research grant
                       Uniuersity of
                         at Dauis




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
Solid Waste Management Office
       Envircnnvirlral Protection Agency
       I.iLr-. '; ,   -  •' •  V
       1 r.o, ,:; . .    - -_i*e
       Chicago, Illinois  60606

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.00
                                Stock Number 5502-0013


                      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
               of the report by the grantee was inadequate to meet the demand for

  ^           copies.   Thus, the conference  proceedings are now being reprinted in
  CQ           an effort to make the information widely available to government,

               university,  and industry users.

  ^                                           —RICHARD D. VAUGHAN
  ^jy                                             Assistant Surgeon General
                                                 Acting Commissioner
                                                 Solid Waste Management Office

               Steering  Committee
                         (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,

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,

                       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.

                (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,

 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

                  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
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
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
2040 Oakland Avenue
Piedmont, California 94611

Leonard Stefanelli
Sunset Scavenger Company
Foot of Tunnel Avenue & Beatty Road
San Francisco, California 94134

Dr. G. F. Stewart
Food Protection & Toxicology Center
University of California
Davis, California 95616

Richard D. Vaughan
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

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.


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


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

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.
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.


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

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

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

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.

                                           The   Changing  Dimensions
                                           of  Packaging  Wastes
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

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.


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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.


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.

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.

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.


                      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.


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.

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-

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

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

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

 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

 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

 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

 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.


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

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

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

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,


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".




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
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-

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.

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.


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

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.

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."

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

     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

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.


                                            The   Package   User's
                                            Point  of  View  on  Waste
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.


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.

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-

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.

                              Natural  Biases  Toward  Packages
                              and  Packaging Wastes  Problems
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.

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,

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.


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

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

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.

                              Packaging  Problems  From  the
                              Perspective   of  the  Public  Official
 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

                                                    PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS
                                                    NOT MOTIVATED TO CONSIDER
                                                       ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
                                                         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.

            PACKAGING AS %
            OF 1969 LEVELS
                                     Household Refuse
                                     Street Litter
Bulk, Abandoned Cars,
Commercial Waste, etc.
                                     Total Solid Wastes
                                                                  10 YEAR GROWTH
                                       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.

                  MAJOR PROBLEMS OF THE

                  Refuse inadequately containerized by private sector
                        1. Growth of refuse, PACKAGING
                        2. Changing socioeconomic conditions
                        3. Inadequate facilities

                  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

                                       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

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.


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

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.

            WHICH MAY
                                                    PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS
                                                    NOT MOTIVATED TO CONSIDER
                                                       ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
                                                    • PACKAGING TAX, PRODUCT BANS
                                                    • COMMUNICATION OF
                                                    • SUBSIDIES, FOR R/D AND
                                                     OPERATING EXPENSES
                                                    • DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH
                                                     FOR CAPITAL INTENSIVE
                                                     METHODS AND NON-TRADITIONAL
                                      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

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.


                        The   "Bias"   of  the  Concerned  Citizen
                        Toward   Packaging  Wastes
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?)

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.


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.



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

 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.

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.
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.
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

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.
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.


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.
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.
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

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.


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.

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.
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.

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

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

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.
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.

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

                                  Technical  Problems  Associated
                                  with  Wastes   from  Paper
                                  and  Paperboard  Products

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.

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.

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.

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

                                        Waste  from  Metal  Packages
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.


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

          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

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.
98 Pb
70 Pb


                                          FIGURE  3.   SOLDERS

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.

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.

                                                          Black Plate
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

     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
                  FIGURE 5.  TIN AND LEAD FORECASTS

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.
                        FIGURE 6.   GROWTH IN ALUMINUM PACKAGING
 Riqid Cans
 and Ends
  Flexible  Foil

  Formed Foil
  •all others

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.

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.

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.

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.


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
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




Original magnification - 230 x
Bureau of Mines
                    Figure 8.  Cross Section, Incinerated Can

< .01-0.2
                               (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


Figure 11.   Incinerated Can.

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.
38.6 -
10.8 -
0.7 -
1.4 -
0.7 -
0.7 -
0.1 -
0.1 -
                               (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.

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.

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.

     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


                                    Wastes  from  Plastic  Packages
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

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

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.

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.


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.

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

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-

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-


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.


                                      The   Role   of  Glass   Containers
                                      in   Solid   Waste  Disposal
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

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.
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.
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.

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

     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

     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

          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.


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.
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

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

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

     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.


                       The  Solid  Waste   Disposal  Problem:
                       What  the   Packaging  Engineer  Can   Do
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.


Wrong!  We are involved whether we like it or not, whether we  think we  should be or shouldn't

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

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.

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?


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

     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.

    . 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.

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.

                                                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

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

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

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

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

 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"

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.


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

presented by


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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.


                     Motivating  Ourselves  for  Action
                     Through   Publicity  and  a  Conscientious
                     Package   Design  Community
 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

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

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

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
as into valuable research that is needed.

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

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

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


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

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.

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

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

     1.    To cut it at the source  through  better  choice  of  materials;   regard
          for disposability;   bio-degradability;   re-cycling;   and  smaller

     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.

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

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

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.


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.

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.

                                  Motivating  Ourselves  for  Action
 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

 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.

      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.

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.

     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.


     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!

                                Packaging  Wastes  Public  Policy:
                                Law  and  Administration
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.
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

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.
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:

        a.  Education designed to advise producers  of ways  and  means  of achieving  this
        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.
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?

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


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?
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.


                                            Motivating  the  Public

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

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.

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.

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.


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.


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
           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 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 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

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

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-

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
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-
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
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.

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

2K20 . Si02 - K20 . 4Si02
2(Na20 H
H K20) .
. 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 .
1.0 Na20 .
1.0 Na20 .
1.0 Si02
1.1 SiO-
1.2 SiO,
1.3 Si02
1.6 Si02




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
     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



               f: '  .^Sf&tX-






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

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;

                    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.

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.

<0     m     ^     10      CM





                                                            C  S-
                                                            (U  -U
                                                            en  i/>
                                                            o  XI
                                                            S-  3
                                                            4J  in
                                                         •i- C



























• «i





                                                O -r- I—


                                                      s- o
                                                      O) Q-
                                                     •i- IO

                                                      t >



































• #«













i —



• n





     NOIllSOdBQ Z0li

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

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.

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.


i i i i
o o o o o
o oo to 














• •






• •
v^ *




1— •


• r-






• A




• •»



• ^





• A







• r-








i —

                                        CO  •!->

                                        O  T3
 J-    <1)
 3    C
-u   o


-t->    3
          J=   4J  O
          4->   *f—  VO
           CO   O   04
           (O   Q.   E
           O>   O)  -f
                -o  +J
                                               o   x:
          ••-  o
           O,   0,

          •r-   3
          J3    X-
           3    O)

          •°    §-
           >>   Ol


                     o   o>




                                                             O 0.
                                                             O 5
                                                             — LU

 If)                 t                  lO                 C\J

(g.OlX 3inNW/S3"10W)  3-LVd NOIilSOd3Q 20'S
 O  4->  O
 ex.     r^
 Ol  VI
~O  ID  Ol
    en  s.
       i-  *•
       01   S-
 CM 10

4-  -U

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.

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



















• r—












• r—
• t—

• «t














• A








• •>





• A
















• A




• •*







     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.


O h-



a!   uj

<   £
                                               O O
                                               in in
                                               o o

                                               N «
                                               O O
                                               00 CM
                                               O O
                                               0) —
                                                                •O   Q.

                                                                 o   2
                                                                 "4-   S-
                                                                 O   CU
                                                                 in   -P
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

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;

                                                        o 4->
                                                         CM Ol
                                                         +J O
                                                         o ^~
                                                         £ 00

                                                         <<- 4->
                                                         LU IO
Hi9N3yiS  9NIQN38 Nl 39NVHO  !N30d3d





H19N3U1S Nl 39NVHO

Figure 19. Illustration of how surface flaws are eliminated
        after prolonged exposure to the atmosphere.

             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.

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.

   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).

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.


 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).


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.


                               Incineration  of  Packaging  Wastes
                               with   Minimal   Air  Pollution
 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.
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".

            Table 1.   Consumption  of Packaging  Materials  in  the United States,
                      as projected for  1970.
Paper and paperboard
Wood  (a)
Miscellaneous (b)
Net tons
(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 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.

                          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)
Vinyl (d)
Plastic film ^e'
Softwood, pine
Hardwood, oak
Glass bottles
Metal cans



(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.

                  Table 3.   Analysis  of Packaging  Waste,  Weight  percent.
Paper and paperboard
percent H£0*
49.1 8.0

.9 1
Cl Inert
- 3
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 93
- 81
Combined analysis,
*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.
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.

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
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,
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.


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.
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

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

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

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.
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.

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.
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.
 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.

                               Future   Research  Needs  and   Goals
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,

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.

     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

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.

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

On the  other hand you  may well conclude that the added cost is  peanuts  compared  to some
 future  alternative.

     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

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

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-

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.

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-

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

     4.   Think about product protection.  General Electric Co. incorporates
          the term "product protection" in the title of its top packaging man.

          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-

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

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.

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

*    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.


     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


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.

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


                                Governmental  Organization  for
                                Regional  Management  of  Wastes
 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.
 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
 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).


 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 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).

          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
          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."

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?
 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.


     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

     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

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
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.

 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).


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-
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.

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

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.

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

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
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.

  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.


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

Whatever form regional organizations take, representation will be a key issue.   And the
type of representation will affect -- perhaps significantly -- the organization's policies.


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).

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.


                             Closing  the   Public   Information  Gap
 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".

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

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


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

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

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.

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

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.

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


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

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

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

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-

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.


                                             Wrapping  it  up!
 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;

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

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.

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


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.

                                     APPENDIX I


                                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"—(}
             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.


                                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:   "  £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.

             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.

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

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
Stanford Industrial  Park
Palo Alto,  Calif.  94304
 Victor A.  Denslow
 Amoco Chemical
 130  E. Randolph
 Chicago,  Illinois 60601

 Charles G.  Depew
 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.

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
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
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
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

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

Prof. P. H. McGauhey
Sanitary Engineering and
  Research Laboratory
Richmond Field Station
1301  South 46th Street
Richmond, Calif. 94804

William P. McGehee
7100 Grade Lane
Louisville, Ky. 40221

Thomas J. McGrath
Society of the Plastics
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
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
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
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
900 N. 137th
Seattle, Wash. 98133

Robert Pearl
University of California
Packaging Program
Davis, Calif. 95616

Roger D. Phelps
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

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
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
900 N. 137th
Seattle, Wash. 98133

Curtis M. Snow
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, Mo. 63166

Mathias L. Spiegel
Environmental Protection
Municipal Bldg.
New York, N. Y. 10007

R. W. Stachwick
Carnation Research Labs.
8015 Van Nuys Blvd.
Van Nuys, Calif. 91412

Frank M. Stead
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

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
3355 Military Rd., N.W.
Washington, U.C. 20036
                            Environments.l  r---:.'-tion  Agency
                            Library,  /• •"'
                            1  North  W:.•.,---•
                            Chicago,  Illinois   60606