters, including pollution. Today or tomorrow the Congress will
pass the Environmental Quality Council Bill, which sets up at the White House level a five
man commission with advisers to the President, independent of the President but advising
him in the same manner as his urban advisers, his fiscal advisers, and his national security
advisers advise him today. And essentially, that is the recognition of the Congress that
matters of environmental quality are at least equal in priority today to those essential
matters of fiscal policy, of urban affairs, and of national security. Now that body which
would be reexamining our entire pciture in this country as to resources and materials, will
110
-------
probably contain primarily environmentalists. The pendulum is swinging toward changes.
The scientists and engineers, the developers, the roadbuilders have governed this country,
but the real danger is that as the pendulum swings to the protection of the-environment
under the stimulus of the views of this earth as you heard expressed by our astronauts,
under that kind of stimulus, under that kind of public pressure, there is a danger that the
swing can be too far, that too rigorous action, that too much governmental insertion of
control and regulation, and it is the kind of thing that I would hope that this industry
would take the lead in formulating the go slow policy. But in formulating go slow policies,
you also bear the responsibility to come up with the answers to the things such as that
one-way traveling bottle. I think you are very likely to see the Congress, in considering
these incentives, I think that they carry the consideration and will receive serious con-
sideration, the concept of attaching perhaps a 5 cent levy on these and manufactured non-
disposable containers with perhaps a 5 cent bounty paid to he who returns it to a central
repository, we pay bounties on coyotes, we pay bounties on predators. I don't think there
is a man here who hasn't walked along a stream or fished in a stream, and seen a bottle in
the bottom of it, or who hasn't driven along the highway through the countryside seeing the
wreckage of cars strewn through the farms of this nation. I was floating down stream in a
canoe with my son the other day through the Bull Run Battlefield Park and this beautiful
stream, Bull Run, which flows down into the Rappahannock River, the Potomac, you couldn't
travel a hundred yards without seeing the hulk of a car pushed over the bank, and bottles,
cans and other wastes. Every citizen of the United States is running into this situation
wherever he goes in the countryside, and I suggest to you that that pressure is going to
cause, and will cause within the next four or five years, sweeping changes in our laws
unless the industries themselves that are affected come up with the means and the incentive
to stop this kind of pollution. Do you know that the human being and the human race is
essentially incapable of cleaning up after itself; there are too many of us who are going
to go out and dump our trash in a creekbed, who are going to go out in the dark of night
and unload our garbage because we can't find something else to do with it. This happens,
it always has happened, it always will. If we are going to regulate it, it is going to be
costly and unhappy. So what are the incentive systems by which we cause people to police
themselves, what are the incentive systems by which industry lowers the total amount of
waste that it puts out into the public? That's the challenge, ladies and gentlemen. I
wish I could tell you the answers. I think I fairly represent the uncertainty of the Con-
gress and of the legislators as we face up to this problem, but I can tell you that it will
receive top priority in Washington. That bill will pass overwhelmingly today on the Envi-
ronmental Quality Council and I believe that as you have seen the Congress in recent weeks
vote different priorities in funding, you will see that continuing in the future. The
President challenged the Congress a month ago, we had voted $1.1 billion for aid to education
over his budget. He said, if we vote that money, I will not spend it. This month we will
vote probably $800 million more for the attack on water pollution, again the President will
say, I will not spend it. But I will say this to you, that I think the Congress is reflect-
ing the views of the people of the United States in this reorientation of priorities of
spending and that as much as any other thing before the insistence of our people, reflected
111
-------
in the Congress, that monies now be spent on the attacks on pollution, that will probably
be as much a contributing cause to our removal from Viet Nam as any other, because if you
are going to increase the expenditures on pollution, there must be cuts somewhere else.
Now we all know our President's desire to curb inflation by keeping the spending within the
budget and there is only one place today the budget can be cut and that's that $30 billion
a year in Viet Nam and I think that in the next 8 months if you watch the source of the
vote of the appropriation bills that you will see these signals almost every month, of
additional votes by the legislature on these attacks on pollution.
You might, as you sit here in California, reflect on the fact as I have, we had a governor
in this state at one time who was exultant when this state became the most populated in the
nation and surpassed New York, he was defeated in the following election by a considerable
margin. We have a legislature that this year voted, one house of it, to ban internal com-
bustion automobiles from this state within five years. We have a legislature, one house of
it, that considered banning DDT, one of the great cornerstones perhaps in our agricultural
productivity. There are new methods of legislation being considered under the pressures I
have described which could materially change the effective balance between government and
the economy in the next 10 years. I hope very much that it won't be necessary, none of us
wants to see them occur and the challenge lies with you gentlemen.
I would like to say one final thing. Because so obviously in a first seminar of this kind,
we are hearing things from disciplines that we have not previously heard from, we are all
accumulating facts; I would ask that perhaps each one of you consider at the conclusion of
this seminar, when you have absorbed and sorted out varying ideas, that you take your own
expertise and background that has led you to be here and that has received the great success
that this industry has achieved in this country, and take the time to write a quiet, succinct
letter to another representative in Congress, and I would very much appreciate it if you
would send me a copy, saying what specifics, what precise suggestions, in your judgment,
the Congress of the United States should consider as it moves to attack this problem of
solid waste. The local communities cannot cope with the multitude of packages which you
have thrust upon them. It may well be that we will need incentives to create a single
component type of waste material.
I might mention, in my background, I was a garbage collector for one summer, a great expert
for a time on grapefruit rinds and coffeegrounds and the things that make up solid wastes.
In those days in Southern California, waste disposal was very simple. We had relatively
clean air and we could burn the paper products, and in the city of South Pasadena where
I was employed, they had a real simple system; you were entitled to put all of your wet
garbage in one can, all of your cans and bottles in another. There were two pickups made,
one for the wet garbage which was taken in a truck and transported to the pig farm, and
fed to the pigs. The bottles and cans were dumped in the nearest ravine, and the paper
goods were burned in the incinerator in the back of each man's house. Now obviously, in
25 short years, that situation has changed, changed incredibly. That sort of "simple"
112
-------
handling of waste disposal is no longer possible. If it is to be reinstituted, it may very
well be that the answer to solid waste disposal in the local community is in some sort of
common nature of packaging that could permit that kind of segregation and disposal piece
by piece; the wood products in one direction, the glass in another and the metal in another.
It may be that this government will see fit to try to establish some incentive for the
single component type of package that permits this kind of practice.
Again, I want to thank you for your time. I suppose more than anything else, I have admired
your attention, I don't think any of us really relish coming two or three days listening
to speeches of facts. You have been very attentive to me and I thank you.
113
-------
-------
Chairman: Dr. Samuel Hart
Agricultural Engineering Department
University of California
Davis, California 95616
Motivating Ourselves for Action
Richard Vaughan
William N. Gunn
Norvell Gillespie
Irving A. Fox
Dr. H. E. Schutz
-------
Solid Waste Management
and the Packaging Industry
RICHARD D. VAUGHAN
presented by
DR. ANDREW W. BREIDENBACH
The packaging industry in the United States is certainly one characterized by progressive
management. The growth of this industry must be largely attributed to a forward-looking
and innovative approach to solving problems, whether in the area of research, production,
or sales. The presence of industry executives at today's meeting to discuss the impact
of packaging wastes upon environmental quality and solid waste systems is further testimony
to an open and progressive attitude.
Today, a very complex problem facing us as a Nation is that of improving or even main-
taining the quality of our environment. An August issue of U.S. News & World Report
carried the text of an interesting interview with two newsmen who had just returned home
from extended foreign assignments. They were asked to give their impression of the changes
that had occurred in America during their absence of over a year. One of their most
striking observations was their impression of a general deterioration in the quality of
our environment. They said that the centers of our great cities seemed shabbier and the
streets and roadsides more littered.
Crises in public services, such as that engendered by the sanitation workers' strike in
New York City, momentarily dramatize the importance of proper solid waste management and
some of the problems we are facing. The subjective observations of trained newsmen, or
of any perceptive individual, often strengthen the contention that we are losing something
very valuable—if not altogether tangible—from the quality of life in this country.
In an effort to more precisely assess our deficiencies in the capacity for handling and
disposing of solid wastes, the Bureau of Solid Waste Management of the Environmental Control
Administration, in cooperation with State agencies, is conducting a national survey of
community solid waste practices. Results of the survey have been far from encouraging.
With the use of such criteria as relation to air and water pollution, insect and rodent
problems, and physical appearance, we found 94% of existing land disposal operations and
75% of incinerator facilities inadequate. The quality of collection services varies
115
-------
widely from one area of the country to another, but regular collection is not provided
for 12% of household wastes—these must be disposed of by the individual homeowner. The
costs to correct these deficiencies are interesting.
To upgrade current landfilling operations alone, it is estimated that $240 million in
capital funds would have to be invested over a period of 5 years for equipment, with an
additional $80 million per year needed in operating funds. To provide complete collec-
tion of household, commercial, and industrial solid waste materials, and to increase the
frequency of collection, would require additional capital expenditures of $20 million for
trucks and other equipment and an additional $540 million yearly for operating expenses.
Altogether, it was estimated that an increase of approximately 18.5% over the present
funding level of $4.5 billion is required to eliminate open dumps, improve sanitary land-
fill operations, provide adequate incinerator capacity, and upgrade collection systems.
Each year 4% to 6% of the previous year's total expenditure must also be added to these
figures to allow for costs that result from rising unit costs, population growth, and
increased per capita generation of solid waste.
Under authority of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (PL 89-272), the Federal govern-
ment is supporting a significant program of research, development, and demonstration for
improved and more economic means to handle and dispose of solid wastes. Other Federal
activities include: grants to States and interstate agencies to plan solid waste manage-
ment systems on State and area-wide bases; technical assistance; and aid to improve
training for solid waste engineers and operators through grants to universities and by
presentation of short courses.
Packaging wastes constitute a significant and growing fraction of the total solid waste
load. For example, of the 350 million tons of residential, commercial, and industrial
solid wastes generated in 1966, 13% was discarded packaging material. In a typical year,
Americans throw away 48 billion cans, 26 billion bottles, 4 million tons of plastic, and
30 million tons of paper. The very strong relationship between packaging waste and the
peculiarly difficult problem of roadside littering has been established by several
surveys. For these reasons, the Bureau of Solid Waste Management has devoted a share of
its research budget to projects addressed to the study and solution of problems caused
by packaging wastes. Under contract to the Bureau, the Midwest Research Institute has
produced a comprehensive report entitled The Role of Packaging in Solid Waste Management -
1966 to 1976. The principal investigator for this study, Mr. Arsen Darnay, presented
highlights of the data and recommendations from the report yesterday on the program of
this symposium.
I should like at this point to briefly mention several other studies, sponsored by the
Bureau, that have direct or indirect application to packaging waste problems.
116
-------
A grant to Dr. Samuel F. Hulbert of Clemson University, at Clemson, South Carolina, is
supporting research to develop a one-way container made basically of water-soluble glass
that may be dissolved after the container is emptied. Dr. Hulbert will be discussing his
research with you tomorrow morning. As you are no doubt aware, the concept of a "dis-
appearing" or self-destroying container is also receiving the attention of researchers
and industry in Sweden and Germany and could be a significant contribution to litter
control.
Approximately 50% of municipal solid waste, by weight, is paper—and a substantial part
of this is, of course, discarded packaging. Several studies have been undertaken to
convert paper and other cellulosic wastes to protein, which may be used as a supplement
in livestock feed. Researchers at our own laboratories and at the Denver Research
Institute, Denver, Colorado, as well as Louisiana State University, are isolating and
screening microbes to find strains that rapidly digest cellulose and convert it to pro-
tein. Nutritional studies will be made to determine food value of the products for both
large and small domestic animals.
Plastic wastes are particularly troublesome to those concerned with solid waste manage-
ment, and these materials are also used in large quantities for packaging. Plastics do
not decompose in sanitary landfills, and most municipal incinerators were not designed to
adequately burn these materials. The burning of polyvinyl chlorides produces hydrogen
chloride; this has a corrosive effect on the firewalls of incinerator units and can
necessitate expensive repairs.
A contract to TRW Systems, Inc., Redondo, California, has been awarded to investigate
technical and economic aspects of recovering useful products from plastic wastes by chem-
ical means. From project data, relationships are being developed describing disposal
costs in terms of plastic pretreatment (if required) and reactants, offset by the value
of the resulting products.
The Bureau of Solid Waste Management provided partial support for a conference on the use
and disposal of single-use items and packaging in health care facilities in the Spring
of this year at Ann Arbor. The conference brought together the people who design, pur-
chase, use, and dispose of single-use items in hospitals. The National Sanitation Founda-
tion has published a proceedings of this conference.
Much has been said about the effect of public attitude upon the management of waste
materials. We are attempting, through a contract effort being carried out by General
Systems Industries, Inc., Torrance, California, to determine the attitudes of citizens
toward solid waste problems and in what ways their attitudes may be related to background
factors. We expect to determine how these attitudes might change under the influence of
misinformation, persuasive intervention, and incentives. It has been said that people
buy a can of beer because they want it—and they buy the convenience of the can because
117
-------
they want it also. The fact that the packaging cost is 40% of the total purchase price
is rather astounding. I wonder whether the purchaser knows of this cost—and if he knows,
does it influence his purchasing habits. I've heard two responses to this question. One
says, "No, he'll pay for the convenience." The other says, "Yes, perhaps he will be
selective."
I do not share the pessimistic view that reclamation of packaging materials is hopeless.
A portion of the innovative genius that promotes the attractive, convenient, and functional
packaging of today needs to be directed to reclamation and recycling. The American in-
ventiveness that produced the flip-top box, the pull-ring can, and the bush-button
aerosols surely cannot throw in the towel on reclamation problems so quickly. Can it
be—as has been suggested—that reclamation research has no sure-fire promise of profit?
I suggest that our profit may be a cleaner environment—a value our best students of
economics need to quantify in dollars. What must we do to ensure that reclamation or
disposal criteria are included as design factors when items are designed for production?
Innovation and imaginative ideas are being applied to incineration processes. The
Combustion Power Company, Inc., Palo Alto, California, under contract to the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management, is studying the concept of electric power generation from the
fluidized-bed combustion of municipal solid wastes. The system will burn ground solid
wastes under pressure and feed hot, cleaned gases to a turbine that, in turn, drives a
generator. The generator is expected to provide ^Q% of the power required by those who
generate the refuse and to incinerate the waste at a cost of $1 per ton. One of the
problems already anticipated will be protecting the device from polyvinyl-chloride-
generated hydrogen chloride—a corrosive gas.
Several times during this conference the topic of disposal at sea has been mentioned.
It is evident that there are really but two places for disposal—on the land and in the
sea.. Nevertheless, the effects of disposal of municipal solid wastes in the sea have
not been sufficiently studied to assure that we can concomitantly use the ocean floor as
a waste receptacle and protect the sea as a resource. The plight of many coastal cities
cannot be minimized. We are presently cataloging current ocean disposal practices through
a contract with the Dillingham Corporation, and our best judgment suggests that research
and development are needed to answer many questions about this practice.
Although we feel that the Federal research related to problems of packaging wastes is
important and may yield beneficial results, it is not enough. We would encourage the
packaging industry to devote a larger share of its research dollar to devise packages
that are compatible with recovery and disposal processes. This need not conflict unduly
with good package design, which must display consumer appeal and afford adequate protection
for the packaged product.
118
-------
I would like to emphasize design for compatability with materials recovery processes.
The concept of recycling and reusing solid wastes has great appeal from the dual standpoint
of reducing the total waste volumes and conserving natural resources. It may interest
you to know that a bill, termed the Resources Recovery Act of 1969 (S. 2005), has been
recently introduced in the Congress. A key feature of the bill is the encouragement
given to the development of resource recovery technology and the incorporation of waste
salvage and reuse into the design of solid waste systems. Whether or not this particular
legislation is passed, the feature of recycling and reuse will clearly assume increasing
importance as an integral part of good solid waste management systems.
In this connection, I would like to take note of the public campaign launched by the
Reynolds Metals Company to recover discarded aluminum cans. To the extent that Reynolds
is successful, they are at once helping reduce the total solid waste load, mitigate the
litter problem, and demonstrate how an important natural resource can be conserved.
It is true that a great deal of research and development is required to improve present
solid waste technology and to cope with the increasing waste loads of the future. But
it is also true that immediate and substantial improvements in solid waste management can
be achieved by simply applying the best existing technology. This will cost money—just
how much I have indicated earlier. The sanitation department of any city is frankly in
competition for funds with other worthy governmental enterprises such as schools, highway
departments, and libraries. Allocation of funds is, under our democratic system of
government, ultimately a function of the relative priorities set by citizens and organiza-
tions within each community.
For too long, solid waste collection—and particularly disposal—has been low in the order
of priority. The packaging industry and other business and industrial concerns can give
immediate and powerful impetus to improved solid waste management:(1) by taking a direct
interest in how the solid waste system operates in their community; (2) by considering
the adequacy of the local solid waste system, as well as other criteria such as tax struc-
ture and transportation facilities when searching for a new plant location; and (3) by
helping to convince elected officials that good solid waste management is important and
worthy of full support.
119
-------
-------
Motivating Ourselves for Action
Through Publicity and a Conscientious
Package Design Community
WILLIAM N. GUNN
In a recent speech, a prominent Soviet scientist, Dr. Andrei Sakharov urged the great
powers "to head off such catastrophes as nuclear war, destruction of the environment by
pollution, overpopulation, famine, or the rise of Hitler-type dictatorships." In one
breath he mentioned pollution along with the danger of hydrogen annihilation and other
scourges of civilization.
Although we feel we are still a long way from doom, many thinkers foresee that what is a
nuisance today, may turn into an apocalyptic monster tomorrow. As a human being and as a
package designer, I do not wish to see my children or grandchildren choke in the mess they
have inherited from us.
Because discarded packages are most visible and highly identifiable, many people are apt
to lay the chief blame on packaging for the littering of the surface of our planet.
Available statistics indicate that packaging indeed represents a massive tonnage, made up
of many billions of individual units, totalling up to about 12% of 350 millions tons of
residential, commercial, and some of the industrial rubbish, generated in one year. (This
excludes scrapped cars, mining and agricultural wastes and building rubble.)
As our society blithely proceeds to overwhelm our waste disposal facilities, we, as design-
ers, along with the rest of the community, have been victims of a lack of liaison, lack of
communications between us and those specialized professionals and experts who deal directly
with the problem of waste disposal. Surely, everyone has had some glimmerings of knowledge
that our "packaging explosion" may have had some undesirable sideeffects, but the extent
of the problem still remains largely unknown to people who may be in a position to help.
This conference is an historic event in the sense that here, for the first time, engineers,
technologists, economists, ecologists, marketers and package designers are getting together
to tell each other how they see the problem. There has not been enough communication
121
-------
between sewage disposal engineers and package designers. A motto of the package designer
is: "Our chief principle is to fulfill human needs". There is a great amount of creative
ability and talent available. When aware of needs -- we respond!
We can't stick our heads in the sand and say it's someone else's problem.
Here we see the beginning of a trend toward a unified effort.
Some insufficiently informed people in an emotional reaction against packaging may ask:
Do we need packaging? Let's pass laws to limit it! This is already being done in some
states, but it is not the answer.
This would be an unwarranted hostility similar to some of the anti-Madison Avenue feeling
which ignores the needs of the economic growth of our country.
Yet our economy depends very heavily on packaging. Our homes are geared to the existence
of packages. They are no longer equipped with bins for flour, etc. We have no home labor,
there is self-service in stores. The structure of the society, its labor picture, neces-
sitates the role of packaging as a salesman, protector, carrier, cook, maid and what have
you.
Packaging is indispensable. We cannot wish it away. We must learn what to do with it, and
I shall attempt to deal with the subject from the viewpoint of a package designer.
Since I am here to speak for the package design community as represented by the Package
Designers Council and the profession as a whole, I should first tell you a little about PDC.
It is an organization of professional package designers in this country. Our members are
made up of consulting package designers, corporate package design directors, staff designers,
editorial members and educators. Within the ranks of the consulting members are represented
this country's best known designers and design offices; and, our corporate design directors
are from many of the largest arid most active product companies.
The packaging that is created by this membership represents an amazing array of packaged
products that we see today. I think this stresses the importance of my being here today.
I am prepared to grant that some packages, to a degree, contribute to waste and pollution.
Some are difficult to compact, others emit noxious fumes when incinerated, still others —
through unnecessary bulk — add to the volume of waste. Part of it is unavoidable. It
is the price we pay for our way of live, and overpopulation.
But, part of it is avoidable, and with care and proper planning it can be eliminated.
The designer should be consulted, involved in the research leading to future solutions, and
122
-------
he should be asked to scrutinize current packaging programs to coordinate the marketing
needs of the product with the responsibility toward our society.
The package designer is keenly aware of packaging needs, and is vitally involved in the
shaping of our packaging scene. While he may not have the ultimate power of deciding the
course of packaging, he acts as a CATALYST, and may exert powerful influence over industrial
decision makers. In discussion of materials he advises on the choice of those compatible
with the economic needs of the manufacturer, interests of the consumer, and environmental
human needs.
I believe that in the same way as a drug manufacturer must test new "miracle drugs" for
possible ill effects, today's package producer must stop and think what are the side effects
of the wonderful packaging solutions that are being offered.
The world is witnessing a magnificent parade of new packaging ways, of new materials that
fit admirably product needs and marketing needs, and satisfy the consumer's desire for
better protection, convenience, esthetic appearance. If inadvertantly, innovation brings
about new difficulties to disposal engineers, we designers should be among the first ones
to be alerted. Designers who are long-range thinkers, do not wish to wait til the moment
of crisis. They anticipate changes in public attitudes. With their advice, industry does
undertake the self-cleansing of packaging. Conscious of long-range drawbacks, designers
can alert manufacturers against undesirable features of pollution-prone forms of packaging.
We must find solutions that will take into account many interests. So many of our new
materials are under critical attack, yet many of them have features that help reduce the
bulk of packages.
Research must be undertaken so that we do not pour the baby out with the bath.
At this point we are here not to solve problems, but to look to solutions. First let's
examine the problem more closely. We must be more aware of the COST OF POLLUTION.
It costs 66 cents per day to feed a welfare recipient in New York.
It costs 60 cents per piece of litter, to pick up and dispose of the
mess we throw on the streets of New York.
Poor and rich alike must re-train themselves to avoid this senseless waste.
One of the urgencies of the moment is to simplify the collection of waste. MONEY SAVED ON
THE COST OF COLLECTION COULD GO INTO MORE EXPENSIVE AND EFFICIENT FORMS OF DISPOSAL as well
as into valuable research that is needed.
123
-------
We are aware of the Life Support system for our astronauts in their space suits and their
space capsule. Similarly, each individual upon the space ship Earth has around himself a
Life Support system that needs a specific amount of space, environmental condition, etc.
We must plan for it.
Our environment due to mismanagement and overpopulation is rapidly deteriorating. Destruc-
tion of the balance of nature proceeds relentlessly.
Yet, man can control his environment — but he cannot work alone -- he must work with Nature.
Nature is a shrewd engineer. If man creates an imbalance, in the long run he pays for the
consequences. Preservation of our environment is necessary if we care for the quality of
life.
These thoughts have important implications in the area about which designers are directly
concerned. Packages are part and parcel of marketing. What is marketing?
In the past we used to say: "Start with the consumer, then work backwards." Now we should
extend it and say: "START WITH MANKIND AND ITS ENVIRONMENT, THEN WORK BACKWARDS."
This approach is by no means impractical or idealistic. To the contrary, packaging decisions
made with due regard for the environment will benefit everyone.
But regardless of how urgently the changes for the better may be needed, nothing ever happens
unless there is motivation, a clear self-interest in taking action for the benefit of all.
Today's manufacturer knows that we cannot discontinue packaging, but nonetheless he is_
concerned. If he stands pat, the annoyance with some especially blatant examples of packaging
waste may bring about restrictive legislation that will limit his freedom of packaging action.
He knows that to forestall criticism the industry itself must invest in research to solve
problems, in order to preserve their own profits.
Anyway, nearly all astute manufacturers of consumer products constantly audit and review the
packages of their products, and if any cost saving and excessive packaging material can be
saved it is immediately done.
We have seen case histories where marketers have found that they could eliminate one phase
of their packaging and still maintain a competitive advantage. This has happened recently
with the mouthwashes where the outer carton was eliminated; also, in some of the hair pre-
parations. We are constantly reducing flaps on cartons as well as the thicknesses of con-
tainers in order to reduce the amount of board or material used. In the area of beverage
unit packages such as the six-pack cans, some have eliminated a rather bulky cardboard in
favor of a more modern plastic mini-pack. And, Pepsi-Cola now has a shrink film to hold a
six-pack. All of these efforts by manufacturers, while geared to economy reasons, in their
124
-------
way reduce the bulk of packaging. I think they point out a very interesting first step that
we can consider, for most packages that are shipped by a package manufacturer to the product
company are reduced in bulk to their lowest common denominator either by being folded flat,
nested, or wherever possible, fabricated in the manufacturer's plant. This is necessary for
the economy of shipping, storing and handling before use. Yet, when the consumer finishes
with a package it is left in the shape it was in when it contained the product. This means
that it takes a lot of space out of proportion to its weight. If the economic scrutiny and
creativity has been applied to reducing the packaging to its minimum of bulk before filling,
why can't the same care be applied to return the package to a similar state after the product
has been used?
Our function as package design professionals is to pave the way for new products in a mer-
cilessly critical marketplace. Further, through redesign of packages we help the existing
products in their battle for survival. Within the realm of feasibility, designers can add
their creative thought to the many-sided effort to make packaging function without detriment
to our way of life. We are not going to solve the problem of packaging waste over night,
but we can be a vital member of the team.
Since this conference has initiated a dialogue between the designer and the packaging waste
expert, as much as it is of value for us to comprehend the disposal engineer's side of the
story, a better understanding of what design can or cannot do may help the other side to
comprehend how much freedom of action is really possible. The stark truth is that there is
so much economic pre-determination that the manufacturer really has hardly any leeway in
selecting his packages. By the nature of his product, often only a few economically feasible
packages are available to him. His choice is further narrowed by what is available in
machine equipment to handle the package. And still, within this narrow selection, his
marketing objectives must be fulfilled. If a shampoo goes into a clear PVC bottle, instead
of glass, it is not a whim. There are strong marketing reasons for it. The consumer prefers
the unbreakable bottle.
Between the concern for the product-package compatibility, keeping up with the competition,
attempts to capture the consumer's eye, and sell in increasingly specialized markets --
there is not that much freedom of choice, and many packaging actions are pre-determined by
a complex manufacturing-marketing-consumer mix.
Still, he must be aware of environmental studies and urge the fulfillment of the SOCIAL
OBLIGATION OF PACKAGING.
Often the social and economic demands are contradictory. For example, we may be for the
limitation of package sizes, yet the multiplicity of sizes is important to consumers, and
should be geared to the use of the product and the variations in family sizes. One of the
most outstanding examples of contradictory interests is the problem of non-returnable
bottles. There are definite reasons for non-returnables.
125
-------
On one side of the ledger there is the mounting cost of re-cycling, of labor, hardware,
space, time, procedure; also, the difficulty of collecting, plus the lack of motivation
for taking the trouble to return bottles when pennies do not mean much in a prosperous
society.
To reconcile these divergent interests, major manufacturers themselves are making an effort
to prevent non-returnables from becoming a disposal problem.
Against this background we should remember that a designer's chief role is to set the stage
for a full marketing expansion, to fulfill basic marketing objectives, to find out what
people want, to gear his solutions to commercial objectives in a profit-minded economy.
We have made enormous strides to ensure the business success of a package. Our focus of
thinking is on the store syndrome -- the shelf environment -- product on display in a com-
petitive jungle. We have endowed the package with the self-sell force, powerful display
appeals. Overpacking has become a substitute for sales force. The price of these develop-
ments becomes evident only now.
It is like building a super-highway, a marvel of engineering that permits traveling at 70
mph. The only trouble is that this road ends abruptly and no provisions are made to build
an exit. The first step, of course, is to put up the Danger warning. This is what this
conference is doing now. The next step is to sit down and design the exit route. This is
what must be done.
But the solution is not as simple as this metaphore. It impinges upon our entire principle
of selling, which at this stage is as archaic as the ancient bazaar. It is based on a
mass display of goods offered for sale in a jungle of competing products. The package is
just a way of noisily attracting consumers' attention. But, technological changes force
new ways of marketing.
New types of shopping in the future will depend on new technological achievements. Who can
anticipate what changes the videophone or computer will bring about? The role of packaging
will undoubtedly change, but as we participate in the future changes we must bring into
these changes an urgent, vital preoccupation with the need to reduce packaging pollution.
Since we have not faced this problem so far, we cannot presume to come up with an immediate
solution, a sudden brainstorm that will fix everything that's wrong. Concrete step-by-step
improvements, even if small, achieve more than grandiose, blue-sky plans that never go beyond
the sheets of paper on which they are written.
Looking at the problem from the designer's point of view, we can see three ways to reduce
waste:
126
-------
1. To cut it at the source through better choice of materials; regard
for disposability; bio-degradability; re-cycling; and smaller
bulk.
2. To cut difficulties of collection through structured design for
compactability and by enlisting the cooperation of consumers, through
better motivation.
3. To cut disposal problems by exercising judgement in the use of hard-
to-dispose-of combines.
For many years I have been a believer in the CRITERIA CONCEPT in package development, tvci./
design project should be approached with a carefully thought-out list of criteria that must
be observed in order to insure the success of the project.
In the selection of materials I believe we should guide ourselves by considering:
1. product compatibility
2. machinability
3. product protection
4. distribution ability
5. consumer convenience
and now we should add an especially strong concern for disposability.
What this conference can do, what communication with disposal engineers and ecologists
will do, will be to ensure that we as designers raise this point of disposability higher on
the ladder of priorities. We can help reduce waste through better structural design, and a
more intelligent use of materials. We should not take packaging materials just because they
are available; instead, we should exercise selectivity, be more conscious of our waste
control needs. Manufacturers will heed the designer's opinion.
COLLECTION OF WASTE
To facilitate the collection of waste, design should encourage hand disposal to reduce bulk.
Design can make packages more collapsible, structurally more compact, so that they take
less room.
The consumer will take action if he is intrigued by such types as accordion-like foldaways.
If we wish to enlist the consumer's cooperation, sermonizing won't do it. Designers can
help to use packages as a public relations tool, to appeal to the consumer, but more impor-
tantly the designers must create subtle little motivations to take desirable action. These
motivations should rely on natural impulses. We all have a tendency to crush things after
use. This psychological factor can be used in the form of built-in incentives. Consumers
will not crush a hard cigarette box, but he will do so automatically with a soft pack. Thus
127
-------
we can create more collapsible packages, and we can motivate the public to take action to
collapse them. Therefore, the public can play a role in aiding disposal. It takes communi-
cations, education. In some areas this has been done: for example, aerosols bear warnings
against causing explosions by throwing cans into fire.
Let me explain what I mean by built-in motivation. In prohibition days, a well known brand
of whiskey used to put a silver quarter in the glass bottom of the bottle. That induced
consumers to break the bottle after emptying it. As a result, this prevented bootleggers
from a fraudulent re-use of brand bottles by refilling them with low-grade hooch. Consumers
were motivated to cooperate with manufacturers by a built-in incentive: like a premium
built into the package itself.
We can also develop new social pressures, new taboos, to achieve the protection of the society
against self-created pollution.
Packages have a vital role as communicators. People read recipes, learn how to use a product.
Package copy can educate the consumer in methods of disposal. Some packages carry anti-
litter copy. A great step forward would be the public cooperation in the early separation
of different types of packaging for better disposal. But, this necessitates a cultural
re-orientation.
As the next step, we must also work with the public's consciousness. Once the public is
aware of the disadvantages of a certain form of packaging, it may turn against it indis-
criminately. We must make an effort to channel this reaction in directions most beneficial
to all. This can be done through Public Relations. Good P.R. has been influential in chang-
ing the public's mind on many important issues: in favor of fluoridation; polio campaign;
cancer care, etc. Good P.R. may be the first step in getting the public's help in alleviat-
ing packaging pollution problems.
The anti-litter campaign will undoubtedly be discussed at length by other speakers. I just
want to point out that routine calls for order evoke counter-negative reactions from the
younger generation, who object to establishment order.
In appeals we must enlist the crusading spirit. We use graphics to sell young people on
cosmetics, those different from what Mother uses. We can sell them on a crusade to live an
unpolluted life. Youth has no vested interest in minor economic detail, but has mankind
consciousness, an interest in the kind of world they have to live in. It will respond to
man-to-man appeal for man-living-with-man.
Of course, everyone knows that the collection and disposal of trash is a distasteful part
of everyday living. Consumers are ready for anything that will alleviate that task. If
waste becomes critical the growing need for in-home sorting, compacting, shredding and
disposal units will give birth to a new range of appliances which will reach millions in the
same way as refrigerators, mixers and blenders.
128
-------
A vital design contribution is to initiate reduction in the amount of package. We are
developing packs with thinner walls, easier to collapse -- for example, in the area of
cereal and cookie packaging where inner packs for freshness (freshpacks) permit thinner
outer cartons. Here, design advantages go hand in hand with economic advantages; cartons
are easy to reclose, easy to dispose of.
Earlier, I cited examples of how products such as Lavoris, Micrin, Vitalis, succeeded in
eliminating the outer carton. If many other manufacturers similarly contributed to the
reduction of volume of discarded packages, that in itself would be a significant help in
cutting down the number of trips of garbage collection trucks.
To realize how valuable is every step that makes collection easier, let's take a glimpse of
some statistical projections. By comparison with 1966 it is expected that by 1976, 66.2
million tons of packages will be handled as waste. Collection of the increase alone, some
20 million tons, will require nearly 5 million collection trips in 1976 — trips that did
not have to be made 10 years earlier, and which call for the addition of some 9,500 new
collection vehicles at a cost ranging between $135 and $190 million.
On the other hand, a reluctance to reduce the package size is caused by fears of competition.
The unknowns of the struggle for a competitive edge are the chief contributors to overpackag-
ing, the cause of big billboard packages, insistence on excessive bulk.
As design professionals, we are getting more astute, and I am convinced that we can gain a
competitive edge without excessive overpackaging. Instead of a jumbo panel, a small pack
with a big sell can be more effective. My position is that GOOD DESIGN CAN INCREASE THE
DOMINANCE FACTOR of a package without resorting to increases in size.
We have all heard about new "miracle" materials that would degrade more easily; dissolvable
materials; even consumable packages; flushable, dissolvable boil-in bags, and detergent
packages that dissolve. These things are interesting but it will take a long time before
they are used in large enough numbers to relieve the present and immediate pressure of
packaging waste. With the change of the economic ratio of material costs and labor, RECLAMA-
TION of packaging materials may become more economical than disposal itself.
At this point however, practical short-term steps, such as a better scoring of cartons,
plastics and aluminum, are more likely to have an immediate impact than any blue-sky projects.
To get back to the role of the Package Designers Council, designers are experts in creating
for the public. They try to communicate with the consumer, seek the best vehicle to get
his attention. I see no reason why PDC should not be part of the solution, sit in on
conferences with government and industry. We see it as a total community problem.
T29
-------
The designer is responsible for the esthetic balance of man-made things. It disturbs him
very much if his products turn out below the level of improving the quality of life. This
is why I feel that the design community's conscience has a role to play in contributing to
future ways of devising packaging that can reduce waste.
130
-------
Motivating Ourselves for Action
NORVELL GILLESPIE
One of the costs of the remarkable technological advances of our modern era is the appalling
increase of environmental waste and pollution. As we know, the problem is becoming so
severe that some analysts now are questioning whether man will be able to survive in the
habitat he is creating for himself. A recent report to Congress concludes: "Science
often does not know what to do about pollution or thus far has been unable to come up
with practical solutions." How can we properly dispose of the nation's 6 million tons
of garbage per day - the paper towels, empty beer cans, pop bottles and other varieties
of litter, not to mention the wastes polluting the billions of cubic feet of our air and
water?
CREDO - CALIFORNIA ANIT-LITTER LEAGUE
Recognizing that California with the largest population in the nation, whose residents are
outdoor and automobile oriented, and a state attracting tourists from all over the world,
presently is experiencing an ever-increasing defacement of its natural beauties through
the discard of litter by thoughtless and careless people, it has been the objective of
CALL - California Anti-Litter League - to educate the residents and visitors that PEOPLE,
NOT materials, CREATE LITTER.
The present high standard of living, in which convenience packaging and modern merchandising
techniques are demanded, has been a contributory factor in the alarming increase of litter
throughout the State. This has, understandably, resulted in individuals or groups pro-
testing vocally or in writing to the press or to governmental agencies -- even to the
extent of recommending prohibitive legislation to regulate the use of packaging materials.
The purposes of the California Anti-Litter League are to promote public education against
the discarding of litter on public roadsides, parks, recreational and similar areas, and
to encourage and voluntarily assist in the elimination of such litter by any other lawful
means, thereby making such roadsides and areas more attractive and their use by the public
more enjoyable.
131
-------
THE SEED of the CALIFORNIA ANTI-LITTER LEAGUE was planted back in'1966, when a hand-
ful of enlightened business leaders gathered in San Francisco.
As unofficial, unpaid "traveling salesmen," they crisscrossed the State, sounding out
sentiment for support of an organization to attack litter -- a civic problem with an
annual price tag of $50,000,000. A problem that touches every home, every family, every
business. The high cost of leavings, whether on jam-packed freeways or quiet country
lanes, costs every taxpayer $12 a year. And that's not all. The price is going up.
In 1966 the tab for cleaning only the state highways hit $2,900,000. By the end of 1968
it had jumped to four million!
WHAT OF THE FUTURE? A concerted, massive campaign was launched in 1967 to educate the
public and arouse it to programs; designed to clean up and save the wonders of the land
around us. An extensive year 'round drive reaches industries, unions, schools and colleges,
legislators, women's clubs, environmental authorities, county fairs — and all the other
places where people gather. People -- anyone from 8 to 80.
To make sure that all who want to enjoy the clean and tingling heritage of the Golden
State, at whatever level of life and experience, has been the dedicated mission of the
California Anti-Litter League.
GOALS OF CALIFORNIA ANTI-LITTER LEAGUE
California is blessed with much natural beauty -- from the coast and its blue ocean to the
soaring Sierra Nevada peaks. But there is the twentieth century threat that this may be
spoiled by litter.
As the pace of man has quickened, potential problems of outdoor housekeeping have increased.
And, convinced that far-sighted mobilization of human resources can turn the tide of
lethargy and overcome the "Let George do it" philosophy, the founders and directors of
the League believe that educated citizenry, industry and government officials, through
imaginative planning and action, can help achieve these goals which are of mounting concern
to those who reside in the Golden State.
...This is the California Anti-Litter League at work. ACTION at the grass roots level!
1. To courageously face up to the problems of man-created litter and
blight and create a change in public attitudes.
2. To join forces with State-wide civic organizations, school and
educational agencies, industry, organized labor, legislative and
public officials to spearhead positive action on a State-wide basis.
132
-------
3. To develop a strong California school program designed to educate
both children and their parents through the educational system.
4. To solve informational problems and provide a network of services
for all communications -- newspapers, radio, TV, magazines.
5. To preserve and protect California's natural beauty through coordina-
tion of city, county, state and other existing anti-litter programs.
6. To make the Golden State cleaner, safer, healthier, and more enjoyable
so that a new lift of spirit and surge of pride will be experienced
through creation and production of promotional materials.
7. To extend tne range of human capabilities and their good instincts
to all residents, both old and new, both young and mature by pro-
mulgation of enforceable, practical anti-litter laws.
8. To serve as the pulse and conscience of all the citizenry concerned
with the elimination of man-made ugliness -- and to transmit their
wishes into action by means of trained personnel and service bureaus
and materials, in both northern and southern California.
What have been some of the accomplishments of CALL in the past 3 years? Here are some:
Developed tangible incentive programs to rev/ard youngsters from 13 California
cities with all-expense paid air tours to Disneyland, Marineland, City of San
Francisco, to observe in action outstanding clean-up programs.
Set May as official "Anti-Litter" month with tie-in events and campaigns through-
out the State in close cooperation with Governor Ronald Reagan.
Created the first State-wide championship "Sweep-In" at the State Capitol with
both professionals and amateurs competing for special trophies.
Issued over 50 press regional releases to all media, on a regular basis, on all
phases of community clean-up work.
Reported, via timely television 10 minute taped reports, all northern California
anti-litter activities. Televised reports issued each week, year 'round on San
Francisco's KRON-TV, prime NBC outlet for northern California.
Served as catalyst in school districts to not only encourage poster and essay
contests but provide meaningful incentives such as Sunset's "Beautiful California"
books, trees, seeds and roses.
133
-------
Created and distributed 20,000 colorful bumper stickers; prepared all-color
TV slides, plus radio and TV "commercials" for State-wide use.
Established a library and catalog of available litter facilities; speakers
bureau; creation of two colorful slide lectures (80 pictures each);
and start of a new movie library.
Assisted in coordinating existing city and county anti-litter organizations
to "Push For A Cleaner California."
Awarded a State-wide, all expense tour to a San Bernardino educator and his family
for a fact-finding tour, in cooperation with Pepsi-Cola and 70 major banks
comprising the Master Charge Credit Card system, to report on litter problems.
This CALL project won national honors from Keep America Beautiful.
Cooperated and assisted as master planner on various city-sponsored urban blight
conferences -- San Francisco, Fresno, San Mateo, Vallejo, Petaluma and others.
Distributed over 60,000 colorful Pledge Cards in school districts ranging from
Sacramento in the north to San Diego in the south.
According to former Secretary of Interior Udall ..."Our landscape litter has reached such
proportions that in another generation a trash pile or piece of junk will be within a
stone's throw of any person standing anywhere on the American land mass."
We're facing a population jump, from 20 million in 1969 to 30 million by 1985. That's why
we need to upgrade people's outdoor litter manners now -- and we need the help of every
one of you designers and manufacturers attending this Conference.
California came by its incomparable heritage of scenic beauty naturally, but "naturally"
isn't the way those scenic assets are going to be preserved. That's why I give my heartiest
approval and strongest support to Dr. George Stewart (and the University of California at
Davis) and his aims in calling this Conference!
134
-------
Packaging Wastes Public Policy:
Law and Administration
IRVING K. FOX
To most consumers, the way products are packaged is one of the great virtues of the
American system of merchandising. Yet the abundance and the character of containers have
added significantly to what has become the enormous task of disposing of the wastes of our
highly productive economy. Government at all levels is deeply involved in the waste
management problem and I suspect it may become even more deeply involved before we have
this task under satisfactory control.
My purpose this afternoon is to examine why government is concerned with packaging wastes,
review the kinds of governmental action that government has taken or might take, and
identify some of the policy issues raised by government participation in this field. I
do not propose to recommend how these issues should be resolved, but if I can illuminate
them reasonably well we should be in a better position to examine their implications.
THE BASIS FOR GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT
In proceeding with consideration of the role of government in dealing with wastes, it is
appropriate to begin by asking ourselves why government participates at all in this field.
In theory, government might concern itself with packaging wastes in two quite different
respects. First, government, particularly at the local level, has been directly involved
in the collection and disposal of packaging wastes. Second, government might seek to
influence the quantity and character of the wastes produced. What is the rationale, if
there is one, for these two types of governmental intervention?
With regard to the collection and disposal of wastes, it is clear that this activity is a
natural monopoly inasmuch as it would be quite uneconomic in most areas to have a compet-
itive system of waste collection and disposal. Thus, in most cities, solid wastes are
collected either by a municipal agency or by a private agency operating under some type of
charter or franchise from the city. As with other natural monopolies, where competitive
forces do not operate, it is generally accepted in the United States that government should
135
-------
regulate the activity to assure fair prices and adequate standards of service. Because of
this direct concern with solid waste collection, governmental institutions have a direct
interest in the way waste collection is handled.
But why should government concern itself with the character and quantity of wastes produced?
As with air and water pollution, solid wastes also constitute a classical instance in which
some of the costs or damages associated with an economic activity do not enter directly
into the economic calculus of the producers of goods or services. When a package is made
and utilized as a container, the producer of the product which utilizes the container has
no direct economic incentive to take into account the cost of disposing of the container
when the product is used. It might be assumed that the consumer should take this cost into
account when he purchases a product, but since he usually pays for solid waste collection
through a tax or a service charge that has no direct relationship to the kinds of containers
he discards, the cost imposed by the container as a waste product does not in reality enter
into his calculus either. Furthermore, if he is a careless individual, he may merely
discard the container along the highway or in a vacant lot so that the costs are passed
along to those who are concerned with the appearance of the countryside. Therefore,
government as the representative of people generally may quite legitimately seek ways and
means of requiring producers arid consumers to take into account the costs and damages
imposed upon society through the kind and number of containers that they utilize.
In brief then, government may be said to have two kinds of interests in packaging wastes.
As the agency responsible for the collection and disposal of wastes, it is interested in
undertaking this task in an efficient and effective manner. As a representative of the
people generally, and in the interest of overall efficiency of the economy, government has
a direct interest in seeing that the costs imposed by packaging wastes are taken into
account in the overall processes of the economy.
TYPES OF GOVERNMENTAL INVOLVEMENT
On the basis of the foregoing rationale, one can postulate three broad types of governmental
involvement in the packaging wastes problem, each of which could entail several different
types of action and these might, be accompanied by research to facilitate the realization of
governmental objectives. These types of governmental involvement and the associated
techniques of action may be classified as follows:
1. Providing waste collection and disposal services. This activity might be con-
ducted directly by a governmental agency or government might regulate the activities
of private enterprises.
2. Inducing those who produce materials which will eventually become wastes (such as
packages) to alter the kinds and quantity of material used so as to minimize the
cost or damages associated with waste disposal. This activity might be carried on
through the following techniques:
136
-------
a. Education designed to advise producers of ways and means of achieving this
objective.
b. Regulating the kinds and quantities of materials that can be used.
c. Imposing taxes or charges against the use of certain kinds or quantities of
materials so as to discourage the use of these materials.
d. Providing subsidies to discourage the use and production of certain kinds and
quantities of materials.
3. Inducing consumers to handle waste materials in a manner which will minimize waste
disposal costs. Trash that litters the landscape is costly to handle and imposes
aesthetic damages upon society. If consumers will process their wastes in partic-
ular ways, costs of handling may be minimized. In theory at least, desirable
patterns of consumer behavior might be fostered through:
a. Education
b. Governmental regulation
c. Imposition of taxes, charges or fines
d. Subsidies.
At least some of these techniques are now being used. There are educational anti-
litter campaigns. We see signs that indicate that trash should not be placed at
certain locations. Fines or penalties are imposed for littering. In theory,
monetary rewards could be provided for the collection and disposal of containers
in a prescribed fashion.
One might envisage a range of research that government might undertake or sponsor which
would aim to make each of the foregoing activities much more effective and efficient than
they would otherwise be. Governmental agencies today sponsor research designed to increase
the efficiency of waste collection and disposal services. To my knowledge governmental
agencies are sponsoring little or no research on techniques designed to alter the kinds
and quantities of materials which eventually become wastes. Similarly, little research
attention has been devoted to ways of inducing desirable patterns of consumer behavior.
POLICY ISSUES
Today there is no clear concensus as to what the role of government should be in managing
wastes such as those that result from packaging. Therefore, there are a number of basic
public policy issues which demand consideration and eventual public decision. I do not
presume to know how each of these issues should be answered because I have not had an
opportunity to study them carefully. Thus my purpose must be limited to identifying these
issues and examining some of their implications.
The first issue has appeared in many areas of governmental activity:
- Is it better for waste collection and disposal to be handled by a public agency or
a private organization operating under a governmental charter or franchise?
137
-------
The answer to this question is not self-evident. Probably the answer should differ from
place to place. It raises the old question of the relative efficiency of governmental and
private enterprises.
The second major policy issue relates to the role of government in influencing the kinds
and quantities of waste materials produced:
- Should government seek to induce materials producers to alter the character and
quantity of their product so as to minimize the cost of disposing of the final product
when it is no longer useful and if so, how should government pursue this objective?
This, no doubt, is the most significant public policy issue in the waste management field.
To an increasing extent it is being said that certain types of materials (such as plas-
tics) should not be discharged to the environment. Increasingly, we are being told that
the earth is like a space ship and that with the growth in population and industrializa-
tion, materials must be recycled. If these are valid concerns, what should be the role of
government in preventing the discharge of certain materials to the environment and in
encouraging recirculation?
Some may be prepared to accept government involvement in the realization of these objec-
tives, but differ about how the objective should be pursued. Should government prohibit
the use of certain materials? Should it tax the use of certain materials (the stick)
so as to encourage the use of materials that can be recycled easily or disposed of readily?
Should it provide subsidies (the carrot) to encourage the use of certain materials?
Should it rely primarily upon education?
Most of us are reluctant to see the role of government extended because it has so many
responsibilities now. Yet, with costs and damages not taken into account through the
competitive market, can government intervention be avoided? From the point of view of
private enterprise, government action does have one virtue: It places all enterprises on
the same terms. The firm that voluntarily adopts more costly packaging techniques to
minimize waste disposal costs or damages, places itself at a disadvantage with its com-
petitors. Governmental constraints would impose the same requirements upon all firms.
The third policy issue relates to the behavior of consumers. Many of us deplore the way
cans, bottles, cartons and other materials are discarded and degrade the landscape—even
in our parks and wild areas. Can we ever deal with this problem without a fundamental
change in the way consumers view their responsibilities with regard to the rest of society?
Can government alter these patterns of consumer behavior? Our third issue then, is this:
- To what extent, and how, should government induce consumers to handle waste mater-
ials so as to minimize damages and costs?
To date, we have relied primarily upon education and penalties for littering. Can educa-
tional efforts be greatly improved, and are there other techniques that government could
utilize?
138
-------
The fourth policy issue relates to the role of government with regard to research. It
might be expressed as follows:
-Should governmental research programs be extended beyond efforts to improve techniques
of collection and disposal into ways and means of developing materials that can be more
readily recycled or disposed of more easily?
If, as many believe, recycling is the ultimate answer, should government sponsor research
to bring it about or should we rely entirely upon private institutions?
CONCLUSION
The answer to these questions are not self-evident. They warrant substantial exploration
and study, but they are important issues inasmuch as wastes affect society generally. With
the growth in our economy and with the capability of our environment to assimilate wastes
declining rapidly, pressures will mount for more and more governmental tntervention.
Therefore, it behooves us all to give these issues thoughtful study and attention so that
the governmental contribution to the solution of our waste management problem will be an
effective one.
139
-------
-------
Motivating the Public
DR. HOWARD G. SCHUTZ
When I accepted this topic from Dr. Stewart it looked disarmingly simple. This was in no
small way related to my ignorance in this area. After doing the necessary background research,
I began to recognize how complex the packaging wastes problem really was. Now after hearing
the other papers in this conference, my recognition is nearly complete and I approach my
topic with some trepidation.
In the previous papers on this program, we have heard the packaging wastes problem approached
from various sectors of industry, government, as well as groups of organized consumers. In
contrast, I am going to look at the problem from the standpoint of the individual. In many
ways the things that I will discuss will be just as applicable to motivating the members of
this conference as they are to the average consumer.
There are many ways to motivate the public. We have heard some of them at this conference.
Each of us has probably thought of several additional ways. Rather than attempt to discuss
any specific plans, on the assumption that they would be superior to ones we already know,
I will instead talk about principles which would apply to most all plans.
I felt it would be of value in looking at the problem to examine the concept of motivation
the way it is viewed by the psychologist. Technically, by a motive, we mean something that
encites the individual to action or that sustains and gives direction to action once the
individual has been aroused. This definition implies two basic components to motivated be-
havior. One component is concerned with the activation or energizing of the individual and
the second is the component of direction. For example, when an individual is deprived of
food eventually he becomes aware of a general uneasiness. This condition corresponds
to the activation components of our definition. Through learning, the individual then seeks
out food to satisfy the hunger. This represents the directional component of our definition.
What is necessary in any technique for motivating the public, ourselves included, is that
we not only create a sense of uneasiness but that we define the specific directions which
141
-------
should be taken in order to effectively minimize the packaging waste problem. If we just
arouse peoples' interest and create a feeling of unrest and concern about packaging waste
without defining specific ways in which we and the consumer can effectively deal with the
problems we may have wasted our efforts. In fact, to arouse interest without direction
will likely make it more difficult to energize the individual in the future.
It would be worthwhile to look at a psychological model of packaging life rather than the
physical model with which we are most accustomed. The package is born when first perceived,
either in advertising, on the retail shelf or in the home if it'sdelivered. At this point
the first function it serves is as a billboard; that is, it attracts attention to the
particular item which is being packaged. This attraction can lead to a perusal of a list
of the packaging ingredients or a picture of the contents and perhaps to a purchase. Its
functional characteristics then become relevant in that packages which can be easily handled
or carried home are more desirable. Once in the consumers home those aspects of the package
related to its storage become evident. Here the shape and size become important factors in
the consumer's satisfaction in the package. When the contents are ready to use, the open-
ing characteristics and ease of reclosure then become functional properties to which the
consumer becomes aware. Assuming the package cannot be reused when it is empty it is then
disposed of. (Reuse creates an obvious delay in the waste problem.) At the point that the
package is empty, it undergoes a remarkable psychological transformation. It is almost as
if to this point it is a valuable, if you will, alive, contributor to the consumer's satis-
faction. When it is empty, it is dead. It is now an undesirable item which the consumer
does not call packaging waste, but by the much more earthy description of trash or garbage.
Whereas the package up to this point has been treated in a rather leisurely and respectful
fashion, when it is trash it is treated quite summarily and the consumer is anxious to have
it out of sight as quickly as possible. Another way of looking at the situation is that
the package had an individual identity up to the time it was empty. Empty, it becomes part
of a generally undifferentiated mass. At this point, the consumer wishes to disassociate
himself completely from the item. Thinking about the empty package is basically against the
general motives that operate for people. The basic mode of operating when the package is
empty might be described variously as the desire to avoid clutter, to keep the house neat,
and to avoid the health hazard of a deteriorating package.
I think this way of looking at the life of a package makes it quite clear that much of the
work put out by the basic processor of package materials as well as the processor of the
contents goes unnoticed by most consumers. In addition, once the product is buried, either
placed in the garbage can, incinerator, or otherwise removed, out of sight of the consumer,
all thought of its future is nonexistent. This is true whether or not the consumer is in
his home, office, school, or in his car on the road. The trite expression, out of sight,
out of mind, certainly is applicable to this set of events.
142
-------
At first, this may appear to be a rather hopeless situation from the standpoint of develop-
ing an operational motivation. However, it is amenable to attack. Motives other than the
basic physiological needs are learned and even for the physiological needs the method of
satisfaction has a learning component. Thus, experience and knowledge tells us attitudes
which are learned can be changed. This does not mean to imply that it is a simple task,
only that it is possible.
Now that we have discussed some of the basic characterizations of motives, as well as psycn-
ological modelsof the consumers view of packaging, we now can approach the problem of moti-
vation for action. I think first it would be wise to recognize that a common behavior aoes
not necessarily connote a common motive. For example, we are all here at this packaging
waste conference but this does not necessarily mean that we are all here for the same mo-
tives. Some of us may be primarily interested in the profit aspect of handling packaging
waste, othersin the esthetic component and still others for sanitation reasons. Thus, it
is not necessary to assume that a single motive will be the key to producing action either
from the group that is here at the conference or for the consumer.
It would be convenient to look at two basic areas of motivational activity. One I will call
direct and the other indirect. The direct activities involve what the individual can per-
sonally do in collection, sorting, and disposing of packaging waste material. An example
of the direct activity is represented by the Reynolds 1/2 cent campaign on aluminum cans.
The indirect actions involve those such as belonging to groups which influence public
agencies, writing to congressmen, writing to manufacturers of products stating satisfaction
or dissatisfaction about a particular packaging from the standpoint of its disposability.
How can we get people to be motivated to act in either direct or indirect ways to affect the
packaging waste problem? The obvious first step is to somehow make the proolem one tnat
is part of the individuals own cognitive structure. It must be his problem in that his
actions can bring about the solution. He must feel and understand the problem in a way
which obviously does not exist in the general public today.
Certainly, most people by this point in the conference, recognize the magnitude of the
packaging waste problem but I venture that many believe the solution primarily lies in
actions by others. Knowledge and information as to the magnitude and individual respon-
sibility of the packaging waste problem must be communicated in an effective fashion. I
am sure that Dr. Bengelsdorf in his paper tomorrow morning will attack this aspect of the
problem. What this information and education should do is take care of the component of
motivation that has to do with activation or energizing. This information should make the
public, as we hope it does the members of this conference, aware that there is a major
problem and give them a motivational disposition to act. The second motivational component,
the directional one, is quite critical both for ourselves, as well as the consumer.
143
-------
We must be given the specific kinds of activities which will mitigate the problem. We
must develop guidelines for the handling, sorting, and choice of packaging materials which
are simple and clear to the consumer. There must be specific direction as to how the
consumer can influence the government and industrial sectors of the economy. For our-
selves, the success of our conference will depend heavily on our ability to define respon-
sibility for taking specific actions for all represented sectors. To the extent to which
we just arouse our interest in the problem, we might expect that very little change will
take place in the future.
What motives do we have already operating that can be effectively tapped in moving the
public to action. Certainly the economic one is important and meaningful. When it costs
the consumer money he pays attention. There is also a motive which could be utilized
relative to the pride in appearance of ones office, home, school or highways. One of the
basic tenets of choice behavior for humans involves not just the arousal of motivational
dispositions and incentives but also the probability of success. In other words, we must
not only give people reasons for behaving in a particular way but we must make the job
that is to be done one that is very likely to be looked at as successful. We must give
people, including ourselves, a feeling of hope that the problems can be solved, otherwise
little action can be expected. For the individual consumer, they must be given information
such that they feel that their activity whether of a direct or indirect nature really
makes a difference in the problem. The waste problem is similar to the problem of the air
pollution contributed by automotive exhaust, where each individual is not aware of the
extent of his own contribution. His personal changes in behavior have to be looked at
as ones which will make a meaningful contribution to the eventual solution of the problem.
This is true for our conference in that each individual here cannot think of all the possible
solutions to the packaging waste problem nor implement them all. However, each of us in
our own way can contribute to the solution within our own organizations and through our
contacts with others. The consumer must be made aware of the price that is paid in packag-
ing waste in return for the conveniences that they themselves have demanded from the
processors. This demand may not be direct but in their choices in the marketplace they
make their feelings known quite clearly.
From what we know about what brings about the most long lasting changes in attitudes,there
must be a way of involving the consumer directly in both defining and understanding the
problem as well as in developing particular solutions. This will prove to be a most
effective way of motivating the consumer on a long term basis. We know that rewards
generally operate more successfully than punishment in changing behavior. We also know
that intrinsic rewards, ones which involve satisfying ourselves, are more effective than
extrinsic rewards. This might involve the dissemination of information and problem solving
kits to clubs, business organizations or any other groups in which this could be a topic
of discussion. Certainly one of the primary places in which individuals develop attitudes
is in the schools. It would seem appropriate that knowledge of the problems involved in
packaging waste disposal be included in the curriculum at an appropriate place and level
for understanding.
144
-------
In summary, the problem of motivating the public for action in the area of packaging waste
disposal involves utilizing techniques for activating or arousing individuals to tnat fact
that there is a problem to which they contribute, and by supplying direction, represented
by actions on their part which will result in feelings of success in solving tne problem.
Ideally, the public should be involved in the search and selection of solutions. Hopefully
this conference will at least, in part, serve this purpose for its participants.
145
-------
-------
Chairman: Frank R. Bowerman
Zurn Industries
126 South 1st Avenue
Arcadia, California 91006
Research and Development
Dr. Samuel F. Hulbert
Elmer R. Kaiser
Charles R. Goerth
Governmental Organization for Regional Management of Wastes
Richard T. Anderson
Closing the public information gap
Dr. Irving S. Bengelsdorf
"Wrapping it up!"
Frank Stead
-------
Improving Package
Disposability
DR. S.F. HULBERT, C.C. FAIN, M.M. COOPER,
D.T. BALLENGER AND C.W. JENNINGS
ABSTRACT
The. pstincJ-pal objective, ofa the AepoAted Ae*eaAch Jut, to de.vel.op a
packaging containeA which, afiteA uAe can eaA-ily be. pfioceAAed to
dif>*olve in wateA. The. packaging containeA beting tested
o& a wateA Actable. AupeAAtAuctuAe. taJMi a. thin -unpeA.vx.oai
^ihn which tiuiAti, coAfioAion by the. envJAonmentA commonty encountered
in the. packaging indu*tty. SupeA*tAuctuAeA being teAted inctude.
pe.ptidz cfiyAtalA, and &u.gaA derivative, cAy&talA. Both organic
coating* and inonganic coating* OA.& beting tute.d. The. inorganic
coating*, OAe. beting applie.d by chemical. vapoA de.poAiti.on and ion
exchange. pAoce.duAU. The. organic coating* OAe. beting apptie.d
be.d pn.oce.duAU.
A method o& coating wateA Aotubte. biLicatu gtaAAU with ineAt vapofi.
de.po*ite.d mateAialA to attow thciA uAe. 04 containeA mateAiaJtA i&
pAue.nte.d. The. oie oj$ vapoA de.po*ition a& a me.dia faon coating &ot-
ab£e &ubt>tAatu ducAib&d in thu, papeA to inciu.de. e.quipme.nt design,
majofi ptLOceJiA contAot paAanmteAA , n.e.a.ction kine^tic* , and coating
choAacteAization. A cAiticaJL ana£y*iA ofa the. method*, and
faon. "&cate.d up" opeAa£iom> it, diAcuAAe.d. The. fie.n.deAin.g o^ sodium
AiZicate. gta&t> in* o table, uiith H^SO. in a diAptace.me.nt inaction
involving participation by the. Aodium ion* oft the. gla** i* a ^e.a*
e.ngine.eAing method &OA pAodacing a wateA Aotuble. packaging containeA.
The. dte.x.uAal AtA&ngth oft wateA Actable. Aodiam AiLicate. gla*A com-
position i* diAcu*Ae.d a* a function oft compoAition, fie.- annealing
time, and atmoApheAic nxpoAuAe.. Sodium Aiticate. glaAAeA be.twe.e.n
the, compoAition Aange. 1.0 Ha^O . J.3 SiO~ and 1.0 Ma?) . 1.6 SiO»
adequate. AtAength to be utilized a& mateAialA o£ construction
containeA*.
147
-------
INTRODUCTION
The great natural resources of our nation have been ingeniously utilized by resourceful
people to create a vast industrial capability which today provides an expanding population
with the highest standard of living on earth. This epic growth has been accompanied,
however, by a constantly expanding quantity of materials wastes emanating from our nation's
communities. At the present time this country has to deal with approximately 3.5 billion
tons of solid waste each year. This is estimated to consist of 4'8 billion cans, 26 billion
bottles, more than 30 million tons of paper, four million tons of plastics, and 100 million
1 2
rubber tires. ' By virtue of the current magnitude of the problem, we are now urgently
compelled to find new methods to process or neutralize these wastes rather than simply
digest or absorb them as in the past. Our people can no longer afford to ignore the
effects of solid waste piled up at refuse dumps or discarded along our roadways, for to do
so will subject much of our citizenry to potentially severe health hazards as well as
contaminate the beauty of our natural landscape.
Essential to solid waste control is a method of processing incombustible, unreactive
containers, such as glass or aluminum containers after use or in the development of new
materials of construction for containers. Discarded glass bottles and aluminum cans rep-
resent a major solid waste problem because unlike much refuse, they are for all practical
purposes non-degradable. In addition to being esthetically objectionable, discarded cans
or bottles may harbor rodents and other vermin. Broken glass containers result in numerous
cases of trauma.
At present, non-combustible glass containers can best be disposed of by sanitary landfill
techniques. Obviously, this does not represent the complete answer, for convenient sites
are not always available.
The problem of disposal of metal containers, particularly aluminum cans, is even more
serious. In a properly operating sanitary landfill, glass containers can readily be reduced
to small pieces rather than like metal containers, being partially compressed into forms
containing undesirable voids which trap liquids and gases, and provide possible breeding
spots for insects.
Glass and metal containers are undesirable components for incineration because they show
up as an inert residue which must be hauled away. However, the organic containers which
"go up in smoke" use huge quantities of oxygen from the air and put into the atmosphere
tons of corrosive gases which, of course, pollute the atmosphere.
The object of this research program is to develop a packaging container which after use
can be easily processed to dissolve in water. The packaging container being tested
148
-------
consists of a water soluble superstructure with a thin impervious coating which resists
corrosion by environments commonly encountered in the food packaging industry. After the
consumer empties the container, the continuous physical barrier may be broken and the water
soluble superstructure dissolved.
Superstructures being tested include sodium silicate glasses, potassium silicate glasses,
alkali halides, peptide crystals, and sugar derivative crystals. Both organic coatings
and inorganic coatings are being tested. The inorganic coatings are being applied by
chemical vapor deposition and ion exchange procedures. The organic coatings are being
applied using fluidized bed procedures.
The materials of construction and processing procedures being investigated were selected
using the following boundary conditions; (1) the water disposable container must not be
toxic, (2) the dissolution of the superstructure must not pollute the aquatic environment,
(3) the container must decompose within months in air and within minutes when immersed in
an aqueous solution, (4) the container must have suitable mechanical properties, (5) the
water disposable container must be economically competitive with present packaging con-
tainers.
The water disposable packaging container which has received the most investigation to date
consists of a water soluble glass with a thin impervious coating. The eutectic composition
o
between sodium disilicate and quartz is readily dissolved by water. Potassium silicate
glasses are also known to be readily soluble. Sodium silicates are desired by a wide
range of industries for such diverse purposes as adhesives, cleaners, cements, defloccul-
4
ants, and protective coatings. Sodium silicate solutions in the form of an activated
silica sol are now added to polluted waters as a flocculant in the settling and filtering
4
steps of water purification. It is noteworthy to add that no adverse effects from potable
waters which have been sodium silicate treated have been detected. The production of alkali
silicate glasses is simple and cheap. Most of the soluble silicates are now made by fusing
mixtures of silica and sodium carbonate in openhearth type furnaces of regenerative or
recuperative design. The clear glass reaction product is then drawn directly into water
to produce silicate solutions. The object of this study is to use similar procedures
with the exception that the vitreous silicate is made into a container and used prior to
putting it into solution.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
A. Glass Composition
Vitreous silicates in the following composition ranges were studied for possible
application as the superstructure material for a water disposable container.
1. 2Na20 . Si02 - Na20 . 4Si02
i- K,0) . 4Si09
L. L.
P205) . 4Si02
149
2.
3.
4.
2K20 . Si02 - K20 . 4Si02
2(Na20 H
ZCKgO +
H K20) .
P205)
. Si02 - (Na20
. Si02 - (K20
-------
Sodium and potassium silicate compositions have been studied more than any
other types thus far. In general, the potassium silicates were found to be
more hygroscopic and repeatedly caused problems in obtaining coatings that
would bond strongly at the glass interface. The dissolution kinetics, mechan-
ical properties, and processing parameters have been observed for the five
glass compositions listed in Table 1.
Glass Composition WT % Na~0 Annealing Temperature °F
1.0 Na20 .
1.0 Na,0 .
<•
1.0 Na,0 .
i
1.0 Na20 .
1.0 Na20 .
1.0 Si02
1.1 SiO-
2
1.2 SiO,
2
1.3 Si02
1.6 Si02
50.8
48.4
46.3
44.4
39.3
780
825
840
840
785
TABLE 1. COMPOSITION OF GLASSES INVESTIGATED
B. Specimen Fabrication
The soluble glasses were processed by procedures similar to those employed
within industrial glass laboratories. Raw materials of soda ash and silica
were proportionated, blended, and melted in refractory crucibles at 1240°C.
Initially, cylindrically shaped disks one and one-half inches in diameter
and approximately three-eighths of an inch thick were cast in a steel mold.
These disks were made to fulfill a four-fold purpose. It was hoped that these
disks could be used as a suitable sample to study dissolution kinetics, degree
of workability of glass, coating process variables and strength through dia-
metrical testing. These disks proved to be satisfactory for all investigations
except for the diametrical strength testing. The disk specimen broke with a
fracture pattern that was not typical for tensile failure. The diametrical
test is limited to only tensile failures so another test method had to be
utilized. A bending test was then chosen to yield strength in the form of
modulus of rupture (MOR). This was accomplished by molding bars three-eighths
inch by three-eighths inch by four inches in steel and graphite molds. The
glass samples (both rods and disks) after casting were immediately placed in
an annealing furnace and held for thirty minutes at the annealing temperatures
5
suggested by Morey and listed in Table 1.
C. Chemical Vapor Deposition Procedures
Barrier films were deposited on water soluble glass substrates using chemical
vapor deposition processes. " The chemical vapor deposition apparatus de-
signed and constructed for this study is shown schematically in Figure 1 and
1 o
photographically in Figure 2. Prepurified grade carrier gases were regulated
150
-------
S-
-------
f: ' .^Sf&tX-
to
a.
CL
o
to
O
o.
S-
o
CL
to
to
o
•r~
O)
o
O)
s_
o>
o
->->
o
_c
Q.
CM
I
CT>
152
-------
in two stages to pass through a vaporizer containing a plating agent and then
into a reaction chamber holding the glass substrate. Not shown schematically
the vaporizer temperature was controlled through the use of water baths or by
an electric blanket placed around the vaporizer flask.
For some plating agents requiring higher temperatures the flask was replaced
with a furnace such that the refractory tube would extend through both furnaces.
Each furnace was independently controlled with one serving as a vaporizer and
one as a reaction chamber. The refractory tube was mullite and the ends of the
tube were closed with rubber-gasketed doors having gas tight lead-throughs
for gases and thermocouples. It was possible to maintain plus or minus 2°F
at a given point within the chemical vapor deposition apparatus or plus or
minus 15°F at different locations within the reaction chamber under stabilized
conditions.
Chemical vapor deposition techniques investigated include thermal decomposi-
tion (pyrolysis), hydrolysis of volatile compounds, disproportionation reactions,
and displacement reactions involving participation by the substrate. The
pyrolysis of tetraisopropyl titanate, Ti(C2H70),, known as TPT, ethyl ortho-
silicate, SiXOf^Hg)., known as ETOS, aluminum isopropoxide, A1(C3H70),, and
ethyltriethoxysilane, (C2H5)Si(OCpHg), was used to place inert barrier films
on water soluble sodium silicate glasses. In each case these materials were
thermally decomposed into a carrier gas such as helium, nitrogen or argon
and directed to the reaction chamber containing the hot glass substrate. A
typical reaction using tetraisopropyl titanate (TPT) as a source for a TiOp
barrier film would be as follows:
Ti(C3H70)4 -* Ti02 + 2C3Hg + 2C3H7OH
The barrier film microscopy, barrier film phase composition, barrier film
thickness, barrier film uniformity, barrier film residual stresses, barrier
film deposition kinetics, coating efficiency, bonding between film and sub-
strate, and mechanical properties of barrier film-water soluble substrate
composition were studied as a function of chemical vapor deposition procedures.
Process variables investigated were composition of the vapor phase, gas tem-
perature, substrate temperature, coating time, carrier gas flow rate, substrate
orientation, and reaction concentration in carrier gas. A typical set of pro-
cess variables for the chemical vapor deposition of TiOp (using TPT) on a
water soluble sodium silicate glass substrate would be as follows;
153
-------
VARIABLE LIMITS
1. Substrate Temperature, °F 450-1085°F
2. Coating time, minutes 5-75 minutes
3. Carrier gas flow rate,
Cfh (cubic feet per hour) 2-10 cfh
4. Substrate orientation, inches 2-12 inches
5. Reactant gas concentration in
carrier gas (ppm) at a given
flow rate 19-2300 ppm
X-ray diffractometry and spectroscopy, infrared spectrophotornetry, and optical
microscopy techniques were used to help characterize the various coatings that
ranged from a 100 angstroms to a 100 microns in thickness.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A. Chemical Vapor Deposition Studies
The effect of chemical vapor deposition processing parameters on barrier film
deposition kinetics, and coating efficiency are illustrated for the deposition
of Ti02 from tetraisopropyl titanate (TPT) in Figure 3-6.
Figure 3 illustrates the influence of substrate temperature on deposition
rate and coating efficiency. Deposition rate refers to the amount of TiO,-,
deposited on a 1 x 1 3/4 inch glass micros!ide. Coating efficiency is inher-
ently low and represents the fraction of Ti02 deposited on the substrate com-
pared to the amount of Ti02 brought in by the carrier gas.
Figure 4 shows that at the low substrate temperatures there is an initial
period of slow growth or induction period. The efficiency of the process
was very poor during this part of the deposition.
Figure 5 illustrates the importance and relation of substrate position and
carrier gas flow rate to the efficiency of the process. As shown when low
flow rates were used the substrate position became increasingly important.
Figure 6 indicates that deposition rates were approximately linear with con-
centration at a given carrier gas flow rate. Concentration refers to the ratio
of moles of plating compound to moles of carrier gas. In general the quality
of the coatings were very poor at high concentrations. The adherence was poor
and the samples exhibited numerous microcracks.
Ti02 barrier film microscopy is illustrated in Figures 7, 8, 1U, 11. In general,
these photomicrographs indicate the many different types of surface topographies
that were obtained depending upon the conditions of coating and the surface
treatment of the glass before the coatings were applied.
154
-------
I
r-
<0 m ^ 10 CM
(%) AON3IOIJJ3 9NI1VOO
Nomsod3a
8
OJ
O
o
O
u.
o
UJ
(X
Z)
8£
UJ
K
Z
O
CO
o
Q,
UJ
Q
(O
C S-
(U -U
en i/>
o XI
S- 3
4J in
•i- C
TD
8
Ol
(J
01
*r-
O
tj—
!£
01
o>
c
+J
re
o
u
XI
c
re
j.
c
o
•r-
+J
•r*
C/l
O
Q.
HI
•o
CM
0
•r-
1—
<4-
0
+J
0
ol
XI
XI
>,
XI
-D
a>
tf—
i.
01
T3
(/I
re
2
re
+j
re
XI
01
-C
^~
•
CO
•^
t/l
O
Q.
cu
X)
£
-u
re
S-
O)
§-
Ol
c
o
1^
+J
re
N
*r-
S-
o
0.
re
>
.«
x:
<4-
O
O
4->
re
1-
0.
l—
x:
Ol
3
O
s_
x:
-i->
CO
re
01
•
10
o>
+->
3
C
•»-
E
0
U3
E
•r-
4J
• «i
0)
J=
o
C
«*
C
0
•1—
+J
10
•(J
C
Ol
S-
0
O)
S-
O
O
155
-------
O -r- I—
3
D)
(C.OIXS3TOW) Q31ISOd3Q 2OI1 dO
156
-------
Nl
•r-
s- o
O) Q-
•i- IO
t >
to
S-
00
^3
3
00
+J
1
£
4-
•r-
•Q
-!->
IO
00
0)
•r^
0
C
•r^
S-
(11
-o
OO
IO
31
to
•4J
(O
-a
nj
!_
-------
i/>
c
0
4J
IO
s-
-p
c
-P
C
to
-P
o
to
0)
s-
-p
E
o>
S-
O)
<4-
4-
•r-
-a
-p
n3
w
0)
4->
IO
s_
E
O
-p
•r-
a)
S-
O)
E
•r-
S
_a
3
XI
x:
-p
o
XI
s-
x:
-P
en
E
•i—
X
•r-
E
>,
XI
TD
ai
>
S-
0)
-o
IO
IO
s
IO
•p
10
T3
!—•
3
D)
£
t/)
CD
i.
3
+J
IO
S-
0)
a.
E
O)
•p
c
O
•p
IO
N
•r^
i-
O
Q.
to
>
11
•P
-a
c
to
l/>
E
O
•p
«r-
-o
E
O
u
en
E
••—
XI
XI
3
XI
E
O
E
T3
E
to
3
•P
10
s_
O)
Q.
(!)
-p
c
o
-p
•r^
10
o
CL
(U
-a
• #«
x:
M-
O
00
OJ
-p
10
s-
2
o
IH
U)
LJ_
o
OJ
OJ
i
"•
o
O
r~.
E
01
a>
3
-P
01
XI
•
irt
Ol
•P
3
E
•r-
E
LO
i —
O>
E
+->
• n
•p
to
s-
+J
w
XI
3
Ll_
O
i-~
(Q.OIX3inNllN/S310IAI)
NOIllSOdBQ Z0li
158
-------
Figures 7 and 8 indicate the two extremes of over 100 samples with Figure 6
being crystalline and Figure 9 being amorphous. The structure of Ti02 deposits
were found to depend primarily upon deposition temperature and to a lesser
extent upon the mass flow rate of the reactant vapor (see Figure 9). The
transition temperature was found to occur at 620°F plus or minus 25°F for
mass flow rates investigated (approximately up to 4 x 10" moles/minute of
TPT). Using optical microscopy and x-ray diffraction pattern, coatings above
the transition temperature were found to be preferentially orientated anatase.
However, at very low mass flow rates the transition temperature was found to
decrease and the samples analyzed were believed to be oxygen deficient modifi-
cations of TiOp such as Ti203. Coatings below 620°F were amorphous as in
Figure 8. In Figure 8 the surface film has purposely been broken and a portion
of the film removed in order to give sufficient contrast so that the film can
be observed.
As a general statement high quality, uniform thin films of TiOp were produced
by bubbling nitrogen at 10 cfh through TPT maintained at 212°F over a glass
substrate 10 inches from the gas input tube in the reaction chamber. Coating
efficiencies were poor (less than 3 percent) but barrier film adherence and
chemical inertness were quite good for substrate deposition temperatures
between 500-800°F. In this temperature range the amorphous coatings had growth
rates of approximately 4000A per hour and the crystalline films had growth
rates of approximately 6000A per hour. Figures 10 and 11 are indications of
coatings obtained when the coating conditions were not properly controlled.
The optimum quality SiOo films were obtained at deposition temperatures
between 1000° and 1050°F, yielding a growth rate of approximately 400o8 per
hour. At higher temperatures residual stresses in the films were too high and
at lower temperatures the reaction rates were excessively slow (see Figure 12).
Ethyl orthosilicate was the plating material and it was maintained at room
temperature with nitrogen as a carrier gas flowing at 2 cfh. The concentration
of the reactant gas was approximately 800 ppm and the efficiency was in the
range of 2 percent. The films were observed (using infrared absorption,
x-ray diffraction, and optical microscopy) to be clear amorphous coatings.
At higher deposition temperatures however, cristobalite crystals were observed
(see Figure 13).
Optimum AlpO, coatings were obtained from aluminum isopropoxide using 223°F
as a vapor deposition temperature and a substrate deposition temperature of
between 550-700°F.
Each of the coatings obtained using pyrolysis were found to significantly
retard the rate of dissolution of the soluble sodium silicate glass but no
one type of coating was completely effective when the sample was exposed to
159
-------
(A)
(B)
Figure 7. Typical anatase microstructures taken from different areas of same
sample. Exhibit (A) received a more concentrated dosage of reactant
vapor than Exhibit (B), but was also cooled more by the impinging
gas stream. The photomicrographs were derived by bubbling nitrogen
gas through TPT at 10 cfg; vaporization temperature 70° F; deposi-
tion temperature 690° F; substrate orientation 4 inches; time 60
minutes. One inch on photomicrograph equals 88.9 microns.
160
-------
Figure 8. Photomicrograph of surface topography of amorphous
Ti02 film. Coating was derived from nitrogen gas
bubbled through TPT at 10 cfg; vaporization temp-
erature 212° F; deposition temperature 620° F;
substrate orientation 4 inches; time 5 minutes. One
inch on photomicrograph equals 53.3 microns.
161
-------
CRYSTALLINE
tf AMORPHOUS
i i i i
O O O O O
o o o o o
o oo to
O
T3
c
ro
S-
cu
Q.
Ol
s_
|
O)
(jo)
162
-------
CQ
•r—
to
O
Q.
0)
-o
CM
O
•r-
1—
(O
E
•r""
to
O)
to
to
O)
i.
4^
to
,
to
3
~U
•r-
to
O)
S-
4-
O
to
x:
CL
fO
C
cn
0
s_
o
'E
o
o
x:
a.
en
E
•r—
4J
(O
O
o
*s
o
•r-
c*
^^
• •
^-^
02
4_>
•i—
-Q
x:
X
LU
•
en
E
•r—
fO
O
O
E
•r-
r"
4J
• •
^•^
i^^
v^ *
4J
•^
f^
•^
r"
X
LU
en
3
O
4-)
l/l
(0
cn
E
0)
cn
o
£_
^~>
•r—
C
o>
•1—
1— •
JD
-Q
.r^
>>
•°
~O
0)
>
• r-
S-
OJ
T3
ai
a>
^
to
cn
E
•r—
4^
ro
0
o
a.
E
OJ
E
O
•^
4_)
tO
N
•r—
S-
o
a.
(0
>
• A
cn
4~
0
00
4~>
fO
t—
a.
I—
i
•i—
• •»
to
cu
o
E
«r«
^*
f~
O
• ^
»O
gr*
ai
^_
o
cu
to
jQ
3
to
• A
U_
O
0
00
O)
S-
3
to
S-
(1)
a.
E
4->
microns
cr>
•
00
00
t/>
1—
to
3
CT
0)
(/)
f
Q.
ID
i.
en
0
S-
o
• r-
0
Q.
E
0
f
o
c~
•i—
O)
E
O
•
to
d)
3
c~
•r—
E
un
i —
3
D>
163
-------
CO
CO
o
Q.
(U
-o
CO
o>
IO
o
o
o
in
(U
CO •!->
•I—
O T3
o
1T3
en
o
0)
J- <1)
3 C
-u o
to
V
tco
O)
-t-> 3
c:
J= 4J O
4-> *f— VO
CO
CO O 04
(O Q. E
O> O) -f
-o +J
o x:
••- o
O, 0,
•r- 3
J3 X-
3 O)
•° §-
>> Ol
•o
(U
s_
Ol
T3
ai
IT}
M
•r—
S-
o
Q.
c
(U
o
(U
ITS
3
CO
CO
c:
o
o
o o>
CO
CO
to
3
o-
O)
Q.
(O
O)
2
CJ
o
Q.
164
-------
o
o
fO
o
o
CM
UI
oc
(T
UI
O 0.
O 5
— LU
z
o
C/l
o
Q.
LU
Q
O
O
o
If) t lO C\J
(g.OlX 3inNW/S3"10W) 3-LVd NOIilSOd3Q 20'S
01
s-
£
o>
t
0)
c
O
s_
o
Cn
to
i.
O 4-> O
ex. r^
Ol VI
~O ID Ol
en s.
rO
i.
c
o
O
•—
Q-
01
x:
ID
S-
Ol
i- *•
01 S-
iD
N
O
CL
ID
T3
O)
O
CL
Ol
X)
CM 10
O ID
00
ID
4- -U
O ID
O
C
c
o
s_
o
165
-------
Figure 13. Photomicrograph of crisobalite crystals. The coating was derived
by bubbling nitrogen gas through ethyl orthosilicate at 2 cfh;
vaporization temperature 70° F; deposition temperature 1220° F;
substrate orientation 3 inches; time 11 hours. One inch on
photomicrograph equals 53.3 microns.
166
-------
hot turbulent water. One problem is that there is a considerable mismatch
in coefficient of thermal expansion between substrate and coating. In some
cases the film would have enough residual stress at the interface to crack
into what appeared as a mosaic pattern when subjected to mechanical or thermal
shock. Consequently composite or layered coatings were made such as
TiOp - SiOp - Ti02 (see Figure 14). The composite coatings were found to be
more resistant to moisture penetration and to mechanical or thermal shock.
However, the transparency of the glass was decreased considerably because
when the first amorphous coating of Ti02 was coated with a Si02 coating at
higher temperatures than the original deposition temperature the original
coating became crystalline and reduced light transmission.
Experiments were performed on rendering a water soluble silicate glass, having
a chemical composition of 1 Na^O - 1.3 SiO^, insoluble by a chemical vapor
deposition procedure employing H^SO, in a displacement reaction involving
participation by the sodium silicate substrate.
These experiments produced glass specimens that resisted corrosion in hot
(140°F) turbulent water. No evidence of dissolution after one week in hot
turbulent water was detected (using atomic absorption spectrophotometry)
for the chemical vapor treated samples. In contrast, untreated specimens
started dissolving in the first few seconds (as indicated by atomic absorption
spectroscopy) and completely dissolved in approximately 15 to 20 minutes
when subjected to the same conditions.
This chemical vapor deposition procedure involves treating water soluble
glasses with a gaseous mixture made from the decomposition products of sulphuric
acid. The decomposition products are in turn mixed with inert carrier gas
and directed over a soluble glass substrate in a heated reaction chamber.
The exact mechanism of the method for rendering the soluble glass surface
insoluble is not known. The mechanism is believed to be related to hydrogen
ion exchange for surface sodium ions and to sulphur gas reactions with surface
sodium ions. Similar methods of removing sodium ions from normal sodium ions
silica glasses have been used for the purpose of increasing the mechanical
strength of the glass.13' 14
The rendering of the surface treated layer of sodium silicate glass insoluble
with fUSO. in a displacement reaction may be an economical method for producing
a water soluble packaging container. The gaseous mixtures being employed have
excellent throwing power or ability to travel a considerable distance without
having a tendency to fall out. The H^SO. treatment can be used to protect
complicated shapes because the procedure is not critically sensitive to the
orientation of the substrate and distance from the input vapors. The resulting
glass is transparent without any appreciable birefringes. The glass has an
167
-------
CM
o
CM
O
(O
CM
O
^~
<4-
0
CO
S-
01
>>
to
^—
<
o
o
C^
If)
r-*
o
^
4->
c.)
3
S-
4«>
oo
•
en
.^
+J
(TJ
0
o
X
cu
o_
3
-o
ro
<«-
o
_E
Q.
S-
cn
o
^
o
•r—
E
0
•!->
o
Qu
en
c
•r—
^»
r>
_Q
3
J3
>>
.£?
-o
cu
• r—
s-
cu
T3
CU
^.
cu
s
CO
en
•^
4->
(TJ
O
O
CM
O
•r—
h-
CU
.E
1—
jj
CU
cu
5
4*^
CU
jQ
T3
0)
-C
o
'5
~o
c
(O
CO
CM
o
CO
M-
o
i-
0)
f-m
c
o
• r—
4->
• t—
co
0
o.
cu
T3
• «t
U-
o
0
cu
L.
3
4->
(TJ
s-
01
o.
E
cu
+->
E
o
•r-
+->
(TJ
N
•r-
t.
O
a.
co
(TJ
en
E
3
r—
CU
-C
3
CU
JZ
en
E
•r~
r—
r^
ja
3
-Q
>>
-o
CU
>
•1—
s-
cu
T3
CO
(TJ
2
en
E
•r—
+J
(TJ
0
u
CM
O
•r—
CO
CU
_c:
I—
*
CO
s_
3
O
^.
CO
•I-*
• A
CO
cu
o
E
'
^«
E
O
•r^
•4-)
+J
C
CU
•1—
^,
o
cu
4->
s_
4->
CO
-Q
3
U)
CU
Q.
E
cu
+->
E
0
4J
•r^
CO
O
a.
cu
T3
• •>
u_
0
o
r^
cu
s-
3
4->
to
S-
cu
a.
E
CU
+J
E
O
•r—
-(J
(TJ
N
•^
S-
o
a.
>
• A
C*
l^-
o
<*
(TJ
CU
4->
(TJ
O
•^
^~
CO
0
+->
S-
0
^
4J
CU
^=
en
3
O
S-
(~
4J
co
(TJ
CD
^
a.
(TJ
s-
cn
0
S-
o
•^
E
3
0
^c^
Q_
C
0
.E
O
E
•r-
CU
O
•
V)
S-
3
O
f"
CM
P_
CU
p^
•r-
+J
• A
CO
cu
^:
o
E
•r-
CO
E
O
+J
to
4^
E
ai
•r-
s-
o
0)
(TJ
S-
4->
CO
t~*
3
CO
• •*
Ll_
O
O
O
^—
2
3
4->
•
CO
E
2
O
•r-
E
CO
•
CO
LT>
CO
r—
to
3
cr
cu
CO
.a
oo
cu
en
168
-------
unusually high strength because of the compressive surface stresses resulting
from the chemical treatment. The glass fragments were similar to "safety glass"
when mechanically ruptured and thus readily dissolved when broken.
Fluidized bed procedures as well as more conventional procedures such as dipping
and spraying were used to apply organic coatings to sodium silicate glasses.
Best results were obtained with materials such as polyethylene, polystyrene,
polyvinyl chloride, co-polymer (vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate), and an inorganic
organic co-polymer (silicone stearates polyvinyl alcohol). In general, the
permeability of such films were too high and over a period of a few days when
immersed in aqueous solution enough moisture would be collected at the glass
interface to cause damage.
B. Mechanical Properties of Sodium Silicate Glasses
The strength of glass is primarily controlled by flaws on the surface and
secondarily by those in the interior.
The effect of composition on the strength of sodium silicate glasses is shown
in Figure 15. Morey's results and Gehlhoff and Thomas's results are also
depicted. The points represented by the triangle are the averages, with the
range given as a bar above and below the averages. The results for the strength
of the specimens from both the graphite and the steel molds are shown.
The samples cast in the graphite molds exhibited much higher strengths than
those cast in the steel molds. There was also a distinct difference in the
fracture pattern between the type of specimens (see Figure 16). The difference
in thermal conductivity between the steel mold and the graphite mold may have
produced the difference in the strength by tempering the glass. However, one
would expect that a greater amount of thermal tempering would have occurred
for steel cast samples (because of the greater thermal conductivity of the steel)
and thus if thermal tempering was the controlling influence the steel cast
samples would be stronger than samples cast in graphite. The leaching of iron
or other substances from the steel mold may be another factor that influenced
the surface of the specimen and reduced their strengths. These impurities
would form complex glasses on the surface that would lead to a hetrogenity
between the surface and interior glass.
Sodium silicate glasses wet steel considerably more than it does graphite
and thus there is more adhesion between the glass and the mold surface when
casting using steel molds. The adhesion of glass to steel introduces more
surface flaws than when casting in graphite, thus explaining why samples cast
in steel molds have considerably lower strength than those cast in graphite.
169
-------
o
<
u.
§1
X O
UJ X
O h-
o
_l
o
UJ
I-
o
_j
O
to
z
o
a.
o
UJ
s
a! uj
< £
CD
2
(O
to
O O
in in
o o
c
o
(SI
o
CL
O
o
S-
ai
oo
N «
O
O
O O
00 CM
O O
0) —
en
c
•a
c
a>
CM
IO
00
-------
•O Q.
o 2
"4- S-
O CU
4J
in -P
cu
-------
The rapid decline of the strength of the specimens from the graphite molds
with an additional increase in the Na^O content past 44 percent is due to the
saturation of the SiOo structure's interstices by sodium ions. Coupled with
this fact, the Na,,0 phase is becoming the primary crystalline phase, that is,
the first phase to crystallize from the melt. These processes would produce
Na02 and sodium silicate compounds that would disrupt the Si02 structure
and reduce the strength. The composition of higher silica contents fit the
projected curve of the work by Morey.
Figure 17 illustrates the effect of reannealing glass specimens of composition
1.0 Na20-1.3 Si02 cast in steel molds. The 1.0 Na20-1.3 Si02 glass was chosen
because of its optimum strength, satisfactory dissolution kinetics, ease of
workability, and suitability to coating by pyrolysis and displacement reaction
techniques.
The relief of residual strains left from the first annealing period resulted
with an increase in strength. However, after a period of nucleation, there
was sufficient grain growth of sodium silicate crystals to reduce the strength
by disrupting the Si02 structure.
Glass specimens of the 1.0 Na20 . 1.3 Si02 composition were periodically
removed from a desiccator and exposed to the atmospheric conditions dictated
by a dry bulb temperature of 77°f and a wet bulk temperature of 71°F (relative
humidity of 61%). Figure 18 shows the percent changes in strength for the
times indicated. Initial examination of this figure indicates a peculiar
situation, a decrease and then an increase in strength.
These changes in strength can be explained through the examination of Figure 19,
which shows the cross section of a specimen at four important time periods.
The strength of glass is primarily surface dependent thus the introduction
of surface flaws decreases the strength by increasing the probability of
propagating a crack through the sample. Figure 19A shows the unflawed surface
of a molded sample. Figure 19B shows the flawed surface caused by abrasion
from atmospheric dust and water attack. These additional flaws disrupt the
surface and cause a decrease in the strength of the sample. As the silicate
glass surface continues to absorb moisture and other atmospheric gases, it
erodes these areas of higher energy, or flaws with small radii of curvature.
This erosion, as seen in Figure 19C, forms a layer across the surface of the
sample. The removal of these highly stressed flaws results in an increase
in strength. Applying the Griffith Flaw Theory to the conditions present in
Figures 19B and 19C, [Griffith Flaw Theory states the stress concentration
at the crack tip can be expressed by;
172
-------
o
•r-
4J
V)
o
OJ
C3
CO
ro
o 4->
CM Ol
§
O
O
+J O
o ^~
£ 00
<<- 4->
LU IO
£
15
O>
Hi9N3yiS 9NIQN38 Nl 39NVHO !N30d3d
173
-------
Ul
o
a.
x
ai
Q.
V)
I
a>
>
en
c
ut
c
•p-
I
8
I
§.
H19N3U1S Nl 39NVHO
174
-------
ATMOSPHERE
GLASS
A. SURFACE AS FORMED
GLASS
B. SURFACE AFTER BEING FLAWED
SILICA-CARBON ATE LAYER
C. SURFACE AFTER SHORT EXPOSURE
SILICA-CARBONATE LAYER
D. SURFACE AFTER PROLONGED EXPOSURE
Figure 19. Illustration of how surface flaws are eliminated
after prolonged exposure to the atmosphere.
175
-------
a = 2o \|c~
m IP
where: am = actual stress for failure
a = theoretical stress for failure
c = one half of the axis length of the crack
p = radius of curvature of the crack tip]
it can be shown as the radii of curvature of the crack tip increases, the
strength increases by decreasing the probability of propagating the crack
through the specimen. When there is sufficient erosion of the glass to produce
a macroscopic reduction in the cross sectional area as illustrated in Figure
19D, there is a concurrent reduction in the strength.
The surfaces shown in Figure 20 support the foregoing theory on the changes
in strength of sodium silicate glasses upon exposure to the atmosphere. As
seen in this series of pictures, the layer grows across the surface until it
completely covers the surface. This completion occurs in three to four hours
and coincides with the leveling off and declining of the strength curve shown
in Figure 18. Phillips says that sodium silicate is leached from the glass
and undergoes hydrolysis so that the layer contains sodium hydroxide and
colloidal silicic acid. In the presence of carbon dioxide a further reaction
occurs between this gas and the alkali ions, resulting in the formation of
sodium carbonate and a surface of finely divided silica.
SUMMARY
An awesome challenge has been dropped in packagings' lap: responsibility for what happens
to empty, used packages -- for doing something positive about the cankerous litter of
discarded packages along America's roads, about the glut of containers contributing to
an impending crisis in solid waste collection and disposal. Traditional methods of refuse
handling are bogging down in a morass of empty containers -- containers that are in-
creasingly harder to dispose of. Cleaning up litter gets more costly every year, and
there is a growing tendency toward one-way convenience packaging of beverages.
The development of a packaging container which after use can be easily processed to
dissolve in water will lead to a sizeable reduction in the amount of solid waste that
emanates from the nation's communities.
The objective of the reported research is to develop a packaging container which after
use can be easily processed to dissolve in water. The packaging container being tested
consists of a water soluble superstructure with a thin impervious coating which resists
corrosion by the environments commonly encountered in the food packaging industry. After
the consumer empties the containers, the continuous physical barrier may be broken and
the water soluble superstructure dissolved.
176
-------
A. 30 Minutes
B. 60 Minutes
C. 90 Minutes
D. 120 Minutes
E. 180 Minutes
F. 240 Minutes
Figure 20. This series of photographs shows the absorption of moisture
by the surface of a 1.ONa20-l.2Si02 glass and the growth of
the resulting layer across the surface (2000X).
177
-------
Soluble silicate glass compositions are readily coated by chemical vapor deposition pro-
cesses. Metallic oxides derived from selected organic esters provide excellent coating
materials for soluble glass substrates. The high vapor pressure and chemical stability
of the mother liquid readily allows coatings to be produced by pyrolysis reactions at the
heated substrate surface. Titanium oxide coatings are readily produced over a wide range
of controlled conditions such as deposition temperature, time, carrier gas flow rate,
reactant vapor concentration, substrate orientation, and others. The coatings produced
can be amorphous or crystalline, depending upon conditions. These coatings are chemically
stable, and form a chemical bond with the glass substrate. Silicon oxide glass coatings
are produced under somewhat more restricted conditions; however, the coatings formed
likewise possess excellent properties. The problem of residual stress in the coated samples
is a greater hazard with SiCL coatings because of generally higher deposition temperatures
and a greater mismatch of thermal expansion coefficients.
The rendering of sodium silicate glass insoluble with H^SO, in a displacement reaction
involving participation by the sodium ions of the glass is an engineeringly feasible method
for producing a water soluble packaging container. The H^SO, treatment can be used to
protect complicated shapes because the procedure is not critically sensitive to orientation
of the substrate and distant from the input vapors. The resulting glass is transparent
without any appreciable birefringence. The glass has an unusually high strength because
of the compressive surface treatment resulting from the chemical treatment. The glass
fragments similar to "safety" glass when mechanically ruptured and thus is readily dissolved
when broken.
Sodium silicate glasses in the composition range 1.0 Na^O . 1.3 SiO? to 1.0 Na?0 . 1.6 Si02
possess adequate strength and ease of workability to be utilized as materials of con-
struction for containers.
The engineering feasibility of a water soluble packaging container consisting of water
soluble sodium silicate glass superstructure with an inert barrier film deposited by either
a chemical vapor deposition displacement reaction or pyrolysis has been demonstrated. The
feasibility of ultimately applying the technology derived from this investigation to the
solution of container waste control problems is bright; however, three basic questions
have to be answered prior to the water soluble container becoming a reality: (1) the
toxicology of the system, (2) the effect of the system on water quality, and (3) economic
evaluation of processing procedures.
178
-------
REFERENCES
1. Anonymous, "Why the U.S. is in Danger of Being Engulfed by its Trash," U.S. News and
World Report, Washington, D. C., (September 8, 1969).
2. President's Science Advisory Committee's Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel,
"Restoring the Quality of Our Environment," Washington, D. C., 141, (November, 1965).
3. J. G. Vail, Soluble Silicates: Their Properties and Uses, Volume 1. Reinhold
Publishing Corp., New York (1952).
4. J. G. Vail, Soluble Silicates: Their Properties and Uses, Volume II. Reinhold
Publishing Corp., New York, (1952).
5. G. W. Morey, The Properties of Glass, Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York, (1954).
6. C. A. Krier, "Protective Coatings," Vapor Deposition, edited by C. F. Powell, J. H.
Oxley and J. M. Blocher, Jr., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, (1966).
7. E. M. Sherwood and J. M. Blocher, Jr., "Vapor Deposition: The First Hundred Years,"
Metals, Vol. 17 6 594-599 (1965).
8. J. C. Withers, "Methods for Applying Coatings," High-Temperature Inorganic Coatings,
edited by Humim'k, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York (1963).
9. J. D. Plunkett, "NASA Contribution to the Technology of Inorganic Coatings: NASA
SP-5014," National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D. C. (1964).
10. L. Holland, Vacuum Deposition of Thin Films, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1956).
11. J. M. Blocher, and J. H. Oxley, "Chemical Vapor Deposition Opens New Horizons in
Ceramic Technology," Bull. Am. Ceram. Soc., 41 (2): 81-84, (1962).
12. M. M. Cooper, "Protective Oxide Coatings for Glasses by Chemical Vapor Deposition,"
M.S. Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, S. C. (1969).
13. E. L. Mochel, M. E. Nordberg, and T. H. Elmer, "Strengthening of Glass Surfaces by
Sulfur Troxide Treatment," J. Am. Ceram. Soc.. 49 (11): 585-589, (1966).
14. R. W. Douglas and J. 0. Isard, "The Action of Water and of Sulphur Dioxide on Glass
Surfaces," J. Soc. Glass Technol. Vol. 33, 289-335, (1949).
15. G. Gehlhoff, and M. Thomas, "An Investigation of the Effect of Composition on the
Strength of Sodium Silicate Glass," Zeitschrift Fver. Physik., 7:105, (1926).
16. W. D. Kingery, Introduction to Ceramics, Wiley Publishing Co., New York (1960).
17. C. J. Phillips, Glass: The Miracle Maker, Pitman Publishing Corp., New York, (1941).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This investigation was supported by the Public Health Service Research Grant No. UI 00651.
The writers are: Samuel F. Hulbert, Associate Professor of Materials Engineering and Bio-
medical Engineering and Head, Division of Interdisciplinary Studies; C. Clifford Fain,
Associate Professor of Ceramic Engineering; David T. Ballenger, Research Associate in
Ceramic Engineering; Charles W. Jennings, Research Associate in Materials Engineering,
Clemson University, Clemson, S. C. and Martin M. Cooper, Project Engineering, Texas
Instruments, Houston, Texas.
Portions of this paper were reported at the Process Industries Division of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers at the ASME Winter Annual Meeting, November 16-20, Los
Angeles, California.
179
-------
-------
Incineration of Packaging Wastes
with Minimal Air Pollution
Prof. ELMER R. KAISER
For many years burning has been the commonest and simplest method for volume and weight
reduction of combustible packaging wastes. Whether as kindling for stove, fireplace, or
house heating furnace, such wastes thus served twice and were a nuisance to no one. With
the trend to gas and oil-fired furnaces that do not accept solid waste, more multiple-
story apartment buildings, and the banning of open burning, the age of incineration began
in earnest. Today, incinerators designed for the purpose of burning packaging and allied
wastes are readily available from companies that have regional and national distribution.
Incinerator sizes range from 25 Ibs.per hour to over 1300 tons per day.
Why then is incineration an important topic for a conference on packaging waste? What
new developments are under way which will improve incinerator performance and reduce air
and water pollution from incineration?
Nature produced the major constituent of packaging, cellulose (CcHinO,-), by photosynthesis
of carbon dioxide and water vapor. Incineration returns the carbon dioxide and water vapor
to the natural ecology. Here the simplicity ends and technical problems begin, which
require analysis and constructive action.
It is the purpose of this paper to outline the role of incineration with respect to pack-
aging wastes and to point out areas for further progress.
TONNAGE OF PACKAGING MATERIALS
The consumption of packaging materials in the United States is increasing faster than the
population. The tonnage projected for 1970 by the Midwest Research Institute^ ' was
used for Table 1 after transferring their weight of pallets and skids from "Miscellaneous"
to "Wood".
181
-------
Table 1. Consumption of Packaging Materials in the United States,
as projected for 1970.
Paper and paperboard
Plastics
Wood (a)
Textiles
Miscellaneous (b)
Glass
Metal
Totals
Net tons
29,220,000
1,810,000
9,345,000
205,000
1,895,000
9,500,000
7.535.000
59,510,000
Percent
49.1
3.0
15.7
0.3
3.2
16.0
12.7
100.0
(a) Including wood in boxes, pallets and skids.
(b) Shredded paper, excelsior, tags, tapes, cords, adhesives, wax plastics, inks.
Approximately 10% of the tonnage is recycled or reused, while 90% is discarded as waste.
PACKAGING WASTE AS FUEL
Packaging wastes consist of both combustible and non-combustible materials, received in a
random mixture at incinerators, and usually associated with other solid wastes. While
incinerators are designed to burn such variable mixtures, it is important in the sizing and
rating of incinerators to know the analyses and calorific values of the waste. Specific-
ally, the volumes and flow rates of air and exhaust gas, furnace volumes, flue areas,
etc., are governed by the chemical analysis of the waste and the BTU values.
Packaging wastes have been sampled and analyzed to establish useful data for this pur-
(2 3 4)
pose ' . At the time of discard by the householders, commercial establishments,
and industry the moisture content of paper products is about 8%, increasing with air
humidity. The moisture content of wood varies up or down from the kiln-dried condition of
about 8% moisture. Metal containers have more than a negligible moisture content, and the
same may be said for glass, although neither absorbs moisture in the base material.
Moisture is associated with labels and contents.
Table 2 provides analyses and calorific values on the dry basis for typical packaging
wastes which have been exposed to low contamination from dirt, oils, and food waste. By
simple calculation these data can be converted to any "as discarded" or "as-fired" basis
of moisture content.
182
-------
Table 2. Analyses of Packaging Wastes,
dry basis (Ref. 2, 3, 4)
Corrugated paper boxes
Brown paper
Paper food cartons
Waxed milk cartons
Plastic coated paper
Newspaper (packing)
Polyethylene
Vinyl (d)
Plastic film ^e'
Textiles
Softwood, pine
Hardwood, oak
Glass bottles
Metal cans
Carbon
43.73
44.90
44.74
59.18
45.30
49.14
85.6
47.1
67.21
46.19
52.55
49.49
0.52
4.54
Hydrogen
5
6
6
9
6
6
14
5
9
6
6
6
0
0
.70
.08
.10
.25
.17
.10
.4
.9
.72
.41
.08
.62
.07
.63
Oxy
44
47
41
30
45
43
18
15
41
40
43
0
4
gen
.93
.84
.92
.13
.50
.03
_
.6
.82
.85
.90
.39
.36
.28
Nitrogen
0.09
0.00
0.15
0.12
0.18
0.05
_
(Chlorine
0.46
2.18
0.25
0.25
0.03
0.05
Sulfur
0
0
0
0
0
0
28.
0
0
0
0
0
0
.21
.11
.16
.10
.08
.16
_
4%)
.07
.20
.10
.10
.00
.01
Inertsv<
5
1
6
1
2
1
6
3
0
0
99
90
.34
.07
.93
.22
.77
.52
_
-
.72
.17
.12^
.^
.02
.49
J;BtU/lb
7,429
7,706
7,730
11,732
7,703
8,480
19,950
8,830
13,846
8,036
9,150
8,682
84(b)
742^)
(a) Ash, glass, metal.
(b) Btu in labels, coatings, and remains of contents of containers.
(c) Without nails, screws, etc.
(d) Vinyl chloride - vinyl acetate copolymer
(e) Mixed, from municipal refuse, contaminated with food waste.
The analyses are incomplete as to the chlorine content of the materials other than plas-
tics. Chlorides in wastes are a topic of increasing concern because of their harmful
effects after they become part of the combustion gases of incinerators.
The data in Tables 1 and 2 have been combined, simplified, and converted to an "as-fired"
basis to derive a composite analysis for packaging materials. For the composite analysis,
the weights of the ingredients were weighted by the percentages of the refuse components,
and added. Table 3 is the result.
183
-------
Table 3. Analysis of Packaging Waste, Weight percent.
Paper and paperboard
Plastics
Wood
Textiles
Miscellaneous
Glass
Metal
Weight,
percent H£0*
49.1 8.0
3.0
15.7
0.3
3.2
16.0
12.7
8
12
10
10
5
10
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
C
42
69
44
41
45
0
4
.3
.9 1
.0
.5
.0
.49
.1
H
5.6
1.3
5.6
5.8
6.8
0.63
0.56
0
40.5
4.3
36.15
37.7
34.0
0.32
3.85
N
0.14
-
0.25
2.0
0.14
0.03
0.05
S
0.14
-
0.10
0.2
0.08
0.00
0.01
Cl Inert
- 3
6.5
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 93
- 81
.32
-
.9
.8
.98
.53
.43
Btu/lb
7,551
15,770
7,783
7,232
8,728
80
**668
Combined analysis,
weighted
*Assumed moisture contents.
**0rganics only.
8.47 31.94 4.37 27.43 0.13 0.09 0.20 27.37 5,797
Heat from partial oxidation of metal 103
Total 5,900
The moisture content of the composite inert-free matter is 11.65 percent. The calorific
value of the dry organic matter is 9,035 Btu per pound. The calorific value will rise
as the proportion of plastics increases.
INCINERATION
Packaging wastes are said to be 13% of the Nation's total volume of solid wastes from
residential, commercial and industrial sources . The refuse received at many municipal
incinerators is probably 25 to 50% packaging wastes. Included are wrappings from pur-
chases, food cartons, corrugated boxes, glass and plastic bottles, steel and aluminum
cans, bags from fertilizer and seeds, string and tape, paper bags, plastic film cover-
ings, etc.
Because of its low moisture content and higher calorific value, packaging waste is a
desirable component of incinerator charges. Operators of municipal incinerator plants
depend on packaging wastes for the low moisture, high Btu components to assist in burning
the high moisture garbage and yard wastes. When associated with food waste, grass clip-
pings,and other sources of dampness, paper products may arrive at municipal incinerators
containing 14 to 38% moisture. Paper thus absorbs and distributes moisture, rendering
the mixture more uniform.
184
-------
Steel cans are also accepted willingly because they provide porosity of the fuel bed.
The steel oxidizes partly; the principal oxide formed is Fe^O,, the magnetic "mill
scale". Aerosol spray cans can be heard popping without causing damage of consequence to
the furnace, but operators must be on guard against flying objects when observing and
stoking the fires.
Aluminum cans melt at 1200° F; the molten metal either runs through the grates or cools
as pellets on the grates. In either case aluminum is not a serious nuisance in incinerators.
Glass bottles usually crack into shards from rapid and uneven heating in the incinerator
fire. Depending on the size of openings in the grate, the shards fall through and into
the ash pit without difficulty. Many shards that stay on the grate are kept below the
fusion range by the cool air entering through the grate. Glass that remains in the fire
becomes viscous and tacky, adhering to particles of ash and metal to form clinkers.
Some adherence to lower-wall refractories also occurs at the edges of the grate, a problem
that is controlled in large furnaces by cooling the walls below 1200° F. '
Plastics mixed with refuse in low percentages burn readily and aid combustion. Chlorinated
hydrocarbons burn less readily and produce hydrochloric acid (HC1) vapor . Packaging
wastes have almost negligible sulfur contents, only part of which is emitted as S02 and
(8)
SOo; the major part remains fixed with ash in some municipal incinerators1 '. Whether
this condition holds in other incinerators is uncertain. Incomplete combustion of carbon
and hydrogen, a problem with all fuel burning, is minimized by good incinerator design,
conservative ratings, and reasonable care in operation.
Except for heavy hardwood pallets, skids and wooden boxes above 36 inches, packaging
waste is acceptable at municipal incinerators and is charged into the furnaces without
size reduction by shredding or other means. Large pallets, wooden boxes and skids in
the original size are readily charged and burned in incinerators designed for bulky waste,
ln\
such as demolition lumber, trees, mattresses, furniture, and truck tires^ . When shredding
is practiced, as planned for some plants, these larger items will be reduced and burned
in combination with other wastes.
Packaging wastes are also burned in thousands of on-site incinerators of various sizes
in commercial and industrial establishments. Figure 1 illustrates a typical layout of an
incinerator in the 500 to 2000 Ib-per-hour size range, as manufactured in accordance with
standards of the Incinerator Institute of America . Manual charging of refuse and
removal of residue is common practice with incinerators of capacities up to a ton of refuse
an hour. Mechanical feeding, stoking and residue removal are typical in units over one
ton per hour, and are feasible in smaller installations.
185
-------
'NIW
2
<
(E
O
O
186
-------
Air supply is usually calculated at 15 pounds per 10,000 Btu available in the fuel, which
results in optimum furnace temperatures.
It may be of interest to know that 1,000 pounds of mixed packaging waste of the composite
analysis given in Table 3 will yield approximately the following products of incineration:
Dry flue gas 9,075 Ib.
Water vapor 590
Fly ash, 4.5 C + 4.5 ash 9
Residue 293
Total 9,967 Ib.
The dry flue gas may be expected to consist of:
C02 1,072 Ib.
so2, so3 i
CO 10
Hydrocarbons, as CH. 5
HC1 2
Organic acids, as CH3C02H 1
Aldehydes, as HCHO 1
NO, N02 1
02 1,127
N2 6.855
Total 9,075 Ib.
The average gas temperature leaving the secondary chamber would be 1680° F, assuming 10%
heat loss through the setting.
The fly ash carried out of the secondary chamber with the gases is a mixture of carbon
and ash, about 50% of each. The residue is largely glass and metal, with about 16.5
pounds of ash and 13.5 pounds of unburned carbon.
Combustion efficiency can be calculated by several methods. Based on the potential and
actual heat released from the organic matter, the completeness of combustion above is
92.6%. Most of the unburned carbon is in the residue, where it is of little or no conse-
quence as it is sterile and occupies practically no volume.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Minimal air pollution from incinerators is the result of 1) maximum combustion complete-
ness and 2) cleaning of the combustion gases to remove particulate matter and noxious
gases.
187
-------
To meet the requirements for air pollution control on-site incinerators are equipped
with auxiliary devices:
Gas burners to preheat the furnace and secondary chamber and to maintain temperatures
above 1400° F.
Overfire air blower and nozzles to provide oxygen and turbulence for complete combustion.
Flue gas scrubber for removal of fly ash and water-soluble acid gases, such as HC1,
S03 and S02<
Induced draft fan and dampers for flow control.
Timers, thermostats for combustion control and safety.
A gas temperature of 1500° F. or higher is advisable for the burning of smoke and com-
bustible gases. Usually 100% excess air is also necessary. To assure ample residence
time for burnout of the gases and the fine suspended particulate matter, the overall
hourly heat release rate should not exceed 12,000 Btu per cu. ft. of combustion space.
Depending on the amount of unburned gas and suspended particles that can be tolerated,
heat release rates up to 25,000 Btu per cu. ft-hr are used in incinators under 2,000
Ib per hr capacity.
Electrostatic precipitators of 98% and 99% efficiency are employed to remove particles of
ash and carbon from large European incinerators. Before the gases enter the precipitators
they are cooled below 600° F. by heat absorption in boilers or by water sprays. Similar
plants are under construction on this continent, and others are planned.
Cleaning of the gases by gas scrubbers, with water as the scrubbing medium, is the method
commonly used for on-site and municipal incinerators in the United States wherever strin-
gent regulations are in effect. For example, a dust loss from the 1,000 Ib. per hour
incinerator might be 1.5 pounds per 1,000 pounds of dry flue gas corrected to 50% excess
air, or 9.07 pounds per 1,000 Ibs. of waste. To reduce this dust loading to 0.2 grains
per standard cubic foot of dry gas (0.374 pounds per 1,000 pounds of corrected gas)
requires a scrubber efficiency of (1.5 - 0.374)/1.5 = 75%. The resultant dust emission
from the stack would be 2.26 pounds per hour, while efficiencies of over 90% are achieved
with scrubbers that cool the gases to saturation ( ^170° F.), the fan power and cost
increase rapidly with higher efficiency.
Hydrochloric acid, S02, S03> organic acids, and aldehydes in incinerator flue gas are
partly absorbed in the scrubber water. HC1 and SO^ are removed with high efficiency
through intimate contact with the water. The scrubber water becomes acidic despite the
presence of lime, magnesia, and alkaline ash components, which have a neutralizing
effect^ '. Fresh water is added continually to replace evaporated water and for the
overflow or run-off which carries the collected solids and gases. Where the run-off
188
-------
water is in great excess, the solids concentration and acidity are low. Where the con-
centration of suspended solids in the run-off is allowed to build up to about 2% of the
water, the acidity may be high enough to warrant the addition of soda ash, Na2CO,, for pH
control.
If the example incinerator were equipped with a gas scrubber operating at saturation
(170° F.), the water evaporated would be 6.67 gpm and the run-off water with its solids
and gas burden would be 1.0 gpm. The saturated gas causes a white vapor plume at the top
of the chimney. Gas washers that cool the gases to 300° or 400° F. evaporate less water
and the stack gases exhibit little or no vapor plume.
TRENDS AND PROBLEMS
Incinerator design has improved considerably during the last 15 years to meet the demands
for minimal air pollution. The cost of the installed equipment has also increased, due
mainly to the auxiliaries. However, the high cost of refuse haulage has favored the use
of on-site incinerators in commercial and industrial establishments. Municipal incinera-
tors for packaging wastes and general combustible refuse are being planned for many commun-
ities where landfill space for refuse burial is rapidly nearing depletion.
On-site incinerators for packaging waste, as generated by shopping areas, department
stores, commercial and industrial plants, perform best when the refuse is charged system-
atically, as in paper or plastic bags. Batch feeding of moderate charges at 15-minute
intervals is better than heavy charges at less frequent intervals.
Further development in the application of air controls and nozzles, auxiliary fuel burners,
temperature regulators and allied equipment will reduce the emission of smoke and unburned
combustible gases. Improvements are also possible in the sizing and design of secondary
combustion chambers to promote completion of combustion.
Management is gradually recognizing the necessity for training of incinerator operators,
and for assigning competent and interested personnel to the incinerator. Training
schools are conducted by air pollution control agencies and others.
Greater use of chlorinated plastics in packaging will increase the production of hydro-
chloric acid in combustion gases, and will increase the chloride content of the scrubber
water. Carbon steel and ordinary stainless steels used in scrubber construction are
attacked by HC1. Scrubbers lined with rubber, polyvinyl chloride, resist the attack.
Coatings on induced draft fan rotors are used for the same purpose. At the present time
the manufacturers of scrubbers are busily engaged in the evaluation of materials of con-
struction, as well as chemical treatment of scrubber water.
189
-------
It may be confidently expected that the manufacturers of incinerators, auxiliaries, and
gas cleaning equipment will meet the challenges imposed by the trends in refuse composition
and in air pollution control. The cost of incineration will increase somewhat as the
chlorine content of the waste increases and the regulation of air pollution control
becomes more stringent.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper is one of a series resulting from Public Health Service Research Grant UI 00523
on Continuous Incineration of Municipal Refuse from the Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
REFERENCES
1. Darnay, Arsen and Franklin, W.E. The Role of Packaging in Solid Waste Management
1966 to 1976. Publication SW - 5c of Public Health Service, DHEW, Bureau of Solid
Waste Management, Rockville, Md. pp. 102-3, 1969.
2. Kaiser, Elmer R. Chemical Analyses of Refuse Components. Proc. 1966 National
Incinerator Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 84-88.
3. Kaiser, E.R., Zeit, C.D. and McCaffery, J.B. Municipal Incinerator Refuse and
Residue. Proc. 1968 National Incinerator Conference. Amer. Soc. of Mech. Engrs.
pp. 142-153.
4. Kaiser, E.R. Refuse Composition and Flue - Gas Analyses from Municipal Incinerators.
Proc. 1964 National Incinerator Conference. Amer. Soc. of Mech. Engrs. pp. 35-51.
5. Kaiser, E.R. and Trautwein, W.B. Prevention of Fused Deposits on Incinerator Wa-ls.
Proc. 1968 National Incinerator Conference, Amer. Soc. of Mech. Engrs. pp. 136-141.
6. Carotti, Arrigo A. Air Borne Emissions from Municipal Incinerators. Report to
Public Health Service, Bureau of Solid Waste Management. Contracts PH 86-67-62 and
PH 86-68-121, 1969. Publication pending.
7. Fulmer, M. E. and Testin, R.F. Report on the Role of Plastics in Solid Waste.
Prepared for the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., 250 Park Ave., New York,
N.Y. 10017. 1968.
8. Kaiser, Elmer R. The Sulfur Balance of Incinerators. 01. APCA, Vol. 18, No. 3,
pp. 171-4, March 1968.
9. Kaiser, E.R. The Incineration of Bulky Refuse II. Proc. 1968 National Incinerator
Conference, Amer. Soc. of Mech. Engrs. pp. 129-135.
10. I.I.A. Incinerator Standards. Published by Incinerator Institute of America,
60 East 42nd St., New York, N.Y. 10017, November 1968.
11. Cross, F.L. and Ross, R.W. Effluent Water from Incinerator Flue-Gas Scrubbers.
1968 National Incinerator Conference, Amer. Soc. of Mech. Engrs. pp. 69-72.
190
-------
Future Research Needs and Goals
CHARLES R. GOERTH
Well, what comes next? We've spent the last two days exploring packaging's role in solid
waste management. We have gotten dramatic evidence of the severity of the problem it
represents. We have heard about the biases that those involved in various parts of the
problem show. We've probed strategies. We've explored the disposal characteristics of
packaging materials. We have heard how a packaging engineer looks at the matter. And how
other interested parties do, too.
At this point, as we wind up our session, I would like to offer 10 ideas on what the package
user can do about it all. I have listened to formal and informal discussions of needs and
goals. Before coming to San Francisco, I spent time over two months talking to package
users and package suppliers. I have formed some conclusions that make me modify the title
of my presentation somewhat. We have pretty well explored the needs. Goals are more
than just technical ones. That's why I think that my greatest contribution will be to pro-
vide some concrete ideas for the package user. For a variety of reasons that will appear
as I go over those ideas, I think the package user, the man responsible for developing
packages for his company's products, is the key man in the search for solutions to solid
waste problems. He's got a lot at stake.
I realize that many in the audience are not package users. I think, however, that these
ideas may be useful for the package supplier, for the community or higher-level government
official, and for the academician. They may be ideas that those individuals can pass on
to package users who are not here. They may be ideas which can influence research studies,
disposal methods, government action and policy, and teaching.
Before getting into those ideas, let me risk belaboring a point—that package disposability
is a serious matter. We've gotten a pretty good idea of the seriousness of it from intima-
tions about user taxes or charges and restrictions on certain types of containers or mater-
ials. But there is another factor: package disposability is a consumer protection matter.
That very articulate and influential consumer lady in Washington, Mrs. Virginia Knauer,
191
-------
lists package disposability as the number three packaging matter on her agenda. In an
interview I had with her, which will appear in the November issue of our magazine, she says
her first target in a study of packaging in consumer protection is the Fair Packaging and
Labeling Act of 1966. The second is packaging safety. And the third is package disposability.
There are four other reasons for a package-using company getting serious about package
disposability and solid waste management—four reasons that I don't think have been men-
tioned. They're important, in my opinion, because they have commercial, money-making value.
Some company top managements may be particularly public spirited in regard to solid waste
management problems. Others may simply be scared. But for sure every management will pay
attention if you suggest a money-making idea. Consider these ideas:
1. The company or several companies that first come out with materials,
containers, or features that aid in disposal or cut disposal cost can
get promotion and public relations advantage. That ought to get the
votes in the market place, at least, of conservationists and others
concerned with the quality of our environment. Reynolds Metals Co.
has gotten a good deal of favorable publicity nationally and in the
two cities where its redemption centers for aluminum cans are located.
The marketing manager of a company that is working on a method of recycling one of its
containers told me candidly in discussing the various benefits: "We are certainly aware
of how much attention and praise Reynolds got for its reclaiming ideas." I think this
company would be working on its recycling idea even if there were no such precedent. But
it adds a fillip.
2. Concern with disposability can give a company a competitive edge.
A pharmaceutical and medical-supply maker has a man on its technical
service staff whose job is to work with hospitals to advise on disposal
of disposable products and packaging. The company's marketing manager
asserts that this kind of sales service will become increasingly
important as there are more packaging materials involved, as is the
case with unit-dose packages, and as more and more medical products
become one-trippers.
The editor of our affiliated publication, PACK, in Sweden, whom I asked for a review of
the subject of package disposability prior to this meeting, told me of the food packager
there who was providing portion packaged meals to hospitals and other institutions. It
was debating about whether to use polystyrene or molded pulp. The decision was taken out
of its management's hands by a hospital-customer. It chose the molded pulp because "the
molded pulp trays are easier to dispose of by burning," says the editor.
192
-------
3. Developing a material that degrades or that degrades faster. Or
developing a package style that reduces bulk easily—could lead to a
patentable, licensable development. I thought of this as I read the
specifications of the British patent which Eastman Kodak Co. got of
a film composed of a copolymer of ethylene and carbon monoxide. The
film disintegrates upon exposure to ultraviolet light. Among the
applications described in the patent for the film are as a waterproof
coating for a steel can; exposure to sunlight removes the film and
allows the moisture in the atmosphere to attack the can. I asked
Eastman Kodak what it was doing with this, but the company wouldn't
talk. Maybe nothing. But this at least illustrates a patent in exist-
ence which conceivably is marketable.
4. Packaging engineers are playing a key role in one of the new-business
ventures of a big aerospace company. Like most of the aerospace firms,
it is searching for new ways to make money using its sophisticated
knowledge and facilities. The company has a team of specialists studying
solid waste management. The specific target, reports the man in charge,
is a process to segregate components of solid waste and convert them
into usable raw materials. Knowledge of packaging materials is a key
part of the study. I have a copy of a nine-point project description
which shows the thoroughness with which the team is pursuing the market
opportunity.
So much for more reasons to be interested in solid waste management and package disposability.
Now, specific things that package users can do, maybe should do:
1. Be honest. If you really hadn't thought about your role in solid waste
management before this meeting or before you saw the announcement and
decided to come--at least admit it to yourself. If your company's
management really couldn't care less, and tells you so in one way
or another, at least admit that to yourself. You don't have to broad-
cast it, of course. But don't delude yourself, else you won't be
able to cope with whatever develops fully and adequately. Rational-
ization can serve a purpose—as long as you at least know what you say
is rationalizing. Compromise is a reality that every one of us has
to face. The important thing is to recognize the nature and scope
of the compromise. The man who develops packages is beset by many
pressures—they are pressures of market demands, of economics, of
competition, of ignorance, of thoughtlessness. The pressures are
real and understandable. We all have them.
193
-------
I don't think anything is served by pretending that we've had matters of package dispos-
ability and solid waste management way up there on the corporate priority list—if we
really haven't. There's a good reason for not pretending: pretending shows. Usually
it succeeds just in embarrassing your friends and justifying your enemies' charges.
The whole matter of preserving our environment is so new as a clearly-necessary cause that
you can jump on the bandwagon and show interest and take action—and forget about what you
didn't do before.
Don't lose your sense of perspective and sense of humor in the face of criticism that often
seems illogical, emotional, and unreasonable. Don't be defensive. I don't think it's
necessary if you've got some tangible ideas of your own to talk about. Remember, your
critics may be right: something should be done about the mess. And maybe you have con-
tributed to it.
2. Be objective. Don't let your prejudices or biases keep you from
exploring thoroughly and conscientiously proposed remedies.
Just because you don't like the income tax or oppose big government, don't automatically
exclude the government as a force for solving solid waste problems. Can the federal govern-
ment alone apply a policy for coping with a problem which respects no state lines? Can it
alone or in cooperation with states or reaions serve as a funnel for information? Can it
be a stimulant for action with money and leadership? Is it possible that a law is necessary
to restrict packages of certain kinds or to establish certain disposability requirements?
Could legislation keep the company willing to take action from being at a disadvantage in
respect to an unwilling competitor?
Is your response to the idea of a user tax or charge on packages to pay for their disposal
a knee-jerk one? I don't want another cost? You say. How many of you users have calculated
the impact of the proposal of the New York group to put a levy on the packager of one cent
a pound of packaging material? I asked the packaging manager of a big home durable products
company. He did a calculation on corrugated alone. It would cost the company $6 million
a year.
Could the company pass that on to the buyer? At the rate of perhaps two or three cents a
shipping case, it seems like chickenfeed. But in the aggregate, the user charge would
amount to $6 million a year—just for corrugated. It would be even more difficult to pass
on 1/16 cent for a product in a folding carton.
But unless you've analyzed your situation you're not in a position to effectively argue or
oppose.
On the other hand you may well conclude that the added cost is peanuts compared to some
future alternative.
194
-------
3. Make disposability a package development factor. I know one packaging
development man who does. He's with a pharmaceutical company. It's
number 27 on his list. But he says it was not there last year. He
figures it'll start inching up in coming years. It'll never be number
one, but it'll be right up there.
Package disposability can also be a factor in the periodic reviews you conduct for existing
packages. Those reviews are typically value analyses for cost improvement. But perhaps
disposability could be incorporated into the review in the same way as in a new package
development.
There are problems. Maybe this next packaging research man has some company among members of
this audience. He wrote me recently: "We are ready to make waste one of the factors con-
sidered in package development. However, it is not the prime consideration. Frankly it has
little influence in decisions if its benefits are at the expense of product protection or
marketability."
Maybe the way to do it is to provide economic justification. Get a cost saving. Study total
costs. To make disposability a package development factor takes knowledge and information.
It means examining the long-range implications of any proposed package size, shape, or com-
position.
For example, the impact of unit-dose packaging. This is a small part of a segment of packag-
ing which in turn represents some variable figure according to whose estimate you use. But
as we have agreed, every little bit can hurt.
There is a relationship between the area of a package, the amount of product, and its per-
meability to gas and moisture. I recently studied some calculations of a package researcher
on moisture permeation of two packages—one a one-pound package of a powder drug and the other
a package containing a single dose of that drug. Both packages had the same thickness of
material. But the unit-dose would have required a package material seven times as thick as
the one-pound amount to give the same barrier protection. The solution in this case was a
new material for the unit-dose package.
I think previous speakers have demonstrated clearly the need to examine the disposal char-
acteristics of materials, especially as the materials become more complex.
I believe that disposability--for example, how well a material burns or what its BTU rating
is—will become part of the packaging material supplier's specification sheet. It will, for
sure, if package users demand this information. This is one way to start building up the
body of disposability data that other speakers have urged.
195
-------
Another kind of knowledge that package development people will have to have is about disposal
methods. That's going to mean learning what happens when materials are burned or are buried.
When was the last time, incidentally, you visited your community's dump, land fill, or incin-
erator?
When was the last time you visited your sanitation commissioner or director of solid waste
collection and disposal? Packaging people will have to get on a first-name basis with people
a decade ago, maybe a year ago, they would never have thought of.
You'll find yourself getting acquainted with others. Like polymer chemists at suppliers
and universities. And government officials, like at the Bureau of Solid Waste. I understood
Dr. Breidenbach to say that he'd like to talk to individual companies about research projects.
The key word is "information"--gotten from many sources. I think this makes necessary an
information center, for data on package disposability: for information on solid waste disposal
methods as they affect packaging. Can the Materials Disposal Research Council, which Mr.
Cheney of The Glass Container Manufacturers Institute heads, do this job? Providing informa-
tion is one of its declared objectives.
I can see this center providing two main services: current awareness and information re-
trieval. Current awareness could be like Dr. Li provides with the University of California's
Packaging Bulletin—for periodic reports on world packaging literature. Or more ambitiously,
a computer-prepared abstract and information service, based on a profile you establish for
your needs.
Such services exist, particularly in the aerospace and military fields. But I read recently
about such a service in operation as a commercial venture in New York. It provides financial
analysts and big investors with news about what is happening in fields of significance for
their clients or portfolios, respectively.
Such a package disposability information center could certainly be part of an overall solid
waste management information center.
A key fact in the entire matter of incorporating package disposability into your package
planning is the need to put it on a regular basis. Like everything that doesn't have a number
one priority or which nobody is pressing urgently, disposability will tend to fade away in
your thinking in the short run—unless you put a control on it. That means giving it a prior-
ity rating, making it a project, or assigning it to someone on a formal basis. That way
you'll be able to exercise the same kind of management control over it as over your other
responsibilities.
4. Think about product protection. General Electric Co. incorporates
the term "product protection" in the title of its top packaging man.
196
-------
Protecting the product is what packaging does. But packaging is not
the only way to protect a product. Thinking in broader terms like
product protection may open some vistas.
You heard Charlie Lincoln of Bell and Howell talk about looking at the product to see if it
could be strengthened, thus cutting down or eliminating packaging material.
The cargo container can sometimes reduce the amount or kind of packaging required for pro-
tection.
One packaging man told me—he's with a home appliance company—that he is deliberately trying
to take the appliances out of corrugated, shipping them in racks. He wants co cut costs.
That's the key thing. But he also wants to reduce the amount of packaging material that
somebody has to pay to remove someplace along the line.
A maker of television sets and home appliances is studying how the stores in different parts
of the country handle disposal of the package. Some dealers in certain areas deliver the
unit without a package because of the customer's problems of disposal. Others, though, try
to stress the "factory fresh" image, and insist on making delivery in the shipping case.
The aim of the packaging manager at the manufacturer is to determine if there are any patterns
which would allow him to dispense with packaging for certain shipments.
We heard a number of ways in which the amount of packaging material for a given product could
be reduced. Once again the amounts may seem a small impact on the total picture. But pre-
sumably small improvements in many areas could save substantial sums.
A new development in package design may significantly affect the amount of excess packaging
used for many products. That's the technique of fragility testing, which comes out of aero-
space. This is a method of determining how fragile a product is. Or, better stated, how
strong it really is. The technique makes use of a shock machine to impart a series of con-
trolled and measured impacts to an item.
By determining the levels of acceleration at which damage occurs, it is possible to tailor
cushioning more exactly to those requirements. That promises to take out some of the guess-
work that enters into package design which relies on laboratory simulation of field transport
environments.
I had a chance to talk to a market research man of a big supplier of paper packaging materials
earlier in this conference. He's here because of a concern about the impact of package
disposability actions on consumption of package materials. You can certainly understand why
he's worried about eliminating or reducing the amount of packaging material, say corrugated,
that's used.
197
-------
Well, I was interested in what he had to say. His main point is to view the prospect of a
reduced consumption of packaging material as just another of the overall trends that may
affect a business: like the use of plastics. He believes it impractical to try to block
such a trend—because that won't work. Better to recognize the existence of the trend,
assess its full impact, and try to cope with it—such as developing a material with better
disposal characteristics.
5. Look for reusability. The idea of returnable containers for containers
that have subsequent or secondary uses isn't new. Packagers have used
returnable containers either because they had no alternative (beer
and soft drink bottles before the non-returnables came on the scene)
or because of positive savings in packaging and handling.
One packaging manager states a goal: make sure every package for his industrial products
are good for one more use. That doesn't apply in all cases, but he maintains that there are
a half-a-dozen instances where it does. The growing adoption of vendor packaging specifica-
tions is leading to reuse and subsequent use of containers. Containers must increasingly be
adapted to a customer's material handling and assembly operations.
There are cogent drawbacks to reuse or subsequent or secondary use of containers:
* Buyers of soft-drinks and beer like throw-away bottles and cans. They even throw
away bottles they have paid deposits on. Attempts to limit non-returnable
beverage containers are likely to meet strong buyer resistance.
* Costs and other practical considerations. The cost of returning a reusable
container can eat up all the savings in packaging materials. A thorough cost
analysis is necessary. Controlling the whereabouts of the returnable containers
can be a particular headache to industrial packagers. A production packaging
operation can go down if the containers didn't find their way back from the
field.
* Subsequent or secondary use may just delay disposal. Schemes to turn metal
soft-drink cans into toys or household decorations have a gimmick's appeal.
But the number of cans used is massive and the durability of the toy or decora-
tion is short. A polystyrene box may last a summer as an ice chest for picnics,
but not much longer. And there is a limit to the number of drinking glasses-
out-of-jam jars that a household can hold.
But the packager who studies his product and the package, its distribution system, and its
ultimate use may come up with this kind of ideal situation: a maker of plumbing apparatus
used to use a foam cushioning material for a valve. When installed, it needed an insulating
cover. The packaging engineer for the company came up with a polyurethane shape which did
double duty—as package cushion—and as insulating cover during use.
198
-------
6. Explore salvage, recycling. Salvage can save a plant management
the money it costs to cart off its waste packaging materials while
reducing at the same time the burden on disposal systems. A growing
number of companies are assigning managers to full- or part-time
responsibility for squeezing the last bit of use out of waste.
Some large package-using companies have their own mills for reprocessing waste paper stock.
In some localities, depending on the availability of virgin material, packaging material
processing plants will pay for scrap. The idea of recovery of materials and recycling is
especially attractive to those concerned with conserving natural resources. Paper industry
people talk about the need to seek new sources of pulp in the next ten or so years to con-
serve wood resources. The aluminum and steel in soft-drink and beer cans discarded yearly
could keep metal-making furnaces going for awhile.
Some solid waste management thinkers seriously propose carting metal cans, say, out to a
desert where they'll last indefinitely. They could become a valuable materials stock pile
in case of a future shortage.
The limitation at this point in time to extensive salvage and recycling of packaging mater-
ials is economic. Simply put, it doesn't pay to segregate materials and then transport them
to points where it is efficient to reprocess. A shift in the economic balance could occur
under two circumstances: (1) an increase in the cost of virgin material because of growing
scarcity; and (2) improvements and methods of segregating, collecting, and reprocessing which
would lower the cost.
Tied in with the problem of segregating materials is the growing use of composite materials.
Plastic-coated paper, for example, cannot be reprocessed without treatment. It also con-
taminates waste paper without the coatings.
7. Probe package degradability. The idea of a package that disappears,
poof, as soon as it's discarded is especially attractive to the anti-
litter forces. The commonly-suggested approach is a container which,
when exposed to the elements, will vaporize or dissolve. There are
patents on materials that do this. The Bureau of Solid Wastes is
supporting a university research project aimed at developing a workable
dissolving bottle.
The trouble with degradable containers so far is fundamental: It's impossible to be sure
when the degradation will start. There's an inherent conflict in that packagers are typically
improving packages to make them impervious to the very conditions that are supposed to start
their destruction at a future point in time.
Edible packages, consisting of materials such as starch or hydroxypropyl cellulose, have been
proposed for foodstuffs. But here, too, the realities enter in: the effects of moisture on
199
-------
water-soluble materials.. .securing the barrier properties that may be required.. .and the
unwillingness of most people to consume an unfamiliar material, particularly one that's subject
to handling. So in that last case in particular you're back with an outer container anyway.
Here's the consensus of package users: it may be possible to come up with mechanisms that
will permit rapid disintegration of containers under given circumstances. But the technical
problems appear so great that the time and energy required would probably be better used in
other directions.
8. Use the computer. Packagers who have been studying package dispos-
ability are unanimous in urging the enlistment of the computer. They
cite these facts:
* Only the computer can store and make available the data on disposal character-
istics of packaging materials and the requirements of disposal methods. It'll
take that ability to make the rapid calculations and manipulate variables that
analysis of disposal relationships requires.
* Only the computer can perform the cost analyses that will be necessary to fully
assess the ramifications of a given package material trend. For example, what
effect will an x-percent increase in the use of polyvinyl chloride containers
have on incineration costs? (A combustion product, volatile hydrogen chloride
can corrode incinerator elements.) Another example: does a reuse or subsequent
use of a container really pay off?
* Only the computer could have done this job for a soft-drink company: it wanted
to find the impact over a ten-year period of its package planning. The packaging
manager, working with computer programmers, developed a mathematical model to
pin down package numbers, types, composition, and disposal characteristics,
including alternative package choices. It then related that information to the
disposal situations forecast for franchise communities over the ten-year period.
By determining the full impact of different types of packages under different
conditions, the company management believes that it will be able to make intelli-
gent decisions in light of solid waste management requirement.
9. Spark packaging groups. The two professional organizations—Packaging
Institute and Society of Packaging and Handling Engineers—have done
little. Packaging Institute now has an ad hoc committee studying the
problem. But it just started work this summer.
Only the Glass Containers Manufacturers Institute among supplier associations has come to
grips with packaging solid waste. It has an environmental pollution control laboratory,
which studies, among other things, packaging waste matters.
200
-------
Packagers I talked to on the subject of packaging waste criticized the professional groups
for failing to show leadership. Yet, when challenged, they admitted they hadn't proposed
any action or volunteered to head up committees.
Look for more pressure from members of these groups, particularly as their companies start
paying more attention to packaging solid waste. Here are the things packagers agree their
associations are best suited to do:
a. Supply technical expertise to the Federal Government, local communities,
and builders of solid waste collection and disposal equipment.
b. Conduct or support research in package disposability.
c. Stage conferences and seminars to acquaint members with the problems
and new developments.
d. Set up or participate in package disposability information services.
e. Represent a packaging point of view when legislation or restrictive
government action of any kind is being considered.
f. Shape public opinion. For example, through efforts to reduce littering.
10. Make involvement personal. Drop your role as a packaging man for a
moment and think of yourself as a citizen, if for no other reason than
the welfare of yourself and your family. You need to have a personal
involvement in your community's problems. And solid waste management
is a growing community problem.
Collection costs are rising, communities are running out of space to dump their trash, and
burning can contribute to air pollution woes. That much-sought-after dissolvable plastic
container could even wind up messing up a community's ground water supply.
So what do you do? You can offer your knowledge of one part of the problem to your commun-
ity's governing body. You may be able to provide information that will help in the selection
of a disposal method, for example.
You can provide a balance in discussions of what to do, like legislate against packaging,
tax it, or restrict it.
Such involvement by all those responsible for packaging products in the U.S.A. could, con-
ceivably, lead to improved solid waste management at less cost and, thus, lower taxes.
It could also give you some ideas for use back at the shop—by improved packaging at lower
cost.
201
-------
-------
Governmental Organization for
Regional Management of Wastes
RICHARD T. ANDERSON
At this point in the conference, after discussing the problems and perplexities of packaging
wastes for more than two days, perhaps a change of context will be refreshing. We have
heard that packaging wastes comprise a diverse and growing field, one that is closely tied
to consumer preferences, to advanced production technology; in short, to a more sophis-
ticated society. The problems are large, the solutions difficult.
Let me submit two dimensions to the discussion: First, packaging wastes comprise but one
form of solid wastes, which in many cases are physically or economically interrelated with
other solid forms or with liquid and gaseous forms. Public policy for waste management
should deal explicitly with these interrelationships. Second, the generation, handling,
and disposal of all forms of wastes is a critical regional problem, especially in our
largest urban areas. Solutions need to be found which deal with the problem on an inter-
related, regional basis.
These two dimensions are particularly relevant when we consider the expected surge in
urban growth over the next several decades. In the New York Region, for example, Regional
Plan Association foreseesa 50 percent population increase by the year 2000, a doubling of
per capita income, more than a doubling of motor vehicle miles travelled, and a fivefold
increase in electric power demand; and the New York area is growing substantially slower
than many other parts of the country.
2
The trends imply substantial increases in waste generation. In fact, in the New York Region
solid wastes requiring disposal could more than triple by the end of the century, if the
current increasing rate of generation continues unabated. Moreover, discharges of sulphur
dioxide, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, biochemical oxygen demand, and other wastes may
The views presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the
Association.
2
See Blair T. Bower, et al, Waste Management: Generation and Disposal of Solid, Liquid,
and Gaseous Wastes in the New York Region (New York: Regional Plan Association, 1968).
203
-------
increase significantly even as strenuous control efforts are undertaken. The pressures of
economic growth will be relentless, and they will be concentrated in a wider and wider belt
of urbanization as the spreading New York metropolis engulfs as much land in the next
thirty years as it has in the last 300. It will be a race for open lands; it also could
be a race against wastes.
Since the most regional thing about an urban region is its economy, when the market economy
is imperfect many problems arise. A classic imperfection lies in the use of the air, the
water, and the land. Costs and benefits of resource use are not well allocated by the
economy, because environmental quality problems are value laden and to a great extent lie
outside the market. The dumping of wastes into the environment may be a cost imposed by
one user on others who wish to use the environment for different purposes. These external
costs, or "externalities," are not taken into account in the decision to discharge wastes.
And there is no economic motive to eliminate the external effects.
Because of the presence of externalities, the need to supplement the market in matters of
environmental quality has been established. Methods have been crude and often hastily
imposed, but the rationale is clear: Environmental resources are collective goods and
not the special province of the few.
THE BASIC ISSUES
The question, "Where Do We Go From Here," to which this concluding session is addressed,
requires us to look at three basic issues in considering governmental organization for
regional waste management:
levels of_ envi ronmental quality -- How "clean" do we want the
air, water, and land to be in urban regions; for whom, where, and
when? What are the costs involved? Who should pay these costs?
How should environmental quality objectives be determined?
Undoubtedly, these questions are complex. Environmental "cleanliness" is substantially a
matter of individual preference, as is willingness to pay for improvements in environmental
quality. Yet we must find mechanisms for evaluating policy options and assessing public
demands for environmental improvement.
2. What management approach -- Environmental objectives can be approached
in many ways. The second key issue is what type of management system
could best achieve specified levels of quality for the least costs.
Good discussions of externalities are included in the following: Orris C. Herfindahl
and Allen V. Kneese, Quality of the Environment: An Economic Approach to Some Problems
in Using Land, Water and Air (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1965);
Allen V. Kneese and Blair T. Bower, Managing Water Quality: Economics, Technology,
Institutions (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968).
204
-------
Clearly, the current bag of measures needs rationalization. A panel
of the National Academy of Sciences recently put it this way: "Happy
diversity, local decision, and comparative permissiveness in pollution
control are not likely to be so characteristic of future efforts in
the field. A truism holds that we shall face a period requiring much
n
more sophisticated and intensive management of water and air resources."
3. What governmental framework -- The third issue in management of wastes
is how government should be organized in urban regions to implement
the best management approach. What are the respective roles -- both in
policy and operations -- of the federal government, the states, the
local governments, and the urban region itself? How public policies
are developed and government institutions are arranged will largely
determine the effectiveness of our efforts toward improving and main-
taining environmental quality. However, to use the words of a prominent
political scientist: "Present Governmental structure reflects a past
whose problems could be dealt with in limited areas and with limited
resources. The problems of environmental quality, except where approach-
ing the catastrophic, are poorly recognized in the conventional wisdom
and are ill adapted to receive appropriate recognition through the
existing structure of government, especially at state and local levels."
PREREQUISITES FOR INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
My remarks will be addressed primarily to the third issue -- governmental organization for
regional waste management. However, consideration must be given initially to the first two
issues: (1) what levels of environmental quality and (2) what management approach. These
considerations are prerequisites for institutional change.
The first prerequisite is that we clarify our environmental objectives. Even though this
is an extremely complicated facet of public policy, it needs to be undertaken before new
management systems and new public institutions are designed. Simply put, what are we trying
to achieve? To be against "pollution" is like being for motherhood. We must be much more
explicit. Four questions are involved:
1. What are the local effects of waste concentrations on people? Unknowns
fill this area, but the distribution of environmental exposure requires
serious study: Who's affected? What are the health implications and
the economic costs?
4
National Academy of Sciences—National Research Council, Committee on Pollution, Waste
Management and Control, A Report to the Federal Council for Science and Technology
(Washington, D.C.: NAS-NRC, 1966), p. 206.
Norton E. Long, "New Tasks for All Levels of Government," Henry Jarrett (ed.), Environ-
mental Quality in a Growing Economy (Baltimore: Resources for the Future, 1966), p. 141.
205
-------
2. How are benefits from improvements in environmental quality distributed?
Who gains how much from incremental rises in quality? For example,
cleaning up the lower Potomac and lower Hudson Rivers would directly
benefit two of the Nation's largest black communities, whose residents
now have limited recreation opportunities. Efforts of this magnitude
are very costly, but the need and the number of beneficiaries are large.
3. How are the costs of improvements in environmental quality distributed?
This involves who should pay how much and how this relates to current
notions of social equity. Given the distinctive presence of external-
ities, another question is how to place the costs on those who create
them.
4. How do environmental quality objectives and the costs of achieving them
measure up against other social objectives? Since public resources
obviously are limited, we must choose priorities, in effect, among
environmental improvements, better schools, decent housing, and many
other efforts.
Answers to these questions will not be easy to find. But they cannot be avoided. Even
though people perceive environmental problems differently, it is of highest importance
that public processes be responsive and equitable and have goals and guidelines stated as
clearly as possible. Our present shortcomings in this regard have been wisely stated by
Gilbert White: "Pollution or defacement of a physical landscape can only be measured
against human preferences. Human perception and preference are related to environment and
personality in ways which are not well explored. Much of the public discussion is masked
by a rough plaster of horseback judgments that hide the structure of action and opinion
formation."
The second prerequisite for institutional change is a thorough understanding of waste
management systems. Our experience in New York may be helpful.
Regional Plan Association is now completing the Second Regional Plan, a comprehensive
package of recommended development policies for the New York Region. Because the mainten-
ance and improvement of the Region's water, air, and land resources was a crucial element
of the Plan, the Association commissioned a study to determine whether the Region could
o
bear its contemplated growth without being overwhelmed by environmental pollution.
The four questions were outlined in discussions with Blair T. Bower, Associate Director,
Quality of the Environment Program, Resources for the Future.
Gilbert F. White, "Formation and Role of Public Attitudes," Henry Jarrett (ed.), Environ-
mental Quality in a Growing Economy (Baltimore: Resources for the Future, 1966), pp. 105-106.
Q
Blair T. Bower, et al, Waste Management: Generation and Disposal of Solid, Liquid, and
Gaseous Wastes in the New York Region (New York: Regional Plan Association, 1968).
206
-------
The major finding of the study was that the Region's present and future solid, liquid, and
gaseous wastes could be handled without environmental deterioration, provided these wastes
were disposed of or avoided as interrelated parts of a system of waste management.
This study did more than extend emerging ideas; it broke new ground, and it taught us
many things about the ill-defined field of pollution control.
One thing it taught us was that a waste management system includes much more than just
discharge controls. It consists of facilities for handling, treating, and disposing of
wastes; facilities for modifying the assimilative capacity of the environment; regulations
for modifying the generation as well as the discharge of wastes; and facilities and pro-
9
cedures for monitoring and data analysis.
Some management activities are best performed locally — solid waste collections, for
example — while others clearly are regional functions -- such as monitoring waste movements
or meteorological conditions. Significantly, the report gave special emphasis to the factors
affecting the generation and recycling of wastes; management steps which result in waste
avoidance may be least costly and most effective. For example, public action that would
stem the soaring generation rate of packaging wastes may reduce the need for costly incre-
ments to solid waste handling and disposal systems. Policy options of this kind are worthy
of much more serious consideration than they now receive.
A second thing we learned is that the waste management system has many functional inter-
relationships. One form of waste may be transformed into another form during handling or
disposal, depending on disposal technology, government regulations, or other factors. For
example, New York City passed a strong air pollution code in 1966 that required apartment
house owners to upgrade on-site incinerators or close them down. When many decided to close,
the City was ill-prepared to handle the increased volume of unburned trash. A well-
intentioned ordinance was invalidated until the City caught up with its own conflict. Now
an Environmental Protection Administration has been created, combining all environment-
related functions. This step is designed to avoid similar conflicts.
A third point we learned was the prevailing uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the
effects of waste concentrations on people and their environment and, also, the lack of
reliable data on the external costs incurred by waste discharges. To fill many of these
analytical gaps and permit a more rational management approach, a comprehensive procedure
for waste management analysis is required for urban regions. Among the issues that need
to be studied are: the health effects and economic costs of waste concentrations and the
capacity of the air, water, and land to absorb wastes in each part of the region before
environmental quality deteriorates.
9Ibid. , p. 23.
207
-------
CRITERIA FOR INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN
It is my contention that, if we begin to clarify our environmental objectives and move
toward an understanding of waste management systems, a clear responsibility will become
manifest for the urban region. This responsibility should be institutionalized and kept
separate from the roles of the federal, state, and local governments but be closely
intertwined with them. It will differ from region to region, from the uniqueness of the
San Francisco Bay Area to the uniqueness of the New York Region. However, the need for
a regional response to waste management problems will become urgently clear.
What form should this response take? Must it be a new regional agency? If so, what type?
Or could the state or federal governments provide regional mechanisms? No standard solutions
seem possible; but the following criteria for institutional design at the regional level,
hopefully, will provide some insights. The criteria discussed will be four: geographical
coverage, functional scope, operational authority and responsibility, and metropolitan
representation.
Geographical coverage, in concept, should be as broad as the regional needs to be met.
The idea of the "problem shed" has been offered to define the regional need for waste
management. It covers a region that is "big enough to internalize the externalities,"
or basically, the area broad enough to embrace all the interrelationships among those dis-
charging wastes and those affected by the discharges.
Consequently, the problem shed is a region that could include all persons using water or
discharging effluent in a river basin; or everyone living or discharging gaseous wastes
in an air basin; or the entire urban area in which solid wastes are generated, collected,
modified, and disposed of. Under such broad definition, the problem shed might extend
well beyond the economic extent of the urban region; but within the urban region, waste
management problems overlap and are most acute. It is this area where policy options should
be examined and area-wide management techniques applied. For the Bay Area, the problem
shed may approximate the nine-county jurisdiction of ABAG; the air quality regions de-
signated under the Air Quality Act of 1967 are problem sheds for air resources management;
and the Delaware River Basin Commission is an excellent example of a problem-shed organiza-
tion for water resources management.
However, where the various problem sheds for solid, liquid, and gaseous residual wastes
come together with the urban economic region is where some degree of centralized decision
making for environmental quality matters should occur. Just as transportation policies
should extend throughout an urban area, so also are metropolitan decisions critical to the
maintenance and improvement of the region's resources.
See, for example, Allen V. Kneese, "The 'Problem Shed' as a Unit for Environmental
Control," Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 16 (January, 1968), pp. 124-127.
208
-------
The second criterion, functional coverage, has already been alluded to. A strong case can
be made for comprehensive regional policies that embrace air and water pollution control
and solid waste management. Traditionally, the popular view has been of three separate
functions. But the critical interrelationships among the waste forms and with urban
development require an integrated governmental response. For example, high-level waste
treatment does not eliminate a waste material; it only changes its form. Where specialized
agencies now deal with three problems separately, the external effects created by each
need to be taken into account, as with solid waste incineration and air pollution.
Thus, urban areas should have an integrated, region-wide response to waste management. Most
critical are metropolitan goals and guidelines that give direction to the efforts of all
governmental levels. This is the minimum requirements. On the other hand, should waste
management be combined with other regional functions in a multi-purpose metropolitan
organization, such as that discussed so extensively for the Bay Area? This is a crucial
consideration, because it affects the agency's manner of political representation, its
method of financing, its authority and responsibility. More about this in the concluding
section.
The third criterion, operational authority and responsibility, brings us to the question
of how much should actually be done regionally, beyond policy direction. Some serious
studies of regional waste management have concluded that problem-shed agencies should
"have sufficient authority, responsibility, and resources for effective action, including
an integration of planning with operating activities." Such extensive authority would
include all relevant waste management activities -- research and planning, controls and
regulations, taxes and assessments, and the establishment and operation of treatment and
disposal facilities — to the extent that these measures are best performed regionally and
are the most efficient solution to the problem.
For the purpose of water resources management, the "Genossenschaften" of the Ruhr area of
Germany have operated for years with these kinds of powers and responsibilities; and in
this country, the Delaware River Basin Commission has extensive authority for a wide range
12
of water management activities.
Leading experts tell us that a host of waste management activities must be carried on in
urban areas, if we are to have a better environment. We must collect and analyze compre-
hensive data on a continuing basis; evaluate and apply many alternative management tech-
niques; utilize economies of scale in treatment and disposal practices; establish public
National Academy of Sciences—National Research Council, Committee on Pollution, Waste
Management and Control, A Report to the Federal Council for Science and Technology
(Washington, D.C.: NAS-NRC, 1966), Appendix 7, p. 225.
12
See Allen V. Kneese, "The Ruhr and the Delaware," Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers (October, 1966); also,
A. V. Kneese and B. T. Bower, Managing Water Quality: Economics, Technology, Institutions
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968), Chapters XI and XII.
2Q9
-------
consultation and review programs, and so much more. The importance of deciding which
governmental levels and agencies should do these things deserves high priority.
The fourth criterion is metropolitan representation. At issue are political accountability
and intergovernmental participation. If regional decisions are to be centralized for waste
management and regional policies established, who should make them? Elected or appointed
officials? Should they represent the state, the local governments, the federal government,
or the voters directly?
To the consternation of many political observers, government in metropolitan regions has
endured basically unchanged in spite of myriad changes in urban society. Somehow metro-
politan policy making and administration have been done in one way or another, either
unilaterally or more cooperatively, consciously or unconsciously. The versions number
as many as the nation's urban areas.
The point to be made is that many arrangements are possible for metropolitan representation,
including acceptance of the status quo, as well as establishment of a regional policy-
making agency. If a regional board or metropolitan legislature is established, for example,
it could be composed of gubernatorial appointees, representatives of constituent units,
directly-elected representatives, or some variation of these. The organizational form
may be a regional authority, perhaps a general-purpose metropolitan government, or a council
of governments. If the authority approach is used, it probably will be removed from public
attention and be less responsive to public pressures, here appointments may be preferable
to direct election. If a multi-purpose regional government is adopted, then direct election
of constituent legislators, identifiable and accountable to their districts, may be most
desirable.
Whatever form regional organizations take, representation will be a key issue. And the
type of representation will affect -- perhaps significantly -- the organization's policies.
REGIONAL POLICY CONSTRAINTS
This leads me to some concluding remarks. A pertinent consideration in regional organization
for waste management is what may be called "regional policy constraints." These are factors
which may influence or determine public policies, particularly from the standpoint of now
a regional organization is set up. Among the possible constraints are the form of metro-
politan representation, methods of agency financing, operational responsibilities, functions
performed, and the geographical area covered.
Analyses of metropolitan representation possibilities are found in Stanley Scott and
John C. Bo1lens, Governing a Metropolitan Region: The San Francisco Bay Area (Berkeley:
University of California, 1968); and Arthur W. Bromage, Political Representation in
Metropolitan Agencies (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1962).
210
-------
How might regional policy be influenced by these constraints? A major influence is how
the region's residents are represented. If constituent local governments are each rep-
resented, then parochial interests may take precedence over the regional viewpoint and the
areawide approach may fail. If gubernatorial appointments are used, regional or state-
wide viewpoints may tend to overlook local needs and wants. A prime necessity, therefore,
is to structure metropolitan representation so that policies reflect balanced deliberations.
A second policy constraint is agency financing. When a regional body has some form of
taxing power, it is likely to be more independent than if it can only issue revenue bonds.
Metropolitan agencies which rely solely on bonds have been strongly biased in favor of
self-supporting projects! Policies have been slanted, out of necessity, toward these
projects rather than other management alternatives.
Operational authority and responsibility offers another possible influence on regional
policies. A regional organization that is empowered to establish discharge controls but
not effluent charges or tax incentives will be constrained in the arsenal of alternatives
it can employ. In this situation, direct controls may not be the most efficient management
technique, but agency policies will be unable to consider other remedies.
Likewise, the functions performed by a regional organization will weigh on its policy
behavior -- perhaps beneficially for the region, perhaps not. An aggressive single-purpose
program of solid waste disposal, for example, may include a policy of more municipal
incinerators. Unless the regional agency also has responsibility for air resources manage-
ment or is regulated by another agency, air quality may suffer; more likely, waste manage-
ment efficiency may suffer.
The jurisdiction covered by an agency may condition policy in favor of solutions within
its designated area. Rail haul of solid wastes beyond an agency's boundaries may require
difficult extraterritorial negotiation; or effluent discharges outside its jurisdiction
may be legally beyond its control. This is why problem shed boundaries need to be drawn
wide enough to internalize the problem to the maximum extent possible.
In closing, only some of the possible constraints on regional policy for waste management
have been mentioned. Urban regions will differ on those that are most important, but all
regions face policy constraints that need to be overcome through effective regional organiza-
tions. This is imperative. Citizen demands for improved environmental quality continue
to face an added frustration — institutional inadequacies. Our actions have fallen way
short of the prevailing rhetoric.
211
-------
-------
Closing the Public Information Gap
DR. IRVING S. BENGELSDORF
I am very glad to be at the First National Conference on Packaging Wastes because from what
you have heard up to now, there are bound to be many more such conferences in the future.
I would like to comment on the many references that have been made to emotionalism. I think
emotionalism is very good because without emotional people around to prod us, we wouldn't
be holding a conference today.
It intrigues me that the technologists and engineers—the technical part of our society--
have been very quiet on most social problems we have to face. It had to take a Rachel Carson
to write about pesticides, not a chemist or entomologist; it had to take a lawyer, Ralph
Nader, to write about automotive safety, not an automotive engineer in Detroit. I, therefore,
suggest that you ought to get more active in what you have to say about some of these
solid waste disposal problems we are discussing at this meeting.
Society may not listen to the scientist or the engineer, but our environmental peril is too
great for either to remain quiet. Rachel Carson was wrong; it is not the Spring that is
silent. It is the scientists and engineers, the one element in our society that really
knows what is happening in the pollution of our environment. By and large, the silence
from our universities has been deafening.
Three men thinking they were late for a train, rushed to the railroad station only to find
out that the train had not arrived. To pass the time, they retired to the station bar for a
few martinis. Time passed and suddenly they heard the train outside and by the time they
maneuvered themselves out of the bar and paid their bill, the train was moving. So they
made a dash for the rear car, but only two of the three were successful and clambered aboard.
Alas, the third man was left standing dejected beside the empty tracks. As the train faded
into the distance, the stationmaster came out, put his arm around the sole survivor and
consoled him with "Awfully sorry you missed that train". The fellow, obviously upset, turned
to the stationmaster and blurted out, "You aren't half as sorry as I am, those two fellows
came down with me to see me off".
213
-------
Many of us feel as if we are in the shoes of the two nonintended passengers. We are riding
on a train on which we perhaps do not want to be. Science and technology are changing our
world so rapidly, one wonders if we can assimilate, if we can digest, if we can use properly
all of these diverse changes not only of the present but also those to be sprung upon us in
the near future.
We are living in an era of culture-shock, it seems that before we can adjust ourselves to
one development, we are battered further on all sides by new concepts, ideas and techniques
which often go against our most deeply engrained and cherished social positions. To return
to the train analogy, one could quote from Dr. Ralph Lapp's book, "The New Priesthood",
"No one—not even the most brilliant scientist alive today—really knows where science is
taking us. We are aboard a train which is gathering speed, racing down a track on which
there is an unknown number of switches leading to unknown destinations. No single scientist
is in the engine cab and there may be demons at the switch. Most of society is in the caboose
looking backward. At least the passengers can discuss the matter among themselves and attempt
to communicate with those up front."
It is the responsibility of the news media to provide the facts for the "passengers" of our
planetary "train", to enable them to hold discussions among themselves and to try to communi-
cate intelligently with "those up front". For, if we truly are a democracy, if the people
retain some choice as to the direction our society takes, then discussions on the impact of
science and technology upon society are of extreme importance. And it is up to the news
media to provide the scientific and technological facts which can serve as bases for discus-
sions among the public.
Part of the difficulty in the public's understanding of what science and technology are
doing to our environment lies in its confusion of not being able to distinguish the difference
between science and technology. And, unfortunately, the majority of those in charge of the
news media, being members of the lay public themselves, are subject to the same confusion.
A good deal of what passes as science in the news media—the manned-space program, the use
of computers, the removal of a president's gallstones—more properly belong in the realm of
technology.
Contrary to usual belief, science and technology are not the same. Science is interested
in but two questions: What is nature like? Why is it the way it is? Science seeks knowledge
as a matter of curiosity and understanding.
Technology, on the other hand, is interested in how to use the resources of nature more
effectively in order to satisfy the needs and desires of man. It seeks knowledge as a matter
of achieving a goal or a result.
Thus, although the public is told that the country now is spending about $24 billion per
year on research and development, most of the money is for development and very little for
214
-------
research. It is technology which is getting the lion's share of governmental, industrial,
and university financial support.
The origins of technology are shrouded in the dim mists of prehistoric time. The ancient
Sumerians of 50 centuries ago already knew how to make the metallic alloy we now call "ster-
ling silver".
So, technology preceded science. The Rev. Edmund Cartwright's steam-powered textile looms
were piling up bales of woven fabric in the factories of Manchester almost a quarter of a
century before John Dalton proposed that materials were made up of atoms. So, in contrast
to technology, science is a relatively recent newcomer to the human scene.
Galileo started it all by looking at the moon with a telescope in 1609—about 360 years ago.
The 3 1/2 centuries of science are short indeed compared to the 20 centuries of Christianity
or the 50 centuries of recorded history beginning with the early river-valley civilizations
along the Nile and Tigris-Euphrates.
Since World War II, in the last quarter-century, the pace of scientific discovery and tech-
nological development has speeded up enormously. The last years have witnessed an intimate
partnership between science and technology which has produced numerous technology-created
problems—global problems that now stare us straight in the face.
To properly appreciate these technology-created problems, let us take a quick look at the
uniqueness of our planetary home.
The year 1967 marked the tenth anniversary of the introduction of a new word into the English
language—"spootnyik". The word has a most interesting derivation. The root-part of spoot-
nyik is the word "poot" which means path, road, journey, etc. The prefix "s" is a Russian
preposition meaning "with". So, the combination "s" and "poot" means "journey with".
The suffix "nyik" indicates an agent—"one who does". It is equivalent to the English suf-
fixes "er" or "or" as in cutter, one who cuts; baker, one who bakes, etc. Thus, the pre-
fix "s" attached to the root word "poot", attached to the suffix "nyik" indicates "one who
journeys with".
So Spootnyik means "fellow traveler"—not in the political sense—but in the very real, actual
physical sense. A person accompanying you on a train or airplane trip is a "spootnyik". And
an artificially produced piece of electronic hardware launched into orbit accompanying Planet
Earth on its journey through space as a satellite, also is a spootnyik.
Now, Planet Earth itself is a spootnyik. We orbit around Mother Sun and accompany it on its
journey through space. Our planetary home, indeed, is a massive, almost spherical satellite
whizzing through space at a speed of 18.5 miles per second. We cover nearly 600 million
215
-------
miles each time we complete one eliptically shaped orbit around the sun, a length of time
we call a year.
We are completely unaware of this incredible yearly motion in orbit. The major clue is the
seasonal change: winter gives way to spring, spring to summer, summer to autumn and back to
winter as Earth's orbital motion repeats itself over and over again.
As a spootnyik, Earth's dimensions are impressive. Its circumference at the equator mea-
sures 24,902 miles and its mass is estimated at 6.6 sextillion tons—which is 6.6 followed by
21 zeroes!
But what is unique about earth is not that it is a sun-spootnyik, nor that it is massive or
large. After all, there are eight other planets, 32 moons, thousands of asteroids, hundreds
of comets and myriads of meteors also orbiting around the sun. So, being a sun-spootnyik is
not a rare phenomena.
Nor is earth's mass or size extraordinary. Planet Jupiter, which also is a spootnyik of the
sun, has 318 times the mass and 11 times the circumference of earth.
What does make the earth unique in the solar system is the presence of life. Anchored to the
land are about 500,000 different kinds of plants: oak trees, kelp, corn, buttercups, grass,
tobacco--and bacteria.
And flying through the air, swimming in the sea, and moving on land are about a million differ-
ent kinds of animals: robins and pythons, dolphins and elephants, frogs and spiders, roaches
and mice and man.
So all of us—every variety of plant and animal—are fellow passengers aboard a huge planetary
spaceship, Spaceship Earth. We owe our existence to the sun, as sunlight is responsible for
photosynthesis which causes green plants to grow. And we eat the green plants, or we feed
them to animals, and we eat the animals. The sun also liberates oxygen, giving us air to
breathe. The sun's energy also desalinates the ocean, changing salty water to fresh water.
Our food, our air, our water comes from the action of the sun. Due to our sun, our planetary
spaceship already comes equipped with the necessities of life, unlike artificial spootnyiks
launched by man that have to take food, water, air and energy sources along with them.
At this point in time--4.6 billion years ACSS (After the Creation of the Solar System)—there
are about 3.5 billion fellow human passengers aboard Spaceship Earth. And their number rapidly
is increasing.
Now it wasn't always so. From the beginning of man (whenever that was)it took until 1650
for Earth's population to reach one-half billion people. It wasn't until 1850 that Earth's
population reaches 1 billion. Then 80 years later, in 1930, the population reached two
216
-------
billion people, and only 30 years later, 1960, there were three billion humans living on the
crust of Spaceship Earth.
In 1969 there will be about 123 million babies born and about 53.5 million people will die—
a net increase for the year of about 70 million fellow spaceship passengers. This addition
of 70 million people in only one year, this year, is about equal to the combined number of
people who already live in Canada and Mexico. Such a yearly population increase is equivalent
to adding—every three years—as many people as now reside in the United States.
It is interesting that in the 22 years since India has claimed its independence from Britain,
it has added about 185 million people to its population—almost as many as reside in the U. S.
Just think of the problems we would have in America, a very highly developed country, if we
added or doubled our population in 22 years. Just imagine the problems the underdeveloped
Indians have.
For myself, who actively participated in World War II, it is difficult to realize that one
half of the population now living on the earth has been born since World War II! Even in the
United States, 31% of the population is under the age of 15.
The United Nations estimates that world population is growing at a rate of two percent per
year. It does not sound like very much, but, at this rate, the population will double in
about 35 years. So by the turn of the century, only 31 years from now, the number of people
will more than double to almost 7 billion.
Let me put it another way: between now and the year 2000, the number of people that we shall
add as new passengers aboard Spaceship Earth will be greater than the number who exist today.
B. J. Eastlund and W. C. Gough of the Atomic Energy Commission point out, "This period of
rapid growth and change is considered to be the most abnormal in human history. It represents
one of the greatest ecological and biological upheavals known in geological history."
(That's a real interdisciplinary statement.)
It must be emphasized that, as of today, all population estimates have been conservative--
all have erred on the low side. World population actually is growing faster than even the
most reckless and wildest suggestions have indicated it would. In 1954, the United Nations
predicted world population would reach 3.3 to 4 billion people in 1980. The world actually
reached 3.4 billion people in 1966, and that is a 20% increase over the estimate!
Some people still refer to the increase in the number of humans as the so-called population
explosion. So-called indeed! It is an explosion and I would like to remind you that Space-
ship Earth is a spcotnyik with finite dimensions and finite resources.
217
-------
How did this population explosion come about? The early 1940's marked the introduction of
two powerful antibiotics, penicillin and streptomycin and an insecticide with the name of
dichloro-diphenyl-trichloromethane or DDT, for short.
And since then the world has not been the same. For these, and related materials, have made
available to all people—from presidents and kings to peasants and aborigines—a control
over death and disease that previously was unheard of.
One ship anchored in the harbor of an underdeveloped country can carry enough antibiotics
and insecticides to drop the death-rate overnight to a level that took hundreds of years to
achieve in what are now the developed countries. Prior to World War II most of the world's
people had an expectation of life at birth no greater than that in Europe during the Middle
Ages.
The resulting drastic lowering of the death rate combined with a birth rate that was suitable
for an era in which potent antibiotics and insecticides did not exist, has resulted in the
population explosion and the specter of overpopulation.
The National Academy of Sciences has pointed out, "Either the birth rate of the world must
come down or the death rate must go back up."
Now everybody is in favor of death control--of saving lives. But, there is still lack of
agreement on birth control. And yet, some form of birth control certainly must come.
For science and technology can help to alleviate the physical problems of overpopulation—but
only up to a point. Modern technology can grow algae as food or provide protein from petrol-
eum. (Of course, the other guy will eat it. We like our beefsteaks.) It also can help us
provide more living space: we can colonize Antarctica and Mt. Everest or the ocean floor.
And it can provide almost unlimited amounts of energy from breeder nuclear fission or ther-
monuclear fusion reactors to support huge populations—30 billion people—ten times as many
as today.
but, no amount of technology can substitute for birth control. Dr. Dennis Gabor, the British
physicist, warns, "Though technology combined with overpopulation could abolish every trace
of adventure, freedom and dignity, it could not abolish the need for birth control. Ten
times more people can breed ten times faster. The techniques of birth control can be sup-
pressed only if one abolishes also the techniques of death control, medicine and hygiene."
And nobody is in favor of that. Even if this growing number of people were distributed evenly
across the face of our globe, there would be major problems. But they are not so distributed.
More than half of the world's people live in the five largest countries: China, India, Soviet
Union, United States and Pakistan.
218
-------
So, to those inhabitants who occupy those compartments of Spaceship Earth called "underdev-
eloped nations", the continuing increase in human numbers represents a precarious balance
between near-hunger and starvation, between poverty and extreme want. In general, those
countries with the most rapid population growth are least able to deal with it.
Roger Revelle, the Director of the Center for Population Studies, Harvard University, points
out, "Any increased production (food and goods) must be divided among ever larger numbers of
people and the standards of living remain nearly static. Men have to run faster and faster
just to stay where they are."
And so, overpopulation gives rise to two of the major problems facing our planet today: hunger
and famine, and the ever-widening economic gap that exists between underdeveloped nations
and rich developed nations.
I have insufficient time to dwell upon the many aspects of hunger and the ever-widening
economic gap. May I suggest that you read "The Next Ninety Years", a book that was published
by the California Institute of Technology.
But the problems of overpopulation are not limited to poor, underdeveloped countries. Con-
sider those compartments of Spaceship Earth known as rich and developed nations. All are
faced with ever increasing deterioration of the quality of life.
Roger Revelle adds, "We in the United States need to examine more closely the social and
economic cost of rising numbers of people in our own country. Increases in per capita cost
of pollution abatement, municipal water supplies, outdoor recreation, and urban transportation
are all consequences of our increasing numbers.
"Perhaps more serious is the decline in the quality of life: the crowding and dangers in
our parks; the fact that our water does not taste as good as it used to; that many of
our fellow citizens waste one or two hours per day driving to and from work under what can
only be described as miserable conditions."
And the situation is bound to get worse, for not only are populations increasing, but at
the same time these increased numbers of people all want to crowd into and concentrate in
cities. This will only intensify the already formidable problems of pollution, water supplies,
recreation and transportation.
The explosion in numbers of people gives rise to increasing technological demands: more food,
more water, more shelter, more transport, more manufactured goods, more electricity, more
services, etc. And all of these activities give rise to pollution.
If you think we are crowded now, just think of the year 2000, when the U.S. is estimated
to have a population of at least 300 million, a gain of 100 million as compared to the 1969
population.
219
-------
This means that in the next 30 years we shall add half again as many Americans as exist today.
Each year, for the next 30 years, we shall add 3.3 million people. That's equivalent to
adding a Detroit, Michigan, each year for the next 30 years. Each month, for the next 30
years, we shall add about 300,000 people. That's equivalent to adding a Dayton, Ohio, each
month for the next 30 years. Each week, we shall add about 72,000 people. That's equivalent
to adding a Schenectady, New York, each week for the next 30 years.
As a spaceship, Earth is a "closed space capsule". Essentially, only sunlight comes in.
Very little leaves—some heat, some gases. And so my first law of pollution follows from
this concept of Earth as a closed spaceship.
I call it the Law of the Conservation of Wastes: We do not get rid of anything, we merely
redistribute it. So when we say we get "rid" of wastes, what we really are doing is just
respreading the stuff here and there within our spaceship. It may be changed, but it stays
with us in our journey through space.
So, our spaceship is becoming more dirty and untidy with each passing day. No creature
has fouled its natural nest so extensively as has Man. And pollution not only perils man,
but also his fellow animals and plants aboard Spaceship Earth.
We now are all engaged in a massive pollution assault on the quality of our environment.
For we live in an "effluent" society. No matter what we do—drive our cars, wash our clothes,
mow our lawns, or merely exist—we continually discharge wastes into the air above us, the
waters around us and the land beneath us. Air pollution, water pollution and soil pollution
swiftly are eroding the quality of our natural surroundings.
But it is the problem of land pollution that really staggers the imagination. Each day, in
1969, each person in America has to get rid of 4.8 Ibs. of solid wastes—paper, grass and
brush cuttings, garbage, ashes, metals, glass and ceramics. This amounts to about 1,752
pounds per person per year, or 350 billion pounds of solid wastes annually for the country.
And it costs several billion dollars a year to both collect it and try to get rid of it.
It has been pointed out that this increase in solid waste accumulation is greater than the
population increase. Almost everything that people do increases at a faster rate than the
population: for example, our doubling time for electricity generation in this country now
is about nine years. Every nine years we double the electricity generation while the doubling
time for the population in the United States now is about seventy years.
Drs. Eastlund and Gough of the AEC point out that over the 35 year period from 1965 to the
year 2000, almost 10 billion tons of solid refuse will have been accumulated in the United
States. If this were all compacted and disposed of by sanitary land fill, it would require
burial to a depth greater than "10 feet in a land area the size of the State of Delaware. I
notice, however, that there are some people from the duPont Co. out in the audience. They
220
-------
might not like Delaware being used as a land fill, and so, let me give you another calcula-
tion. If a burial depth of 20 feet were used, the land area could be reduced to the size
of the State of Rhode Island. I don't think there is anybody in the audience from Rhode
Island, so I guess we can get by with that.
The point is that at a cost of $1 per cubic foot—which is the cost now in Los Angeles for
sanitary landfill—the total investment would be greater than half-a trillion dollars. So,
we may eventually turn up with national dumps just as we have national parks.
Paper cartons deteriorate with time, and steel cans eventually rust away. But aluminum cans
are longer-lived and plastic containers are nigh "eternal" in the pollution of our landscape.
Each year we must get rid of 25 million tons of scrap steel and iron, one-third of which is
due to old, derelict automobiles. Athelstan F. Spilhaus, at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science meeting held in New York City in 1967, suggested that all old auto-
mobile hulks be piled up in South Dakota and that the resultant peak be called the Alfred
P. Sloan Memorial Mountain.
Now, there is a very good reason why the U.S. is experiencing difficulties in solid waste
management. Americans constitute only &% of the world's population, but we consume about 50%
of the world's resources. One wonders how long such an aberration can continue.
As you know, Arsen Darnay and William E. Franklin, of the Midwest Research Institute, have
prepared a report for HEW entitled, "The Role of Packaging in Solid Waste Management,
1966-1976". The facts are grim, and they go to 1976, the 200th anniversary of our great
country.
And so, as part of the numerous celebrations to be held, I also propose that we celebrate a
Bicentennial Solid Waste Collection Week. If nothing else, it may point out to us that the
ancient techniques of solid waste disposal as practiced by about 4 million rural Americans in
1776 are no longer applicable to the more than 200 million Americans in 1976, all crammed
into urban centers and reveling in an orgy of conveniently disposable packaging.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to find suitable ways of disposing of waste without
creating some new environmental problems.
For example, burning trash takes care of solid waste, but at the expense of polluting the
atmosphere.
What to do? I have heard of one extremely imaginative approach. It is a vision, but being
trained as a scientist I am very charitable to imaginative approaches. Not necessarily science
fiction, but soundly based imaginative approaches. Consider desalination. Most people when
they think of desalination think of multi-flash evaporators—huge units operating somewhere
along the coast. I like the idea put forth by scientists at the Scripps Institute of Ocean-
221
-------
ography. They want to go down to the Antarctic, chop off a huge iceberg, and haul it up to
Southern California. About half of the iceberg would melt in transit, but that which would
be left would produce enough fresh water for Los Angeles to compete commercially with desalina-
tion by heat. Now there is a very imaginative idea!
The visionary ideas about how to dispose of wastes and recycle them to new product use has
been proposed by Bernard J. Eastlund and William C. Gough of the AEC. It is called the "fusion
torch".
It works like this. Everything on earth is made up of atoms. Each variety of atom—there
are 104 different varieties now known—consists of two parts: a central nucleus surrounded
by an outer shell of electrons.
The number of electrons that surrounds an atomic nucleus is specific and depends upon the
variety of atom. Thus, all lithium atoms have 3 electrons; all iron atoms have 26 electrons;
all gold atoms have 79 electrons; and all uranium atoms have 92 electrons.
If one heats an atom to very high temperatures, one can "boil off" some of the electrons
surrounding its nucleus. The atomic nucleus is then left with fewer electrons surrounding it
than it had before the atom was heated. Such a nucleus, with fewer electrons than normal, is
called an ion. So, heating atoms to very high temperatures converts them to ions by stripping
away some of the outer electrons.
Thus, if you take a bulk sample of any material that contains trillions and trillions of
atoms and heat it to very high temperatures, it will change into a mixture of ions and free
electrons—the latter having been stripped away from the atoms.
Such a "salad" of ions and electrons is called a plasma.
In stars, the nuclei of certain atoms are combined or fused to give off large amounts of
energy. Since such nuclear fusion takes place at extremely high temperatures—hundreds of
millions of degrees—this process is called thermonuclear fusion. Obviously, at these ex-
treme temperatures, all material present in a thermonuclear fusion reactors, such as a
star, is present in a plasma—a mixture of ions and electrons.
At present, man has learned how to carry out uncontrolled thermonuclear fusion (H-bombs).
But, in the near future, some scientific or engineering Prometheus will figure out how to
ignite stellar thermonuclear fires right here on earth. He will usher in controlled thermo-
nuclear fusion reactors producing unlimited amounts of energy for a potential Golden Age
-of Man.
Nor is this all. Once we have ultra-high temperature plasmas from thermonuclear fusion re-
actors, we can use these plasma as a "fusion torch" to heat and convert other materials into
222
-------
plasmas. Thus, one could take solid wastes—paper, grass, leather, rubber, plastic, garbage,
metals, glass and ceramics—and heat them with the fusion plasma to convert them, in turn,
into a plasma.
This is important because there are techniques available that can take a plasma and separate
it into the individual varieties of ions, and, therefore, into the individual varieties of
atoms of which it is composed.
The fusion torch could be the ultimate answer to solid waste disposal and reuse. After we
would get through using something—paper cartons, automobile hulks, aluminum beer cans—just
collect them and place them in a fusion torch so that they could be reduced to their basic
atoms which then could be separated into individual atomic varieties. Thus, the fusion torch
would continuously regenerate raw materials for the manufacture of new products from waste
products.
Or, by placing the proper material inside a fusion torch, one could convert the energy within
the plasma into strong radiation such as ultraviolet rays—to heat seawater for desalination,
sterilize human and animal wastes, etc.
So, the fusion torch simultaneously could dispose of our wastes, continually renew our raw
materials including water, and generate electrical power. Or as the two conceivers of the
fusion torch concept conclude, "Not much imaginative thought has gone into taking full ad-
vantage of the unique properties of fusion plasmas that will be available in the future from
controlled thermonuclear energy sources.
"While not attempting to mim'mi/e the large amounts of research needed both on fusion itself
and on fusion torch physics, it is interesting to speculate on the vision this concept provides
of the future—large cities operated electrically by clean, safe fusion reactors that elim-
inate the city's waste products and generate the city's raw materials.
"The vision is there, its attainment does not appear to be blocked by nature. Its achieve-
ment will depend on the will and desire of men to see that it is brought about."
While we wait for the fusion torch vision to bacome a reality, we can ask what is the respon-
sibility of the news media with respect to the deterioration of the quality of our environ-
ment—air, sea and land pollution.
The greatest public service the news media can perform is to point out and hammer away at the
theme that we do indeed live in one world. And it is a small and interrelated and inter-
dependent world. All 3.5 billion of us are in the same spaceship.
And there is no place to hide. A mine once could dispose of its waste as a small mountain
at its back door and nobody would know about it except the local citizens. Now a photographer
223
-------
from Life Magazine flies over in a helicopter and the fact that you have dumped mountains of
waste on the land is known to everyone throughout the nation. And communication satellites
in orbit 22,300 miles above earth beam this news to Albanians, Indians and Japanese.
Whether one likes it or not, modern communication and mass-media have shrunk our planet
to the provincial goldfish bowl. The news media must emphasize that pollution respects no
municipal, county, state or international boundaries.
There is no local ordinance that the City of Pasadena could pass to prevent the smog generat-
ed in Los Angeles from pouring into its jurisdictional territory.
Who would have thought that men driving to work in Los Angeles from the outlying districts
of Santa Monica, San Pedro or Van Nuys would result in severe eye irritation to residents of
Pasadena and Azusa, or the mottling and stippling of the leaves in the vineyards of Cucamonga,
or the complete loss of the ability to grow spinach and other broad-leaf crops in the Los
Angeles basin?
When a farmer in Central California sprays his crop with pesticides or a sanitation officer
sprays a malarial swamp in Ceylon, they somehow may affect the amount of pesticide stored
in the livers of Snowy Owls in the Arctic, penguins in the Antarctic, and you and me and people
everywhere.
The use of DDT is a prime example of man's incredible ability to alter his environment.
Unknown 25 years ago, except as a notation in a chemical handbook, DDT has now infiltrated
arid contaminated every area on earth.
The Western Packaging Association and similar groups throughout the nation may wish to consider
the appointment of a committee to keep news-media actively informed of the objective factual
events concerning solid wastes management.
And I suggest that copies of the proceedings of this symposium should be sent to the editors
of all major newspapers throughout the United States and the world.
One other suggestion. It is interesting that you all call yourselves free enterprise and
you don't want government interference as you spew out billions and billions of containers
and packages. But when it comes to getting rid of the containers, you want the government
to step in and do the research. Why don't you all band together and form an industry research
group where each company will contribute according to what they gross in annual sales, and
have some sort of central research group which could then carry out whatever research you
think is necessary. It is becoming more and more evident that modern technology as used by
society permits us to alter our environment on a vast local, national, statewide and community
scale. And the changes brought about often are subtle, low-level, chronic situations.
224
-------
Unfortunately, we often know little of the consequences of such alterations. One may find
just as many experts to testify that these low-level pollutions are innocuous as there are
experts who insist they are injurious. The news-media will need all the help it can get to
present the pertinent facts.
The great lesson to be learned is: the problems created by technology cannot be solved by
technology alone. The potential threats of automation and leisure, thermonuclear warfare,
and overpopulation, as well as the actual smog problems of Southern California, the water
pollution of the Hudson and Potomac Rivers, the radioactive fallout pollution of the whole
globe, are but consequences of political, military, social and economic considerations.
They may be technological in origin but their solution lies elsewhere.
The environment has been defined as "the sum of all social, biological, physical and chemical
factors which composes the surroundings of man." There is only one Spaceship Earth, only
one environment. The maintenance of its quality is a trust for us, both for ourselves and
for the generations to follow.
Or, I particularly like the concluding statement made by Mr. Lincoln yesterday when he pointed
out that we ought to stop treating our planetary home as if we had a spare earth in our trunk.
There is no other Earth, and if you will look around very closely, there isn't even a trunk.
225
-------
-------
Wrapping it up!
FRANK STEAD
As we have proceeded through these 2 1/2 days, I have been unable to escape the conviction
that what we have been doing is witnessing a theatrical production. It is as though a
previously undiscovered play by Shakespeare has now been found and with a modern cast its
premiere has taken place here; and we have watched this ancient and yet modern (as all
Shakespeare's plays were) drama of man unfold.
We started with the prologue, and in the prologue a small city in the mythical country of
U.S.A. in the year 969; the citizens of this small city had for weeks witnessed placards
spread around announcing that that city now had a unique prize; an animal with character-
istics never before seen; a secret weapon that gave this town unsurmountable advantage over
its competitors. The name of this animal was "package". And as the prologue developed,
two heralds came on the scene to describe this animal. And the first herald, whose name was
Cutwater, described the anatomy of this animal -- its majestic stature, its miraculous qual-
ities of growth, and its strange aberation of four heads. And the second herald called
Darnay described the marvelous performing ability of this animal -- the burdens it could
carry and the services that it could render to this city.
Scene 2 took place with a shift to the grand banquet hall, and now on the stage appeared a
prophet; a prophet in the classical long robe, flowing hair and long beard, with staff,
with piercing eyes, with stentorian voice; and this prophet, whose name was Reuss, said that
this animal was a dragon, and warned, "He can destroy your land!"
Great consternation ensued, and as Scene 3 opened with a return to the town square, we saw
the city folks milling around asking each other in incredulity, "Can we indeed have in our
midst a dragon?" Then in a clearing in the midst of this square there appeared five masked
figures, and a strange dialogue took place; the first figure wore the mask of a herdsman;
his name was Edgar. He said, "I found this animal, this animal is the friend of man," and
he sang its praises. The next masked figure was the innkeeper, and his name was Wodicka;
227
-------
and he said, "I could not run my inn, did not this animal carry my goods across the plains
and the mountains and the burning sands arriving at my inn with quality unspoiled." The
third masked figure was the stableman and his name was Stefanelli. He said, "I take care of
this animal and I don't know what he eats, but my God, the manure that he produces is ridi-
culous!" The fourth masked figure, tall and stately, wore the mask of the burgermeister,
and his name was Marius. He said, "I have long suspected that this animal was a dragon
because once in the dark of night, passing his stable, I saw flames emerge from his four
heads." And finally, the fifth masked figure, a rustic character in the dress of a pilgrim,
said, "Where I came from everybody knows a dragon when he sees one." But he spoke in a
strange dialect and those who heard him preferred to believe they had not understood him
right.
Act II starts on the second day, the scene again is in the city square, and there appears
upon the scene a seer of the ancient clan of McGauhey and this seer says in prophetic and
almost allegorical terms, "If you want to chain this dragon, there are three chains and three
only that you can use. The first chain is the law of nature, inviolable and indisputable;
and the second chain is the polarization of the people demanding action but walking a tight-
rope between two opposing views; and the third chain is the magic of technology."
The people suddenly decided they must examine this dragon more closely and they sent four
of their brave members forth, one to examine each head; and the man that examined the head
named paper was called Provo. The second citizen, named Gotsch, examined that head known
as metal. The third, Tom Becnel, closely examined the plastic head; and finally the fourth
citizen, named Owens, examined the head of glass. And these men reported back to the citi-
zenry, "These heads are fascinating! We must study these heads, there is much to be learned."
And forth came then a man who said, "I am a dragon tamer of sorts. My name is Lincoln. We
can live with this dragon, we can train him and domesticate him to our needs."
Suddenly, the scene shifted back again to the great banquet hall and on the stage again
appeared the prophet, this time in the guise of a young black-haired man, formerly from
their town, whose name was "Pete", and who with sheer sparks of fire flashing from his eyes
said, "This time and this time only do I warn you. I told you yesterday and you chose not
to hear. Now I bring a mandate from the King, the 'sovereign' himself. And this mandate
is that the dragon must be captured and defanged."
As Scene 3 of Act II opens again in the city square, we see a great bustle and realize that
the town is in the act of raising an army to capture and defang the dragon. First to be heard
from is the chronicler of earlier wars, whose name was Breidenbach. Then on the stage ap-
peared a field commander, experienced in previous wars; his name, interestingly, was Gunn.
And he described the safe, solid, established strategy which had won in previous wars. But
then up came an eager young soldier whose name was Gillespie. He said, "We must mount
artillery charges to the right and to the left and down the middle", and his enthusiasm
was contageous.
228
-------
The script called for a man named Fox to appear and give the sovereign's specific orders for
the battle, but his horse had broken down and he didn't make his initial performance. The
last person to be heard from as the army was mobilized was a professional tactician by the
name of Schutz, who explained how easily men could be overcome if one understood what made
them tick.
Act III began on this, the third day, and can you not feel the excited, rising pitch of
feelings as we now come to the final closing chapter of this gripping drama? Scene I saw
this town preparing for battle and forward came three men to report on new weapons. The
first said, and his name was Hulbert, "I have a weapon never before conceived in the mind of
man, I have a food for the dragon that will cause three of his heads to melt off." In the
distance, slowly emerging were the dim outlines of the seer, who said, "Let not his venom
be spread over the entire land". The second expert, whose name was Kaiser, said, "Fight the
dragon with fire. Dragon fighting is a kind of a messy business, but let's not be squeamish
about this. Let's not be deterred by nostalgic cliches and emotional wishes. Any problems
that result from fighting the dragon with fire can quickly be sluiced away." And finally
the third weaponry expert said, "There are no really new weapons, the weapon that is most
effective is common sense, the old tried-and-true principles", and his name was Goerth.
Then came the joint chief-of-staff who bore the title of Anderson, and he unveiled the battle
plan: a new goal and a new strategy--impressive, both. And finally, although it hardly
seemed to be necessay, the people said, "Let us hear from the courier on the battle field,"
fully expecting this courier to say that "Carrier pigeons must be replaced by a more modern
means to transmit battle information from the generals in the rear to the fighting men in the
front." But this courier, whose name was Bengelsdorf, surprised them. He told them, "This
is not the Crimean War. The very essence of war, nay, the very concept of winning, has got
to be thought through anew."
And so five minutes ago, as this theatrical production reached this high pitch, we braced
ourselves for the great battle scene, but the curtains came down, and we realized that a part
of this Shakespearean manuscript had not been found. A great wave of disappointment came
ove.r us, but as we gradually began to collect ourselves and get ready to go back into the
real world, with almost a chill we realized that this was not a play at all.
The closing scene j[s_ about to begin, and in real life. A great battle js^ about to be joined,
and we are on the stage. We are indeed on the brink of a great war. And it is the bloodiest
of all kinds of wars because it is a civil war; between two principles, each highly cherished
by the people. In contest here are our highly cherished ideals of the great productivity of
America and the environmental quality of this great heritage, and we realize with consterna-
tion and almost dismay that it is too late to pass this off as merely the ancient contest
between private enterprise and the regulatory arms of government. A "sovereign", indeed, the
sovereign people, has delivered the ultimatum: this war will not be compromised; primacy
shall go to environmental quality, and the struggle will not be over until that goal is
achieved clean and clear. As a first step, and on a crash basis, we must design a valid
229
-------
system of management of the resources of this earth and that valid system has certain criteria
it must meet. It shall not be a slow environmental retreat; it shall be based upon a steady-
state environmental equilibrium which can go on for hundreds, nay thousands, of years. This
new strategy, this new grand design, must be forged, and forged under great pressure. And
then it must be driven sure and certain into immediate implementation.
And so we leave, you and I, and as we leave we must carry with us burning in our consciences,
two pressing questions. Who are the architects of this new plan, and what are the forces
that sure and certain will drive it into existence next year?
Thank you.
230
-------
APPENDIX I
Program
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1969
9:15 a.m. Opening Remarks. Dr. George F. Stewart, Chairman, Program Committee, University
of California, Davis.
Address of Welcome. The Honorable Joseph Alioto, Mayor, City of San Francisco.
FIRST SESS10M: "Valuing and Understanding the. Pwblejn"
Chairman: Dr. E. M. Mrak, Chancellor Emeritus, University of California, Davis.
9:50 a.m. Packaging--U.S.A. Eric B. Cutwater, Foundation for Conservation of Our Environ-
ment, New York City.
11:00 a.m. The Changing Dimensions of Packaging Wastes. Arsen Darnay, Jr., Midwest
Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
12:50 p.m. Special luncheon speaker. Honorable Henry S. Reuss, (5th Dist. of Wisconsin)
U.S. House of Representatives.
SECOND SESSION: "VtfaninQ and Understanding the. ?fwblem"—(cjontlnu.id}
Chairman: Leo Weaver, American Public Works Association, Washington, D.C.
2:30 p.m. Natural Biases Toward Packages and Packaging Wastes Problems—A panel discussion.
a. The packaging supplier views the solid waste problem
C. Soutter Edgar, International Paper Company, New York City.
b. From the package user industry
Dr. Virgil 0. Wodicka, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Fullerton, California.
c. From the municipal wastes management
Leonard Stefanelli, Sunset Scavenger Company, San Francisco.
d. From the public official
Honorable Hugh Marius, Sanitation Department, New York City.
e. From the concerned citizen
Alfred Heller, California Tomorrow, San Francisco.
231
-------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1969
THIRD SESSION: "Searching fan. Solution*"
Chairman: Dr. Ray B. Krone, University of California, Davis.
9:00 a.m. Developing Strategies for Packaging Wastes Management. Prof. P. H. McGauhey,
University of California, Berkeley.
10:00 a.m. Technical Problems and Possible Answers—A panel discussion.
a. Wastes from paper and paperboard packages
G. Keith Provo, Crown Zellerbach Corporation, San Francisco.
b. Wastes from metal packages
Dr. L. P. Gotsch, American Can Company, Princeton, New Jersey.
c. Wastes from plastic packages
Thomas Becnel, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan.
d. Wastes from glass packages
E. R. Owens, Owens-Illinois, San Francisco.
e. How the package engineer looks at the problem
Charles W. Lincoln, Bell and Howell, Chicago, Illinois.
12:50 p.m. Special luncheon speaker. Honorable Paul N. McCloskey, Jr., (llth Dist. of
California) U.S. House of Representatives
FOURTH SESSION: "Secw.clu.nfl £0*. Solution*"--(cantinuzd)
Chairman: Dr. Samuel Hart, University of California, Davis.
2:30 p.m. Motivating Ourselves for Action
a. Role of federal government in motivating improved wastes management
Richard Vaughan, U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
(presented by Dr. Andrew W. Breidenbach, Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
Rockville, Maryland.)
b. Through publicity and a conscientious package design community
William N. Gunn, Package Design Council, New York City.
c. By organized citizenry
Norvell Gillespie, Anti-Litter League, San Francisco.
232
-------
d. By public policy - law and administration
Irving K. Fox, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
e. Motivating the public
Dr. H. E. Schutz, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Fullerton, California.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1969
FIFTH SESSION: "\ilkeAi Vo We Go flam HOA
-------
-------
APPENDIX II
Registration List
Jerome L. Ablon
Standard Packaging Corp.
2401 Morris Avenue
Union, N. J. 07083
John H. Abrahams, Jr.
Glass Cont. Manufgrs. Inst.
1511 K Street
Washington, D. C. 20005
D. Albert
Dry Bulk Engineers
P. 0. Box 10111
Oakland, Calif. 94610
Leonard S. Alexander
Anderson Brs. Manufacturing
1303 Samuel son Road
Rockford, 111. 61101
Honorable Joseph Alioto
Mayor, City of San Francisco
City Hall
San Francisco, California
C. H. Allen
Battelle Northwest
1705 Road 76
Pasco, Wash.
Nelson Allen
DuPont, Film Dept.
Nemours - 9519
Wilmington, Del a. 19898
William M. Allin
Paperboard Packaging Council
1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Samuel R. Allison
City of Roseville
316 Vernon Street
Roseville, Calif. 95678
William H. Anderman
El Dorado County
931 Spring Street
Placerville, Calif.
Richard T. Anderson
Regional Plan Assoc.
230 West 41st Street
New York, N. Y. 10036
John H. Andrews
General Motors Corp.
GM Technical Center
Warren, Mich. 48066
Andrew Ariey
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
245 Market Street
San Francisco, Calif.
James L. Armentrout
Pharmaseal Laboratories
1015 Grandview Ave.
Glendale, Calif.
Dr. Edwin Arnold
St. Regis Paper Company
West Nyack Road
West Nyack, N. Y. 10994
Paul Auster
E. C. Cosley Co.
1186 Folsom Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94105
Charles Barker
Mead Packaging Co.
950 W. Marietta St. , N.W.
Atlanta, Ga. 30302
R. 0. Bathiany
Weyerhaeuser Company
Technical Center
Longview, Wash. ^8632
A. C. Beardsell
Packaging Foundation, Inc.
2217 Beechmont Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45230
H. Nelson Beeudet
Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.
1404 4th Street
Berkeley, Calif. 94710
Jack Becker
Kennedy Engineers
657 Howard Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94105
Thomas B. Becnel
Dow Chemical Company
Environmental Control Systems
Midland, Michigan
Dr. Ronald L. Bedard
Crown Zellerbach Corp.
2199 Williams Street
San Leandro, Calif. 94577
B. S. Beharry
Canadian Pacific Railway
Windsor Station
Montreal 101, Qu., Canada
David W. Beier
Ex-Cell-0 Corp.
P. 0. Box 386
Detroit, Mich. 48232
Emmett W. Below
Paperboard Packaging Council
1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
William Bendixon
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Dept. Health, Educ. & Welfare
Rockville, Md.
235
-------
Dr. Irving S. Bengelsdorf
Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, Calif. 90053
L. Beilicki
M & T Chemicals
P.O. Box 1104
Rahway, New Jersey 07065
Ralph J. Black
USPHS Bur. of Solid Waste Mgt.
12720 Twinbrook Parkway
Rockville, Md. 20852
Horace Blinn
Continental Can Co.
Russ Building
San Francisco, Calif. 94104
Howard S. Bloom
Consolidated Fibers
P.O. Box 4641
Oakland, Calif. 94623
Wayne Bonnett
Walter Landor & Associates
Pier 5
San Francisco, Calif.
F.W. Boss
Signode Corp.
#1 Leslie Drive
Pittsburg, Calif. 94565
Frank Bost
American Hospital Supply
2020 Ridge Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60201
Frank Bowerman
Zurn Industries
126 So. First Avenue
Arcadia, Calif. 91006
Gail Boyd
U.R.S. Research
1811 Trousdale
Burlingaroe, Calif.
Y.M. Brandt
Reynolds Metals Co.
P.O. Box 128
Grottoes, Va. 24441
A.W. Brant
University of California
Food Science & Tech. Ext.
Davis, Calif. 95616
Robert Bransten
Western Can Co.
1849 17th Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94103
Robert 0. Bremner
Chevron Research Co.
576 Standard Avenue
Richmond, Calif. 94802
Dr. C.H. Bridges
Kellog Co.
Porter Street
Battle Creek, Mich. 49016
Andrew Briedenback
Bureau of Solid Waste Myt.
Dept. Health, Ed. & Welfare
Rockville, Maryland
K.W. Brighton
American Can Co.
P.O. Box 300
Brisbane, Calif. 94005
D.L. Brink
University of Calif.
Dept. of Forestry
Berkeley, Calif.
John S. Brown
American Oil Co.
2500 New York Ave.
Whiting, Ind. 46394
William Bucciarelli
Penna. Dept. of Health
P.O. Box 90
Harrisburg, Pa. 17120
Leo Buchstaber
Town of Woodside
P.O. Box 4005
Woodside, Calif. 94062
Frederick D. Buggie
Great Lakes Research Inst.
135 Professional Bldg.
Erie, Pa. 16501
Jo Burton
Garbalizer Corp. of America
Suite 642 Kennecott Bldg.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Rulon T. Burton
Garbalizer Corp. of America
Suite 642 Kennecott Bldg.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Prof. H.E. Calbert
Dept. of Food Science
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
J.F. Callahan
Rogers Engineering Co.
16 Beale Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94105
R. Call away
Mobil Chemical Co.
P.O. Box 210
Woodland, Calif. 95695
V. Anthony Cammarota, Jr.
U.S. Bureau of Mines
College Park, Md. 20740
Nelson J. Carpio
Dept. of Food Science & Tech.
University of California
Davis, Calif. 95616
John F. Carroll
Green Giant Co.
1100 N. 4th Street
LeSuer, Minn. 56058
John A. Carrougher
Weyerhaeuser Company
Tacoma, Wash.
Donald D. Chamberlin
County of Santa Cruz
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
Edward A. Chambers
Charles A. Maguire Assoc.
178 Tremont Street
Boston, Mass. 02111
J. R. Chapman
Mead Packaging
950 W. Marietta St., N.W.
Atlanta, Ga. 30302
Richard L. Cheney
Glass Container Manuf. Instit.
330 Madison Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10017
R. L. Chilenskas
M & T Chemicals
100 Park Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10017
E. E. Colby
Procter & Gamble Co.
6000 Center Hill Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45224
G. Clinton Collins
E.I. duPont deNemours & Co.
Wilmington, Delaware
Lawrence L. Conrad, Jr.
Bemis Company, Inc.
1777 Borel PI., Suite 416
San Mateo, Calif. 94402
J. P. Connell
Amoco Chemical Corp.
130 E. Randolph
Chicago, 111. 60601
236
-------
James W. Conrad
Packaging Systems Corp.
317 Chestnut St.
Edgewood, Penna. 15218
John K. Conroy
Glass Containers Corp.
535 No. Gilbert
Fullerton, Calif. 92634
Paul Cope
The Procter & Gamble Co.
6000 Center Hill Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45224
Dave Copenhagen
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
526 Mission Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94105
James Cornelius
Calif. Dept. of Public Health
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, Calif.
J.W. Craig
The Coca-Cola Co. Foods
P.O. Box 2079
Houston, Texas 77Q01
Frank L. Cutrone
Westinghouse Electric
3 Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230
M.H. Dajani
2000 Carl ton Avenue
Stockton, Calif. 95204
Dr. Jerry L. Dake
Coca-Cola USA
P.O. Drawer 1734
Atlanta, Ga. 30301
J.C. Dale
The Aluminum Assoc.
420 Lexington Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
Arsen J. Darnay, Jr.
Midwest Research Inst.
1522 K St., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Stanley J. Davidson
Sanitation Dist. of L.A.
2020 Beverly Blvd.
Los Angeles, Calif. 90057
George S. Demcak
Syntex
Stanford Industrial Park
Palo Alto, Calif. 94304
Victor A. Denslow
Amoco Chemical
130 E. Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Charles G. Depew
Owens-Illinois
P.O. Box 1035
Toledo, Ohio 43601
The!ma Dickson
Marin Conservation League
Box 75
Woodacre, Calif. 94973
Alexander Donald
King Sales & Engineering
870 Harrison St.
San Francisco, Calif. 94105
James C. Dougherdy
Material Disposal
Pier 43
San Francisco, Calif.
Marino Drakos
Blue Bird Baking Co.
621 Kiser Street
Dayton, Ohio 45404
Lawrence Dubow
Natl. Comp. & Tech. Syst.
839 39th Street
Brooklyn, N. Y. 11232
Dr, Walter L. Dunkley
University of California
Food Science & Technology
Davis, Calif. 95616
W.L. Dupuy
Kaiser Aluminum
300 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, Calif. 94604
Ross A. Easter
The Pillsbury Co.
311 2nd St., S.E.
Minneapolis, Minn. 55414
C. Soutter Edgar
International Paper Co.
220 East 42nd Street
New York, N.Y. 10017
J. Rodney Edwards
American Paper Institute
260 Madison Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10016
Eugene F. Eike
American 'Can Company
433 N. Northwest Hwy.
Barrington, 111. 60010
M.D. Eisele
Kaiser Aluminum
Kaiser Center
Oakland, Calif.
Richard J. Eisele
Bureau of Environ. Sanitation
220 No. Broadway St.
Los Angeles, Calif. 90012
Richard W. Elderedge
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Lewis Lane
West Chester, Pa. 19380
R.S. Engelbrecht
University of Illinois
Dept. of Civil Engineering
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Richard E. Erickson
Penna. Uept. of Health
P.O. Box 90
Harrisburg, Pa. 17120
Stanford Erickson
San Francisco News Bureau
255 California Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94111
G.C. Evans
G.C. Evans Sales & Mfgr.
4415 West 15th Street
Little Rock, Ark.
Hans A. Feibusch
Planning & Research Assoc.
604 Montgomery St.
San Francisco, Calif.
Norman Fishman
Standord Research Institute
Menlo Park, Calif. 94025
Dr. Raymond Fleck
Research Associate
University of California
Davis, Calif. 95616
Robert W. Foster
Plant, Cup & Container Inst.
250 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
Irving K. Fox
University of Wisconsin
Water Resources Center
Madison, Wise. 53706
Robert Freeman
TRW Systems
1 Space Park Blvd., #1051
Redondo Beach, Calif.
237
-------
Charles W. Funk
Anchor Hocking Corp.
4855 E. 52nd Place
Los Angeles, Calif. 90022
Mel Gagnon
University of California
Agricultural Information
Davis, Calif. 95616
B. L. Gamble
Continental Can Co., Inc.
1200 W. 76th Street
Chicago, 111. 60620
Bradley B. Garretson
Garretson, Elmendorf,
Klein, Reibin
124 Spear St.
San Francisco, Calif. 94105
Norvell Gillespie
California Anti-Litter League
333 Montgomery St.
San Francisco, Calif. 94104
Ronald Goben
Canner/Packer
103 Highland Terrace
Woodside, Calif. 94620
Charles R. Goerth
Package Engineering
2 No. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, 111. 60606
Albert Goldschmidt
155 Jackson Street
Apartment 904
San Francisco, Calif. 94111
Dr. Clarence G. Golueke
University of California
1301 So. 46th Street
Richmond, Calif. 94804
Dr. L. P. Gotsch
American Can Co.
P. 0. Box 50
Princeton, N. J. 08540
R. R. Grinstead
Dow Chemical Co.
2800 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598
William N. Gunn
Stuart and Gunn Industrial
Design
370 Lexington Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10017
Don Haase
Mobil Chemical Co.
100 North Street
Canandaiqua, N. Y. 14424
Frank M. Harding
Sinclair-Koppers Co.
2848 E. 208th Street
Long Beach, Calif. 90810
Terry Harrison
The Adhesive Products
520 Cleveland Ave.
Albany, Calif. 94710
Catherine Harroun
Baking Industry Magazine
105 W. Adams Street
Chicago, Illinois
Dr. S. A. Hart
University of California
Dept. of Agricultural Engr.
Davis, Calif. 95616
Charles C. Harvey
Village of La Grange
53 S. LaGrange Road
La Grange, 111. 60525
R. B. Hayes
Potlatch Forests, Inc.
Lewiston, Idaho
James Heidman
U. S. Public Health Serv.
5401 Westbard #431
Bethesda, Md. 20016
Alfred E. Heller
California Tomorrow
681 Market St., Rm 393
San Francisco, Calif. 94105
David E. Hennigh
Safeway Stores
2538 Telegraph Avenue
Oakland, Calif. 94606
Eugene M. Herson
Garretson, Elmendorf,
Klein, Reibin
124 Spear Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94105
Frank Hickey
FMC Corporation
333 West Julian
San Jose, Calif. 95108
Joseph J. Hi liner
Fibreboard Corp.
475 Brannan St.
San Francisco, Calif. 94119
W. W. Hodgson
Continental Can Co.
700 Russ Bldg.
San Francisco, Calif. 94104
S. V. Hudson
Continental Can Co.
633 Third Ave.
New York, N.Y. 10017
Thomas J. Hughes, Jr.
Society of the Plastics
Industry
250 Park Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10017
Dr. Samuel F. Hulbert
Dept. of Ceramic & Metal-
lurgical Engineering
Clemson University
Clemson, So. Carolina 29631
Bill Hutton
Application Engineering Corp.
5245 Randolph St.
Los Angeles, Calif. 90022
Dan Int-Hout, Jr.
Paperboard Packaging Council
1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
David T. Jaech
Mobil Chemical Co.
East Beamer Street
Woodland, Calif. 95695
Theodore Jaffe
Office of Grants Administr.
U. S. Public Health Service
Cincinnati, Ohio
James Jam's
U. S. Public Health Service
Washington, D. C.
James S. Jarvis
Safeway Stores, Inc.
P. 0. Box 17
Oakland, Calif. 94604
Howard Jenkins
Industrial Developer
Box 662
Benicia, Calif. 94510
Lawrence T. Johnson
Minneapolis Pollution
Control Agency
717 Delaware St., S. E.
Minneapolis, Minn. 55440
Jack Jones,
The Dow Chemical Co.
350 Sansome Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94106
Thomas Jones
U. S. Public Health Service
1647 Rockhurst Lane
Cincinnati, Ohio
238
-------
James Joyce
Granny Goose Foods, Inc.
930 98th Avenue
Oakland, Calif. 94603
James W. Kaempf
Marquette Cement Co.
20 No. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
H. L. Kaeser
Continental Can Co.
700 Russ Bldg.
San Francisco, Calif. 94104
Prof. Elmer R. Kaiser
New York University
Engineering and Science
New vcrk, N. Y. 10453
Robert F. Kasmire
University of California
Agricultural Extension
Davis, Calif. 95616
Kenneth G. Kerr
Crown Zellerbach Corp.
One Bush St.
San Francisco, Calif. 94119
Bob L. King
National Can Corp.
1657 Rollins Road
Burlingame, Calif. 94010
Ray Kirvin
American Paper Institute
260 Madison Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10016
Al Konopka
Research-Cottrell, Inc.
Box 750
Bound Brook, N.J. 08805
Dr. Ray B. Krone
University of California
Dept. of Civil Engineering
Davis, Calif. 95616
Layman Lais
University of California
Davis, Calif. 95616
John P. Landig
Hercules, Inc.
One Maritime Plaza
San Francisco, Calif.
George R. Langlois
International Paper Co.
1777 Murchison Drive
Burlingame, Calif. 94010
Paul Latimer
Riegel Paper Co.
Box 111
Flemington, N.Y. 08822
Louis W. Lefke
Dept. of Health,
Education and Welfare
222 East Central Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Godfrey Lehman
Magazines for Industry
41 Sutter Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94104
Michael S. Leinbach
Fibreboard Corp.
475 Brannan St.
San Francisco, Calif. 94119
Thomas C. Leslie
U. S. Public Health Service
Bureau of Solid Wastes
Cincinnati, Ohio
John E. Letter
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
P. 0. Box 2113
Los Angeles, Calif. 90054
Irma Lewis
Town of Woodside
P. 0. Box 4005
Woodside, Calif. 94062
Dr. Ming-yu Li
University of California
Packaging Program
Davis, Calif. 95616
Charles W. Lincoln
Bell and Howell Co.
7100 McCormick Road
Chicago, 111. 60645
Robert 0. Lindblom
The Dow Chemical Co.
2800 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598
Kennith V. Linstrom
American Machine & Foundry
Whiteford Road
York, Penna. 17402
Richard P. Lonergan
Dept. of Health, Education
& Welfare, PHS, CPE, ECA
5555 Ridge Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45213
Leander B. Lovell
3600 Cachepit
Cincinnati, Ohio 45227
Dr. Bor Luh
University of California
Food Science & Technology
Davis, Calif. 95616
P. C. MacBarron
Signode Corp.
#1 Leslie Drive
Pittsburg, Calif. 94565
J. J. MacLellan
American Can Co.
708 Third Avenue
New York, N. Y.
Clark C. Macomber
American Can Co.
433 N. Northwest Highway
Barrington, 111. 60010
W. S. Maginnis
Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.
1645 W. Valencia Dr.
Fullerton, Calif. 92634
Honorable Hugh Marius
Deputy Commissioner of
Sani tation
16 West 10th Street
New York City, N. Y.
Cecil V. Martin
Dept. of Water Resources
P. 0. Box 388
Sacramento, Calif. 95802
Chester W. Marynowski
Stanford Research Institute
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Menlo Park, Calif. 94025
Dale A. Mathews
U. S. Steel Corp.
Room 906, Gateway #5
Pittsburgh, Penna. 15230
James H. McCall
Heizer Corp.
20 No. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60606
Hon. Paul N. McCloskey, Jr.
House of Representatives
Congress of the United States
Washington, D. C. 20515
Bruce C. McCreary
Johnson & Johnson
501 George Street
New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
239
-------
Prof. P. H. McGauhey
Sanitary Engineering and
Research Laboratory
Richmond Field Station
1301 South 46th Street
Richmond, Calif. 94804
William P. McGehee
Tri-Pak
7100 Grade Lane
Louisville, Ky. 40221
Thomas J. McGrath
Society of the Plastics
Industry
250 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
William F. Hears
General Motors Parts Div.
6060 W. Bristol Road
Flint, Mich. 48554
M. S. Mel 1 berg
Independent Paper Stock
650 Seventh St.
San Francisco, Calif. 94131
Arnold F. Meyer
The Heil Company
3000 W. Montana St.
Milwaukee, Wise. 53201
Shelia Minnitt
Glass Container Council
of Canada
67 Yonge St., Suite 501
Toronto 215, Ont., Canada
Dr. Bruce H. Morgan
Lamb-Weston, Inc.
12977 S. W. 66th Street
Portland, Ore. 97223
Dr. Emil M. Mrak
Chancellor Emeritus
University of California
Davis, Calif. 95616
Thomas J. Muldoon
Fibre Box Association
224 So. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, 111. 60604
E. E. Mull
International Paper Co.
1777 Murchison Drive
Burlingame, Calif. 94010
Thomas Mutchler
International Paper Co.
1777 Murchison Drive
Burlingame, Calif. 94010
H. Nugent Myrick
University of Houston
College of Engineering
Houston, Texas
Charles Nance
Memphis & Shelby
Health Departments
814 Jefferson
Memphis, Tenn.
Carroll F. Neff
Food & Drug Research
Laboratories
1116 Sterling Avenue
Berkeley, Calif. 94708
David B. Nelson
Monsanto Research Corp.
Station B, Box 8
Dayton, Ohio 45407
J. R. Nelson
Nalis Chemical
180 N. Michigan
Chicago, 111.
S. G. Nicholas
Clemson University
Clemson, So. Car. 29631
Drury C. Nimmich
Westvaco
P. 0. Box 5207
No. Charleston, S.C. 29406
L. J. Nowacki
Battelle Memorial Institute
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
Mike O'Brien
University of California
Agricultural Engineering
Davis, Calif. 95616
D. L. Olsen
Continental Can Co.
700 Russ Building
San Francisco, Calif. 94104
Richard L. Orsage
U.S. Industrial Chemicals
99 Park Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10016
George W. Osoke
Calif. Brewers Assoc.
235 Montgomery St.
San Francisco, Calif.
Eric B. Cutwater
Foundation for Responsible
Conservation of Environment
370 Lexington Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10017
E. R. Owens
Owens-Illinois
1 Maritime Plaza
San Francisco, Calif. 94104
Joseph G. Palsa
Roger Williams Services
P. 0. Box 426
Princeton, N. J. 08540
0. James Pardau
State Assembly Committee on
Natural Resources & Conserv.
Sacramento, Calif. 95814
R. W. Park
Packaging Corp. of America
470 Market, S. W.
Grand Rapids, Mich. 49502
R. E. Parks
ComCo
900 N. 137th
Seattle, Wash. 98133
Robert Pearl
University of California
Packaging Program
Davis, Calif. 95616
Roger D. Phelps
Alcoa
1840 Ogden Drive
Burlingame, Calif. 94010
Karl F. Plitt
National Bureau of Standards
Washington, D.C. 20234
George A. Prince
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colo. 80220
G. Keith Provo
Crown Zellerbach Corp.
1 Bush Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94119
Walton Purdom
Drexel Institute of Technology
32nd & Chestnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pa. 19104
Dwight C. Reed
National Soft Drink Assoc.
1128 16th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Honorable Henry S. Reuss
House of Representatives
Congress of the United States
Washington, D. C. 20515
240
-------
Richard Reynolds
Geigy Chemical Corp.
Saw Mill River Road
Ardsley, N. Y. 10502
Harold R. Rex
B. F. Goodrich Chemical Co.
3135 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Thomas W. Riley
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
245 Market Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
D. C. Roads
The Dow Chemical Co.
350 Sansome Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94106
Peter A. Rogers
California Dept. of
Public Health
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, Calif.
George Rose
Compaction Systems of
America
914 Winthrop Street
Medford, Mass.
Adrian Ruddell
Burke Rubber Co.
2250 So. 10th Street
San Jose, Calif. 95112
George Rutledge
International Paper Co.
220 E. 42nd Street
New York, N. Y. 10017
Robert J. Ryder
Brockway Glass Co., Inc.
Central Laboratory
Brockway, Pa. 15824
William E. Sauter
Cumberland Engineering Co.
P. 0. Box 6065
Providence, R.I. 02904
Joseph S. See
The Dow Chemical Co.
433 Building
Midland, Mich. 48640
Dr. Howard G. Schutz
Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.
1645 W. Valencia Drive
Fullerton, Calif. 92634
Ted Schwamb
Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
3401 Hill view Avenue
Palo Alto, Calif. 94304
Pickett Scott
Glass Containers Corp.
535 No. Gilbert
Fullerton, Calif. 92634
Marlyn E. Seehafer
United States Steel Corp.
5 Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230
Fred A. Sharring
Magazines for Industry, Inc.
20 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111. 60606
Wilfred H. Shields
Maryland State Dept.
of Health
State Capitol
Baltimore, Md.
Robert F. Sinclair
Crown Zellerbach Corp.
1 Bush Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94104
R. A. Smith
ComCo
900 N. 137th
Seattle, Wash. 98133
Curtis M. Snow
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, Mo. 63166
Mathias L. Spiegel
Environmental Protection
Administration
Municipal Bldg.
New York, N. Y. 10007
R. W. Stachwick
Carnation Research Labs.
8015 Van Nuys Blvd.
Van Nuys, Calif. 91412
Frank M. Stead
Consultant
2040 Oakland Ave.
Piedmont, Calif. 94611
Leonard Stefanelli
Sunset Scavenger Co.
Foot of Tunnel Ave. & Beatty
San Francisco, Calif. 94134
Edsel Stewart
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, Mo. 63018
Dr. G. F. Stewart
University of California
Packaging Program
Davis, Calif. 95616
Harold R. Stoakes
Paperboard Packaging
P.O. Box 1237
San Jose, Calif. 9blOb
H.E. Stone
Del Monte Corporation
205 N. Wicjet Lane
Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598
Richard P. Stovroff
Consoliuatea Fibers
P.O. box 4b41
Oakland, Calif. 94623
J. Stratrnan
Anaheim Manufacturing Co.
1660 So. State College blvci.
Anaheim, Calif. 92806
M.M. Strupp
Research-Cottrell, Inc.
Box 750
bound Brook, N.J. 08805
J.W. Stull
University of Arizona
Dept. of Dairy & Food Science
Tucson, Arizona 8t>721
jlilo H. Taylor
Safeway Stores, Inc.
P.O. Box 17
Oakland, Calif. 94b04
Robert H. Taylor
Vulcan Materials Co.
1245 Westfield Avenue
Clark, N.J. 07066
Harry E. Teasley, Jr.
Coca-Cola USA
P.O. Drawer 1734
Atlanta, ba. 30d01
Ruth Teiser
Modern Converter Magazine
Harbrace building
Uuluth, Minn. o5802
Hilary M. Theisen
Metcalf & Eddy Engineers
1029 Corporation rtay
Palo Alto, Calif. 9430.3
L.M. Thomka
Dow Chemical Co.
2040 Abbott Roaa
Midland, Micniyan 48b4G
Richard S. Titera
Humboldt County
1106 Second Street
Eureka, Calif. ybb24
241
-------
Willy Tjen
University of California
Packaging Program
Davis, Calif. 95616
Richard Torreto
Mobil Chemical Co.
100 North Street
Canandaiqua, N.Y. 14424
A.C. .Urbinati
Tezuka Kosan of Japan
One Broadway
Norwich, Conn. 06360
Kay Valory
State of California
1220 N Street, Room 114
Sacramento, Calif. 95814
V. Robert Vans
Glass Container
Manufacturers Institute
330 Madison Avenue
New York, New York
Gary R. Van Sant
United Technology Center
Sunnyvale, Calif. 94088
Ken Vezeau
Flexible Plastics Corp.
132 So. Maple Avenue
So. San Francisco, Ca. 94080
Daniel Wang
Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
Room 16-201
Cambridge, Mass.
Leo Weaver
Institute of Solid Wastes
1755 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20036
Thomas White
University of California
Agricultural Engineering
Davis, Calif. 95616
Herb Wilkins
Crown Zellerbach Corp.
One Bush Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94119
J.C. Williams
Canadian Pacific Railway
Windsor Station
Montreal 101, Qu., Canada
Lloyd E. Williams
Container Corporation
of America
38 So. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Pat Wilson
Marin Conservation League
Box 75
Woodacre, Calif. 94973
Frank Winter
University of California
Food Science & Technology
Davis, Calif. 95616
H.M. Witbeck
City of Palo Alto
1313 Newell Road
Palo Alto, Calif. 94303
Dr. Virgil 0. Wodicka
Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.
1645 West Valencia Dr.
Fullerton, Calif. 92634
Charles L. Woy
Chattanooga Container Corp.
P.O. Box 350
Chattanooga, Tenn. 37401
John Wright
Arthur D. Little Co.
500 Sansome Street
San Francisco, Calif.
P.B. Wright
International Paper Co.
401 Kindelberger Road
Kansas City, Kansas 66115
Willian A. Xanten
Black & Veatch Construction
Engineers
3355 Military Rd., N.W.
Washington, U.C. 20036
Environments.l r---:.'-tion Agency
Library, /• •"'
1 North W:.•.,---•
Chicago, Illinois 60606
242
------- |