TEC ccEE CE E AC rAC-ING IN srui.
HASTE UANAC EUENE I^CeTC 1 J7C
-------
-------
THE COLE CE PACKAGING IN SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT 1966 TO 1976
PART I: The Outlook for Packaging, 1966 to 1976
PART II: The Disposability of Packaging Materials
PART III: Mechanisms for Mitigating Problems Caused
by Packaging Materials in Waste Disposal
This publication (SW-5c) was written for the Bureau of Solid Waste Management by
ARSEN DARNAY and WILLIAM E. FRANKLIN
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri
under Contract No. PH 86-67-114
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
1969
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION"
Public Health Service Publication No. 1855
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NO. 76-601197
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2 25 (paper co\er)
-------
FOREWORD
Packaging and solid wastes are closely linked in public awareness. Bottles,
cans, plastic and paper wrappings and cartons are all too-visible-discards around
us. What the public sees as litter has been confirmed as a general solid waste problem
with many facets. As pointed out in this report, 52 million tons of packaging mate-
rials were produced and used in the United States in 1966. Only 10 percent of this
amount was reused or recycled back into industrial raw material channels. Ninety
percent became solid wastes, accounting for over 13 percent of the Nation's total
volume of solid wastes from residential, commercial, and industrial sources.
Packaging is increasing much more rapidly than population. Estimated national
per capita consumption of packaging materials was 404 pounds in 1958, 525 pounds
in 1966 and will be 661 pounds by 1976. Such increases are caused by several
factors—self-service merchandising, ever-advancing production technology, public
desire for convenience, general affluence, and the pervasive nature of packaging.
We have seen the trend toward prepared and packaged foods that lighten the
housewife's kitchen chores. But packaging has also become an important part of
the sales pitch. As many a woman who has bought a beautifully packaged jar of
face cream can tell you, the media is the message. The 4-color-process package
of baby string beans sells the box, while the set of screw drivers in the blister pack
sends dad home from the hardware store with the set instead of the single tool.
To a large extent the aims of packaging and of solid waste disposal are mutually
exclusive. The packager wants—and technology is developing—a container that
won't burn, break, crush, degrade, or dissolve in water. The waste processor wants
a package which is easy to reduce by burning, breaking, compaction, or degradation.
The final objective of solid waste management is to reduce the total quantities
of solid waste and unsalvageable materials through recovery and reuse. In an
ideal system, packaging materials would never be discarded—they would be
reprocessed by industry and made into new packages or other products.
Packaging does indeed pervade our culture. Now and for the immediate
future we will have to deal with the discarded portions of 52 million and more
annual tons of these materials. The present report is, we feel, a significant explora-
tion of the nature of this problem.
—RICHARD D. VAUGHAN, Director,
Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
SUMMARY
This document presents the findings of a research effort to define the role of
packaging in waste disposal in the 1966 to 1976 period. The report is divided into
three parts:
• Part I presents historical packaging material consumption data for
the 1958 to 1966 period, a forecast of packaging material consumption
to 1976, and a discussion of the economic, technological, marketing, and
demographic trends and forces underlying the forecast.
iii
-------
PACKAGING
• Part II analyzes the disposability of packaging materials in 1966 and in
1976. The quantitative solid waste burden imposed by packaging in the
two years is discussed, as well as collection problems engendered by
packaging, and packaging material resistance to disposal processing.
• Part III is an exploratory analysis of the various mechanisms that might
be employed for mitigating the problems caused by packaging materials
in waste disposal.
These above sections are followed by two appendices. Appendix I presents
tabular materials that will permit interested persons to follow the route by which we
arrived at our Disposal Resistance Index figures. Appendix II is a bibliography of
literature used as background for this analysis.
All tabular and graphic materials are numbered consecutively throughout the
report, as are all reference citations. The references cited are found listed at the
end of the report in the section preceding the appendices.
Parti
In 1966, 51.7 million tons of packaging materials were produced and sold in
the United States. Of this massive tonnage—made up of many billions of individual
units, most of them weighing much less than a pound each—about 90 percent en-
tered the stream of solid wastes that had to be disposed of, thus accounting for
about 13 percent of the 350 million tons (9.7 pounds per person per day) of resi-
dential, commercial, and portions of industrial wastes generated.*
The 1966 tonnage was well above 1958 packaging materials consumption.
In 1958, 35.4 million tons were consumed in the United States. And in 1976, con-
sumption of packaging materials across the nation should have increased to 73.5
million tons, up 21.8 million tons from 1966.
Packaging is increasing in quantity much more rapidly than population. Per
capita consumption of packaging materials was 404 pounds in 1958, 525 pounds in
1966, and will be 661 pounds by 1976.
Many factors underlie this dramatic increase, but chief among them is the
continuing rise of self-service merchandising, creating a growing need for packages
that sell the product without the help of a sales clerk. This accounts for much of
the quantitative increase.
Qualitative changes will be brought about by the need for improved product
differentiation by packaging methods (another result of self-service merchandising
requirements), the rise of many new food products which call for unique packaging
solutions (instant foods, freeze-dried foods, etc.), and the vastly expanded choice
in materials provided the package designer by the advent of plastics and other
relatively new packaging materials.
In spite of these forces, the relative importance of the basic packaging mate-
rials—paper, glass, metals, wood, plastics, and textiles—will remain about the
same throughout the 1966 to 1976 period. Paper and paperboard which accounted
for 54.8 percent of all packaging by weight in 1966, will represent 56.9 percent of
* Excludes agricultural wastes (1.3 billion tons a year), mining wastes (1 billion tons per
year), scrapped automobiles (6 million units or about 15 million tons per year), and building
rubble, for which we have no estimates.
IV
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
packaging in 1976. Metals and glass will also maintain their proportions of the
market. Both wood and textiles will decline somewhat. Only in plastics packaging
materials will there be a dramatic change: plastics, which held 2.4 percent of the
packaging market by weight in 1966, will have doubled their share by 1976.
Part II
Of packaging materials consumed in 1966, approximately 46.5 million tons
were discarded as waste; the remaining 10 percent was returned for reuse or re-
processed into new products.
Collection and disposal of this tonnage cost the nation $419 million in 1966.
Assuming no increase in the costs of collection and disposal, which is unlikely, ex-
penditures on the disposal processing of packaging materials will stand at $595
million in 1976, up by $176 million. In that year, 66.2 million tons of packaging
will have to be handled as waste.
Collection of the increase alone, some 19.7 million tons, will require nearly 5
million collection trips in 1976; trips that did not have to be made in 1966, and
which will call for the addition of some 9,500 new collection vehicles at a cost ranging
between $135 and $190 million.
Collection will be more difficult for several reasons: a dramatic increase in
one-way beverage containers is expected to intensify the litter problem; the uncom-
pacted density of packaging material wastes will decrease because lighter and more
resilient materials will have gained a proportionately larger share of packaging
markets (measured in weight); and compactibility of packaging wastes will have
deteriorated slightly.
To measure the difficulty of processing packaging wastes in the five basic
disposal and/or reduction processes, a rating system was developed by MRI to
establish the relative resistance of various packaging materials and package config-
urations to the requirements of processes. Resistance was measured on a scale from
100 (indicating no resistance) to 500 (indicating complete unsuitability of the
material for the process). Overall, packaging materials received a rating of 132 in
the year 1966 and 148 in the year 1976, indicating that processing will be consider-
ably more difficult in 1976 than it was 10 years earlier.
By far the greatest impact on the resistance measure will be brought about by
changes in the type of process used for waste disposal. The increasing percentage of
material handled by sanitary landfilling and incineration will account for 94 percent
of the increase in the resistance index value. Changes in the relative dominance of
materials and package configurations will account for the remaining 6 percent of the
increase.
Considerable space is devoted in this part of the report to the salvage and
reuse of packaging materials. The findings indicate that packaging materials play
an extremely small part in the secondary materials industry. With the exception of
corrugated paperboard, of which about 20 percent is reused, and minute quantities of
steel and aluminum cans, most other packaging materials never enter reuse channels.
The salvage industries in general are poorly equipped technologically to handle
heterogeneous material mixtures and the increasing number of material combina-
tions which packaging presents. Secondary materials are not sought extensively by
raw" materials processors because virgin resources are frequently cheaper to process.
Prices of secondary materials are often too low for profitable salvage operations.
Without external intervention, salvage will continue to decline in importance.
-------
PACKAGING
Part III
In this part of the report, five types of mechanisms are discussed as possible
avenues to the mitigation of problems created by packaging materials in waste
disposal: (1) research and development, (2) educational efforts, (3) incentive and
subsidy programs, (4) taxes, and (5) regulation. These mechanisms are evaluated as
possible means to:
• Reduce the quantity of packaging materials used
• Reduce the technical difficulty involved in processing packaging wastes
• Reduce the destruction of valuable natural resources from which packages
are made
Research and Development (R&D)
This mechanism would be applicable to the reduction of difficulty in processing
waste packages and in promoting reuse and recycle of packaging materials. Three
types of R&D are possible: research on materials and containers, R&D devoted to
improving salvage and reuse, and efforts aimed at improving disposal technology.
The last item is beyond the scope of this investigation but appears to be an area
of considerable potential. Materials research does not offer foreseeable near-term
success. Research to improve the technology of salvage, particularly development
of materials separation techniques, is cited as the most promising activity of those
discussed.
Educational Efforts
Educational programs directed at three groups are discussed—industry pro-
grams, consumer education, and intra-government information programs. Basic to
all of these is the assumption that one of the constraints to action on the part of
all those involved is unfamiliarity with the problems created by packaging. Once
the problems are fully understood, voluntary action to mitigate the problems may
be forthcoming.
Incentives and Subsidies
Incentive type programs would be effective in reducing the technical difficulty
of processing wastes and in improving salvage. Use of the government's purchasing
power would be one means of accomplishing the first aim; subsidy of salvage opera-
tions by price supports of secondary materials and by support of suitable technology
by tax credit or direct funding programs would accomplish the second.
Taxes
Two types of taxes are discussed: a use tax, imposed on all packages, and a
deterrent type tax, selectively imposed on specific materials. A packaging use tax
would not directly result in reduction of package material use, reduction of proces-
sing difficulty,-or in elimination of destruction of natural resources. It would,
however, create the economic wherewithal for the processing of these wastes.
Justification of a use tax would be easier than justification of a deterrent iax. For
maximum effectiveness, however, a packaging use tax would call for extensive
administrative machinery.
A deterrent type tax would be difficult to justify and would be limited in effec-
tiveness. Regulatory action would be the more effective mechanism for curbing the
use of a material or container type deemed unacceptable from the waste disposal
standpoint.
vi
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Regulation
Regulation of packaging would be the most effective mechanism to accomplish
the objectives. It would be difficult to justify such activity, however, because the
problems created by packaging materials are primarily economic problems. Given
the tremendously complex nature of packaging, regulation, to be effective, would
tend to embrace all activities directly and indirectly concerned with packaging.
The costs of such a program appear to be potentially greater than the benefits that
may be expected.
Vll
-------
-------
PREFACE
This report on the role of packaging in solid waste, for the period of 1966 to
1976 was prepared by Midwest Research Institute pursuant to Contract No.
PH 86-67-114, with the Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. The statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations,
and other data in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Principal investigators were Mr. Arsen Darnay (project manager) and Mr.
William E. Franklin. Valuable staff support was provided to the investigators by
Dr. T. D. Bath, Mrs. Margaret Cossette, Mr. R. E. Gustafson, Mr. J. B. Maillie,
Mr. J. H. Stierna, and Dr. A. E. Vandegrift. Mr. John McKelvey, Assistant Di-
rector, Economic Development Division, had responsibility for general supervision
of the project.
Many individuals and organizations provided information, advice, commentary,
and suggestions to the research team. We should like to express our thanks and
appreciation to all those who collaborated in this enterprise.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A study effort encompassing an entire industry, especially one as diverse
and dynamic as packaging, could not have been accomplished without the active
participation and assistance of many companies, associations, independent re-
searchers, and government agencies. The cooperation and help given to the research
team by all these organizations has been outstanding and far surpassed the norm
common in research. We are pleased to acknowledge our indebtedness to all for
the value of this report, while retaining full responsibility for errors or omissions.
Space does not permit a complete listing of all participating organizations,
but we should like to acknowledge a special debt to the following:
COMPANIES
American Can Company Container Corporation of America
100 Park Avenue 38 South Dearborn
New York, New York 10017 Chicago, Illinois 60603
The Bassichis Company Continental Can Company
2323 West 3rd Street 633 Third Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44113 New York, New York 10017
Bettendorf Publications, Inc. E. I. du Pont de Nemours Company
228 North LaSalle Street 9519 Nemours Building
Chicago, Illinois 60601 Wilmington, Delaware 19801
ix
-------
PACKAGING
Modern Packaging Magazine
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019
National Can Corporation
5959 South Cicero
Chicago, Illinois 60638
New Jersey Gullet Supply Corporation
Pier K
Jersey City, New Jersey 07303
Owens-Illinois Technical Center
1700 North Westwood Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43607
Reynolds Metals Company
6601 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23218
Union Camp Corporation
233 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
U.S. Reduction Company
4610 Melville Avenue
East Chicago, Indiana 46312
Weyerhauser Company
Paperboard Packaging Division
100 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS
Adhesives Manufacturers Association
of America
441 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
The Aluminum Association
420 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Aluminum Foil Container
Manufacturers Association
P.O. Box D
Fontana, Wisconsin 53125
American Paper Institute
216 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
American Paper Institute
Panerboard Group
80 East Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
American Public Works Association
1313 East 60th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60637
The Associated Cooperage
Industries of America, Inc.
808 Olive Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Bulk Packaging and Containerization
Institute
P.O. Box 3444
Grand Central Station
New York, New York 10017
Can Manufacturers Institute, Inc.
821 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers
Association
50 East 41st Street
New York, New York 10017
Fibre Box Association
224 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Folding Paper Box Association of
America
222 West Adams
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Glass Container Manufacturers
Institute
330 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Glass Container Manufacturers
Institute
Research Division
1405 South Harrison
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
National Barrel and Drum
Association, Inc.
1028 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
National Committee for Paper Stock
Conservation
80 East Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
National Council of Refuse Disposal
Trade Associations
330 South Wells
Chicago, Illinois 60606
National Fiber Can and Tube As-
sociation
1725 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, B.C. 20006
National Flexible Packaging
Association
11750 Shaker Boulevard
Cleveland, Ohio 44120
National Paper Box Manufacturers
Association, Inc.
Suite 910
City Center Building
121 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
National Refuse Sack Council, Inc.
60 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
National Wooden Pallet and
Container Association
1619 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, B.C. 20036
Packaging Institute
342 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Paperboard Packaging Council
1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, B.C. 20036
Society of the Plastics Industry
250 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Steel Shipping Container Institute,
Inc.
600 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10020
Textile Bag Manufacturers Association
518 Bavis Street
Suite 208
Evanston, Illinois 60201
Western Wooden Box Association
55 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Wirebound Box Manufacturers Asso-
ciation, Inc.
222 West Adams Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chicago Sanitation Bepartment
54 West Hubbard
Chicago, Illinois 60610
Congressman William F. Ryan
Cannon Office Building
Washington, B.C. 20012
New York City Bepartment of Sani-
tation
125 Worth Street
New York, New York 10013
U.S. Bepartment of Commerce
Business and Befense Services Ad-
ministration
Containers and Packaging Bivision
Main Commerce Building
14th and Constitution Avenues
Washington, B.C. 20002
XI
-------
CONTENTS
Part I—The Outlook for Packaging, 1966 to 1976
Page
Introduction 3
Methodology 3
Approach 3
Data Sources—Statistical and General 4
General Background and Assumptions 5
An Overview of Packaging 5
Role in the Economy 5
Role in Solid Waste 5
Services Performed 5
Technological Base 6
Markets 7
Supplying Industries 7
Paper and Paperboard 8
Metals 10
Glass 11
Plastics 11
Wood 11
Basic Trends in Packaging 11
More Packaging Consumption per Capita 12
Increasing Number of Package Types 12
More Complex Packages 14
Paper and Paperboard 15
Paperboard 16
Containerboard 16
Boxboard 20
Paperboard—Summary Outlook 24
Flexible Paper 26
Bag Paper 26
Converting Paper 27
Wrapping Paper 27
Shipping Sacks 28
Glassine, Greaseproof, and Vegetable Paper 29
Flexible Papers—Summary Outlook 29
Specialty Paper 31
Coaled Converting Paper (One Side) 31
Uncoated Converting Paper (Book Paper) 31
Tissue Paper 31
Molded Pulp 31
Specialty Paper—Summary Outlook 32
xii
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Page
Glass 32
Technological Trends 34
Competitive Trends 35
Outlook for Non-beverage Glass Containers . . 36
Food 36
Drugs and Cosmetics 36
Chemicals 36
Outlook for Glass Beverage Containers 36
Glass: Summary Outlook 43
Metals 43
Metal Cans 47
Aluminum 47
Trends in Steel 55
Aerosol Containers 55
Competing Materials 57
Metal Cans: Summary Outlook 57
Aluminum Foil 57
Semi-Rigid Aluminum Foil Containers 57
Nonrigid Aluminum Foil 60
Collapsible Metal Tubes 62
Steel Drums and Pails 64
Metal Strapping 66
Gas Cylinders 66
Metal Caps and Crowns 66
Metal Caps 66
Metal Crowns 67
Plastics 67
Description of Plastics 68
Uses 69
General Trends 69
Flexible Plastics Packaging 70
Flexible Packaging 70
Shrink Packaging 75
Polyethylene Films 76
Other Plastic Films 76
Cellophane 77
Molded Plastic Containers 78
Formed Containers 78
Plastic Foams 81
Plastic Bottles 82
Plastic Clousures 87
Plastic Tubes 87
Wood 87
Nailed Wooden Boxes 88
Wirebound Boxes 90
Slack and Tight Cooperage 90
Wood Veneer 91
Textiles 91
-------
PACKAGING
Page
Miscellaneous Packaging Materials ... 92
Pallets and Skids . . 93
Cushioning Materials ... 93
Shredded Paper for Packing . . 93
Excelsior . .... . . 95
Connective Component Materials. . 95
Tag Stock 95
Tapes 95
Cordage and Twine ... ... 95
Coatings and Other Applied Materials . . . . 96
Adhesives. . . . . 96
Wax 96
Polyethylene Coatings . . . 96
Other Plastic Coatings .... 97
Inks 98
Summary . 99
Part II—The Disposability of Packaging Materials
Introduction 109
Discussion of Disposahility . . .... 109
Analysis of Quantitative Changes . . . 110
Packaging Waste in Perspective. ... . . . . 110
Absolute and Relative Increases. . . . . . 113
Significance of Findings . 116
Analysis of Collectibility . 116
Collection in Perspective... . . . 116
Some Basic Distinctions . . . 116
Litter 117
Volume 118
Other Factors Affecting Collectibility 118
Significance of Findings in Collection . ... 119
Analysis of Resistance to Disposal... . . 119
Disposal Methods in Perspective . .... 119
Discussion of Processes and Materials 121
Incineration 121
Sanitary Landfilling. 123
Open Dumping 124
Composting 125
Salvage, Reuse, and Conversion 126
Analysis of Resistance to Processing 133
Approach to the Analysis ... 133
How Resistance Values Were Assigned 133
How the Index Was Calculated 136
Step 1: Rating 136
Step 2: Consolidation 136
Step 3: Weighting by Market Share Within Categories 136
Step 4: Calculation of the Index 138
Limitations and Future Opportunities 139
Analysis of Findings, 1966-1976 139
Ranking of Materials and Processes 141
Comparative Resistance Values of Nine Disposal Process Cases... 142
xiv
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Part III—Mechanisms for Mitigating Problems Caused by Packaging
Materials in Waste Disposal
Page
Introduction 147
Formulation of Objectives 147
Mechanisms for Achieving Objectives 148
Reduction of the Quantity of Packaging Wastes Generated 148
Conservation of Natural Resources 148
Reduction of the Technical Difficulty of Handling Packaging Wastes in
Disposal Facilities 148
Evaluation of Mechanisms 149
Research and Development 149
Materials Research 149
Salvage Technology Research 150
Educational Efforts 151
Industry Programs 151
Consumer Programs 152
Intra-Government Information Programs 153
Incentives and Subsidies 154
The Question of Justification 154
Incentives and Salvage 154
Government Purchasing Policy as an Incentive 156
Taxes 157
The Concept of Packaging Use Tax 157
A Deterrent Tax 158
Regulation 160
The Nature of Current Regulatory Activity 160
Regulation in Packaging 161
Case 1: Regulation of Quantity 163
Case 2: Regulation of Materials 164
Case 3: Regulation of Container Types 165
Summary 166
Barriers to Action 166
General 166
Techno-Economic Barriers 167
Socioeconomic Barriers 168
Cultural Barriers 169
Demographic Barriers 169
Recommendations 170
References 171
Appendix I—The Disposability of Packaging Materials 173
Appendix II—Bibliography 189
xv
-------
PACKAGING
LIST OF TABULAR MATERIAL
Part I—The Outlook for Packaging, 1966 to 1976
Table Page
1 Distribution of Packaging Output by Selected End Use: 1958-1963... 7
2 Distribution of Packaging Outputs to Selected Consumer Packaging
End-Use Markets: 1958-1963 8
3 Distribution of Packaging Output to Selected Consumer Packaging
End-Use Markets: 1958-1963 8
4 Production of Selected Groups of Paper and Paperboard: 1966 and 1976. 16
5 Production of Paperboard: 1958 to 1966 17
6 Consumption of Paperboard Packages by Type: 1958 to 1966 17
7 Containerboard Types: Description and Relative Importance: 1966. . . 17
8 Distribution of Corrugated and Solid Fiber Shipping Containers to
End-Use Markets: 1958-1966 18
9 Boxboard Production: 1958-1966 20
10 Distribution of Set-Up Paper Boxes to End-Use Markets: 1958 to 1966. 21
11 Distribution of Folding Paper Boxes to End-Use Markets: 1958 to 1966. 21
12 Special Foodboard Production by End Use: 1958 to 1966 22
13 Distribution of Fiber Can and Tube Shipments: 1965 and 1966 23
14 Fiber Drum Shipments by End Use: 1966 23
15 Fiber Drum Shipments 1958 to 1966 24
16 Production of Paperboard Materials by Type: 1966 and 1976 26
17 Production of Converting Paper by Type: 1958 to 1966 28
18 Production of Flexible Paper by Type: 1966 and 1976 29
19 Tissue Paper Production by End Use: 1958 to 1965 32
20 Production of Specialty Paper by Type: 1966 and 1976 32
21 Typical 1967 Prices of Glass and Plastic Bottles for Toiletries and
Cosmetics 36
22 Milk Container Consumption and Milk Glass Container Fillings: 1958
to 1966 36
23 Shipments of Glass Containers by End Use: 1955 to 1976 37
24 Distribution of Glass Container Shipments by End Use: 1958 to 1976. 40
25 Beer and Soft Drink Container Production by Type of Container and
Use: 1958, 1966, and 1976 41
26 Shipments of Beer and Soft Drink Containers: 1958 to 1976 44
27 Consumption of Metal Packaging Materials by Type: 1966 and 1976. 45
28 Consumption of Metal Cans by End Use: 1958, 1966, and 1976 47
29 Shipments of Metal Cans by End Use: 1958 to 1976 50
30 Number of Cans Consumed by End Use: 1958 to 1967 51
31 Nonfood Aerosol Containers Consumed by Size: 1955 to 1966 56
32 Consumption of Aerosol Containers by End Use: 1958 to 1966 58
33 Aluminum Consumed in Packaging 60
34 Consumption of Aluminim Foil by End Use: 1958 to 1965, in millions of
pounds 61
35 Consumption of Aluminum Foil by End Use: 1958 to 1965, in percent of
total pounds 62
36 Shipments of Collapsible Tubes by End Use: 1958 to 1966, in millions
of units 63
37 Shipments of Collapsible Tubes by End Use: 1958 to 1966, in percent of
shipment 63
xvi
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Table Page
38 Shipments of Collapsible Tubes by Type of Metal: 1958 to 1966 63
39 Shipments of Steel Shipping Barrels, Drums, and Pails: 1958 to 1966. . 65
40 Shipments of Steel Barrels, Drums, and Pails by End Use: 1958-1966 . 65
41 Shipments of Closures for Containers: 1958-1966 67
42 Consumption of Plastics by End Use: 1958 to 1976 68
43 Plastics Consumed in Packaging by Type of Material: 1966 70
44 Plastics Consumed in Packaging: 1965-1967 71
45 Consumption of Film in Packaging: 1966 and 1976 73
46 Films Consumed in Packaging by Type: 1958 to 1966 73
47 Film Consumed in Shrink Packaging: 1963-1966 75
48 Polyethylene Film Consumed in Packaging by End Use: 1961-1966 ... 76
49 Shipments of Cellophane by End Use: 1962-1966 77
50 Representative 1967 Prices of Selected Packaging Papers, Films, and
Foils 77
51 Consumption of Formed and Molded Plastics by Type: 1966 and 1976. 78
52 Resins for Bottles—Comparative Data 84
53 Shipments of Blow-Molded Plastic Bottles by End Use and Resin:
1960 to 1976 85
54 Consumption of Wood in Packaging by End Use: 1966 and 1976 88
55 Shipments of Wooden Containers by Type: 1958-1976 88
56 Shipments of Textiles for Packaging: 1958-1976 92
57 Shipments of Textile Bags by End Use: 1958-1966 92
58 Consumption of Cushioning and Component Material by Type, 1966
and 1976 93
59 Consumption of Miscellaneous Packaging Materials: 1958—1976 94
60 Consumption of Polyethylene Extrusion Coatings: 1962, 1964, and
1966 97
61 Plastic Coatings Consumed in Packaging by Type of Plastic: 1965 and
1966 98
62 Total Packaging Consumption by Type of Material: 1966-1976 98
63 Consumption of Packaging Materials by Type: 1958-1976 101
64 Consumption of Packaging Materials by Type: 1958-1976 102
65 Consumption of Packaging Materials by Kind: 1958-1976 104
66 Per Capita Consumption of Packaging Materials by Kind: 1958—1976. 105
Part II—The Disposability of Packaging Materials
67 Average Annual Increase in Per Capita Consumption of Packaging
Materials: 1958 to 1976 116
68 Increase in Per Capita Consumption of Packaging Materials: 1966 to
1976 116
69 Survey of Litter Found Along a One-Mile Stretch of Two-Lane High-
way in the State of Kansas 117
70 Per Capita Consumption of Beverage Containers: 1966 and 1976 117
71 Composition of a Ton of Packaging Materials: 1966 and 1976 118
72 Shipments of Metal Cans by End-Use Markets: 1965 119
73 Relative Dominance of Disposal Methods: 1966 to 1976 120
74 Inert Residue of a Ton of Packaging Materials by Material: 1966 and
1976 121
75 Heating Values of Packaging Materials: 1966 122
xvn
326-388 O - 69 - 2
-------
PACKAGING
Table Page
76 Sulfur Content of a Ton of Representative Packaging Materials: 1966 . 122
77 Density of Solid Packaging Materials 123
78 Consumption of Fibrous Materials in Paper and Board Mills 129
79 Selected Paperstock Price Ranges: 1966 to 1967 130
80 Number of Glass Containers Required To Make One Ton of Gullet . . 131
81 Suitable Material Characteristics 133
82 Rating Definitions of Incineration 135
83 Rating Definitions of Sanitary Landfill 135
84 Rating Definitions of Composting 135
85 Rating Definitions of Salvage, Reuse, and Conversion 136
86 Disposability Ratings: Metals 137
87 Disposability Resistance Calculation: Metals, 1966 138
88 Disposability Resistance Values of Major Material Groupings by
Disposal Process: 1966 138
89 Calculation of Disposability Resistance Index: 1966 140
90 Effect of Disposal Process on Disposability Resistance Index by
Material: 1966 and 1976 141
91 Effect of Materials on Disposability Resistance Index by Disposal
Process: 1966 and 1976 141
92 Comparison of Packaging Materials and Their Contribution to Volume
and Resistance: 1966 and 1976 142
93 Disposability Processes and Their Contribution to Materials Handled
and Resistance: 1966 and 1976 142
94 Influence of Disposal Process Share on the Disposability Resistance
Index: 1976 143
Part III—Mechanisms for Mitigating Problems Caused by
Packaging Materials in Waste Disposal
95 Estimated Annual Cost of Operating a Waste Disposal Technology
Information Center 154
96 Major Federal Government Departments and Agencies With Regu-
latory Functions and Principal Justifications for Their Activities. . . 161
97 Federal Packaging Regulations and the Agencies That Enforce Them . 162
98 Package Costs of Selected Products 164
99 1967 Container-Litter Legislative Bills Introduced 165
100 Importance of Barriers to Waste Reduction Objectives 167
101 Index of Disposable Personal Income and Per Capita Personal Con-
sumption Expenditures on Selected Items 169
102 Estimates of Average Work Week and Length of Vacation Per Year
by Major Occupational Groups: 1960 and 1976 170
Appendix I
103 Calculation of Disposal Resistance Index: 1976 175
104 Disposability Ratings: Paper and Paperboard 176
105 Disposability Resistance Calculations: Paper and Paperboard, 1966. . 177
106 Disposability Resistance Calculations: Paper and Paperboard, 1976. . 177
107 Disposability Ratings: Metals 178
108 Disposability Resistance Calculation: Metals, 1966 179
109 Disposability Resistance Calculation: Metals, 1976 179
xviii
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Table Page
110 Disposability Ratings: Glass . .... 180
111 Disposability Resistance Calculation: Glass, 1966 . . . . . . 181
112 Disposability Resistance Calculation: Glass, 1976 181
113 Disposability Ratings: Wood. . 182
114 Resistance Calculation: Wood, 1966 . ... 183
115 Disposability Resistance Calculation: Wood, 1976 .... 183
116 Disposability Ratings: Plastics . . . 184
117 Disposability Resistance Calculation: Plastics, 1966. . . 185
118 Disposability Resistance Calculation: Plastics, 1976 . 185
119 Disposability Ratings: Textiles . 186
120 Disposability Resistance Calculation: Textiles, 1966 and 1976 . 187
xix
-------
-------
PART I
The Outlook for Packaging, 1966 to 1976
-------
-------
The Outlook for Packaging, 1966 to 1976
INTRODUCTION
In Part I of this report, the outlook for packag-
ing materials in the 1966 to 1976 period is dis-
cussed. Analysis of the disposability of packaging
materials is reserved for Part II, and discussion
of various actions which may be taken to mitigate
the solid waste problems arising from packaging
materials is taken up in Part III.
A general description of the methodology is
presented first. Next a general overview of
packaging is presented, followed by an analysis
of general trends affecting the future of packaging
as a whole. Thereafter, separate sections are
devoted to each basic packaging material cate-
gory. Finally, the forecasts are summarized in
the concluding section of this analysis.
METHODOLOGY
In this section, some overall observations are
made about the methods used to arrive at fore-
casts in Part I of the report. Considering the
breadth of the analysis and the multitude of
individual material and configurational categories
that were treated, the following discussion is
perforce general in nature; it is impractical to,
trace the method by which each specific packaging
material or configurational grouping was forecast.
Approach
The general methodological approach to this
study involved the acquisition and evaluation of
both quantitative and qualitative inputs about
packaging on which judgments about the most
likely developments in packaging could be made.
Separate forecasts were prepared for each packag-
ing material and configurational category. These
forecasts were then reconciled with one another
and tallied to obtain an overall prediction of 1976
packaging materials consumption.
Packaging materials were first identified, and
consumption data for the 1958 to 1966 period
were gathered in as much detail as possible.
Statistical data served as a starting point for
forecasts. Units of measure (dollar sales, units
such as gross, base boxes, square feet, tons, etc.)
were converted into pounds to establish a com-
parable quantitative base in a unit of measure
which would have the most meaning from a solid
waste processing standpoint. Such an approach is
unique; in most packaging studies, the most
common uniform measure used is value of ship-
ments expressed in dollars.
Since many types of packaging applications
depend on broad economic and socioeconomic
movements (food consumption, for instance,
follows population growth and disposable in-
come trends), historical trends were examined
with care. The initial forecasts of 1976 consump-
tion, for instance, were based on the 1958 to 1966
rate of change within material and configurational
categories, their growth or decline, whichever
applied. Few of these initial forecasts were allowed
to stand. Most were modified, some drastically,
on the basis of qualitative analysis of trends in
technology, marketing, cost, and other factors. As
part of this study, extensive correlation analysis
(regression analysis) was undertaken to deter-
mine if packaging material consumption could be
correlated positively with various economic and
demographic indicators (for instance, grocery
store sales, expenditures on recreation, number
of working wives in the labor force, etc.). Al-
together, the correlation between each of 42 indi-
cators and each of 47 packaging categories was
measured, using computer techniques. No signifi-
cant correlations were discovered, however, prob-
ably because the eight data points used (1958 to
1966) were too few.
Much effort in the research was devoted to
identification of trends in technology and evalua-
tion of significant developments taking place or
likely to take place in the future. Two types of
developments received attention: internal changes
in packaging that center primarily on inter-
materials competition, new materials and config-
3
-------
PACKAGING
urations, changing cost structures, and changing
market conditions; and external environmental
changes in packaging requirements arising from
social, economic, marketing, governmental, and
technological factors.
Four basic questions were asked about specific
packaging developments: How probable is it that
the development will actually materialize con-
sidering such factors as its technical feasibility,
economics, and prevailing and expected market
conditions? What would be the qualitative effects
of the development on the quality, quantity,
production and conversion technology, and mar-
keting of packaging? What would be the quantita-
tive effect of the development? What would be the
time-rate relations of the change?
Packaging technology was evaluated with a
view to several specific factors. Among these were:
the consumption trends and container require-
ments of the products to be packaged; methods of
distribution to the consumer; packaging material/
product performance requirements; packaging
material functional characteristics and costs;
production and conversion machinery technology
and costs; and inter-materials competition. Assess-
ment of these important factors as they relate to
each packaging material or packaging-related
development led to judgments about whether or
not all these factors working in combination were
likely to produce a significant new packaging ap-
plication in terms of quantity and what the effects
would be on competing materials and configura-
tions.
Throughout the analysis of packaging and
packaging materials, emphasis was placed on
identifying those forces—technological, sociologi-
cal, economic, or marketing—that will have the
greatest impact in the next 10 years. Particular
stress was placed on factors that will have the
greatest influence on solid waste. Therefore, the
forecasts were expressed in terms of two general
criteria: (1) the materials technology and its
result on product quality and physical character-
istics; (2) the quantity of each material that will be
consumed in 1976.
During the preparation of forecasts, quantita-
tive projections in three modes were developed:
highest possible consumption, most likely con-
sumption, and lowest possible consumption. In
this report, we have consistently selected what we
considered the "most likely" future consumption
rates.
Data Sources—Statistical arid General
Statistical data were derived primarily from
government, trade association, and trade pub-
lications. The most important government sources
were the Business and Defense Services Adminis-
tration's Containers and Packaging, and various
Current Industrial Reports series. Many trade
associations also provided good statistical in-
formation. Among these were the American
Paper Institute, Inc., the Can Manufacturers
Institute, Inc. and the Glass Container Manu-
facturers Institute, Inc. The primary trade
publications were Modern Packaging, Modern
Plastics, and Paperboard Packaging.
Midwest Research Institute (MRI) provided
additional data, conversion factors, and estimates
for the categories in which data were not available
or required modification.
The statistical data are considered to be rea-
sonably accurate; for the most part they are
based on expert estimates or direct reporting.
Rough estimates had to be used only for relatively
minor material categories. Where conversion
factors were used, the data were based on a
test sample or industry estimates.
In the forecasts, the consumption figures were
derived by using the basic unit of measure for
that material (e.g., base boxes for steel cans)
and converting it to pounds ba sed on the forecast
materials technology and types.
The extensive literature on packaging provided
one base for the qualitative analysis. In addition,
MRI had extensive contact through field visits,
telephone interviews, and visits at MRI offices
with industry officials in trade associations and
packaging companies to verify the qualitative
judgments that were made. However, the final
forecasts are MRI's and they do not necessarily
agree with those of persons we interviewed.
There are, of course, limitations to a 10-year
forecast. For example, research in private labora-
tories may already have produced new packaging
developments that could have significant effects
but are guarded secrets of the trade today.
Indirect evaluation of the probability of such
developments was part of this analysis, however.
Many of the forecasts rest upon a multitude of
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
variables—cost, material technology, market ac-
ceptance, etc.—and any changes in these variable
conditions could change a forecast appreciably.
However, these factors are usually subject to
continuing surveillance and in some cases were
specifically pointed out in this report. Broad
movements are generally well established and
variations in future packaging will most likely
show up in specific applications rather than in
whole new major configurations or materials
types.
General Background and Assumptions
As in most studies of this type, assumptions
were made about general environmental condi-
tions for background purposes. For example, it
was assumed that the U.S. economy would con-
tinue to show the relatively stable conditions
experienced in the last 10 years and that serious
dislocation would not occur. The general growth
of the Gross National Product and output of
goods was based on accepted government fore-
casts of about 4 percent per year real growth.
Population growth was assumed to be at a
slower rate than in previous years, and the second
lowest rate of growth published by the Bureau
of Census was used. In addition to assumptions
about the general environment, the Midwest
Research Institute forecasts were also based on
certain assumptions about the forces at work in
packaging today and the most likely conditions
a decade hence. Specifically, no adjustments
were made for the impact on packaging of Federal
or local programs aimed at easing the solid waste
or litter burden created by packaging; any such
programs initiated before 1976 may have consider-
able influence on packaging material consumption.
AN OVERVIEW OF PACKAGING
Role in the Economy
Packaging is a service activity intrinsically
connected with the mass distribution of goods in
the U.S. marketplace. Wherever commodities are
sold, packaging can be found; as a consequence,
this service activity touches virtually all aspects
of the nation's economic life. With the exception
of fuels which are pipelined directly to the user
or moved in special conveyances to the site of use
in bulk form, those building materials which are
conveyed in unpackaged form to the construction
site, automobiles and certain other wheeled equip-
ment, and a few commodities which are delivered
to the consumer directly, like newspapers, every-
thing is packaged in one form or another before
reaching the consumer. The package may be a
pallet on which the product is held in place, a
drum, a sack, a corrugated box, or one of the
many other consumer packaging configurations.
Not surprisingly, a substantial percentage of
the nation's expenditures goes for items whose
primary purpose is to convey products to market
and which are not desired for their own sake. In
1966, the public, commercial organizations, and
industry spent in excess of $25 billion on pack-
aging in all of its aspects—approximately 3.4
percent of Gross National Product. Of the total,
$16.2 billion were spent on packaging materials,
$225 million on machinery to shape and process
the materials, and the remaining $9 billion
represented value added to the materials by the
package manufacturer.
Role in Solid Waste
Since packaging materials are used primarily
to convey goods from manufacturer to user, and
since most packages make only a single trip after
which they are discarded, packaging plays an
important role as a component of solid waste.
The $16.2 billion worth of materials purchased
in 1966 weighed 51.7 million tons. About 90 per-
cent of these materials was discarded, represent-
ing 13.3 percent of the 350 million tons of resi-
dential, commercial, and industrial waste gener-
ated in the United States in 1966.*
Services Performed
A package contains or holds merchandise, pro-
tects it, unitizes it, and communicates a message
about it. These packaging services also imply that
the package makes a product easier to handle and
ship, display and sell.
A distinction can be made between two kinds
of packaging: packing and packaging proper.
Packing is used predominantly to aid in the hand-
ling, shipping, and warehousing of a product.
Although packing also protects the contents and
carries a message identifying the contents, pro-
tection and communication are frequently of
*The 350-million-ton figure excludes demolition wastes,
scrapped automobiles, agricultural wastes, and mining
wastes.
-------
6
PACKAGING
secondary importance whereas containment is the
paramount consideration. The most generally
known example of packing is the corrugated box
in which other packages are shipped. Canned
goods, for example, are already well protected by
the can, carry a unitized amount of merchandise,
and their colorful labels proclaim the basic sales
message. In order to ship these small containers
efficiently, however, a container is necessary to
hold them. The corrugated box is that container.
Packaging proper is mainly used to unitize,
protect, and to communicate a message about a
product. Unitization is implied by the term "pack-
aging." The package contains either a measured
quantity of product or it holds one or more units
of a product. Unitization can take place either
during the sales transaction or it may be accom-
plished well before the sale is made. An example
of Unitization during the sale is the butcher's
action in weighing and packing a pound of ground
beef, taken from a tray, while the shopper waits.
Packaging is an example of unitization before the
sale. For this reason, some observers prefer the
term "pre-unitizing" to describe this particular
packaging service.
Protection of the contents is a fundamental
packaging function. The package acts as a barrier,
in the widest sense of the word, against environ-
mental forces which may adversely affect the con-
tents during storage, handling, shipment, ware-
housing, display, sale, and use. Protection is
afforded, depending on the contents, against phy-
sical impacts, scratching, abrasion, oxidation, heat,
cold, the effects of light and gases, biological con-
tamination, and similiar influences. Additionally,
packages may be designed to frustrate pilferage
and the activities of curious consumers wishing
to see the contents.
Product protection and communication are
closely linked. Protection frequently takes the
form of total enclosure, thus hiding the contents.
These must be identified. Of course, communi-
cation goes well beyond product identification; it
must also sell the product, and the package, at
times, is designed to do nothing more than to
convey a sales message. The most obvious example
of such a package is a colorful poster to which the
product, in a container, is attached. The poster is
unnecessary for functional purposes, but it makes
the product appear larger and attracts attention.
In yet other cases, protection and communication
are accomplished at one stroke by using trans-
lucent or clear packaging which shows the con-
tents while protecting them.
Both the degree of protection afforded by the
package and the intensity of the communication
are relative to the product packaged, its sales
price, end use, and similiar factors. Food staples
tend to be well protected to safeguard perishable
contents; the sales message may be vigorously
expressed but will not take novel forms. By con-
trast, novelty items, depending on impulse buying
to achive a sale, tend to wear more showy pack-
aging garments.
In addition to the basic services packaging per-
forms, certain specific packaging categories are also
designed to provide convenience in dispensing the
product (aerosol can, milk bottle with a handle,
cereal box with a spout, beverage can with rip-off
closure, etc.) and in use of the product (frozen
dinner package, boil-in-bag container, etc.). Yet
other packages are manufactured for secondary
use—for example, cereal boxes which can be made
into paper dolls or games after they are emptied.
Technological Base
Packaging is a form of materials processing. The
package manufacturer sizes, shapes, and joins
paper, metals, glass, wood, plastics, and textiles to
obtain a desired package configuration. The pack-
age is then filled and closed and is then usually
packed for shipment. Many kinds of materials
processing techniques are used to produce pack-
ages, for instance the nailing of wood, laminating
materials, glass blowing, steel forming, and other
similar activities which call for complicated
equipment.
Most important from the technological point
of view is that the package manufacturer almost
always combines dissimilar materials to make a
package. A glass bottle will typically be capped by
a metal closure with a cork or plastic gasket. A
steel can will be coated with tin, soldered, and
wrapped with a paper label held in place by a
combination of water-based and hot-melt adhe-
sives. Most flexible paper wraps are coated with
wax or plastics and may be laminated to a metallic
foil. Corrugated and solid fiber boards are fre-
quently coated or used in combination with coated
inner liners, cellulosic "windows," as substrates for
plastic shrink wrap, etc. Plastic films often appear
in combination with paper, plastic bottles come
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
7
with metal caps, plastic boxes \vith metal hinge
supports. The list could be expanded at will; the
above examples, however, suffice to suggest the
multitude of material combinations encountered
in packaging.
This proliferous intermarriage of materials is
basic to packaging. Each distinct material and
material combination offers specific performance
advantages and disadvantages which make it
O D
suitable or undesirable for a given product.
Advantages or disadvantages may relate to phys-
ical performance, machiiiability, weight, size.
appearance, etc. Since a very large number of
technological and economic factors interact in
this field, it is difficult to predict future develop-
ments in packaging. A new but expensive mate-
rial, for instance, could penetrate a market because
it permits faster machinery speeds. Similarly, a
new coating could make a weak and cheap material
stronger, thus qualifying it for competition with a
superior substance selling at a higher price. The
development of a printing ink compatible with a
substrate not heretofore printable can equip the
substrate for entry into new markets.
Packaging, then, rests on a complex of tech-
nologies including materials chemistry, materials
forming and joining, and material handling. It is
influenced by food chemistry, transportation tech-
nology, innovations in graphic reproduction, and
a host of other seemingly unrelated activities.
Markets
Packaging materials reach two distinct markets:
the consumer and industrial/commercial buyers.
On the basis of dollar expenditures, the consumer
spends by far the greater amount on packaging.
Three quarters of all expenditures are made by
residential householders.
Industrial and commercial markets for packag-
ing resemble each other and may be considered a
single outlet. From the packaging point of view,
both industrial and commercial containers serve
to move goods in bulk or in unitized quantities
larger than those which the consumer buys.
The package is seldom designed to carry a sales
message. And although industrial and commercial
concerns also purchase packages in all configura-
tions, a considerable proportion of their expendi-
tures are for packages never encountered in a home.
The approximate distribution of packaging
expenditures between the consumer and the
industrial/commercial buyer for package config-
urations common to both market sectors was
compiled for the package types that accounted
for approximately 90 percent of all expenditures
on packaging from 1958 to 1963 (Table l).The
remaining expenditures were made up of wooden
containers, steel drums and pails, textile sacks,
fiber drums, and similar bulk containers.
By far the largest user of consumer packages
was the food industry, followed by beverages and
chemical products (Table 2). A closer look at the
expenditures of these three industries (Table 3)
reveals that canned and frozen foods, malt liquors,
and cosmetics, respectively, were the product
groupings which led expenditures in these end-use
markets. These commodity categories absorbed
nearly 30 percent of all consumer packaging
outlays.
Supplying Industries
However convenient it is to speak of a packag-
ing industry, such an entity does not exist.
Packages are manufactured by a number of indus-
tries, using inputs from yet other industrial or
TABI/E 1.—Distribution of packaging output by selected
end use: 1958-1963 »
Percent
End \
Consumer Industrial'
packaging commercial
expenditures packaging
expenditures
Corrugated board b
Fold/sail boxes
Set-up boxes
Wrappers
Labels
Fiber cans
Metal cans
Metal collapsible tubes.
Aerosol packages. .
Aluminum foil
Closures .
Glass containers
Polyethylene
Plastic jars
Cellophane. . .
All packaging
45.0
73.7
68.1
75. 7
93.3
100.0
88.3
89.3
97.1
84. 1
91.8
95.7
92.7
88. 1
95.0
55. 0
26.3
31.9
24.3
6.7
W
11.7
10.7
2.9
15.9
4.3
8.2
7.3
11.9
5.0
77.1
22.9
a Expressed as a percent of d five-year average dollar value of packaging,
1958-1963.
b Estimated by Midwest Research Institute.
c Minimal.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services
Administration. Containers and Packaging, 20(2): 8-11, July 1967.
Modified by Midwest Research Institute.
-------
8
PACKAGING
TABLE 2.—Distribution of packaging outputs to selected
consumer packaging end-use markets: 1958-1963 a
TABLE 3.—Distribution of packaging output to selected
consumer packaging end-use markets: 1958—1963 •
End-use market
Percent
of total
End-use market
Percent of total
expenditures
Food 43. 7 Food and kindred products:
Beverages 12.6 Meat products 3.3
Chemicals and allied products .. .... 11.7 Dairy products 7.7
Paper, printed and allied products 3.9 Canned and frozen foods:
Textile and apparel .... 2.7 Canned and cured seafoods .. ..0.5
Hardware 2. 4 Canned specialties 2. 8
Petroleum products 1. 9 Canned fruits and vegetables. ... 6. 7
Tobacco and related products .9 Dehydrated food products 5
Toys, jewelry, etc .7 Pickles, sauces, etc 1.4
Miscellaneous and other 19.5 Fresh, frozen, and packaged fish. . .3
Frozen fruits and vegetables 2. 0
Total . 100.0 Other 1.3
•This percent distribution is derived from a distribution of output to Total, canned and frozen foods 15.5
selected end-use markets for the five years, 1958-1963. It is based on Grain mills 2 1
dollars and covers about 75 percent of all packaging. '
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Bakery products 4. 2
Administration. Containers and Packaging, 20(2): 8-11, July 1967. Sugar. ... . ... 1. 0
Modified by Midwest Research Institute. .-, - r 0
Confectionary 5. o
„ ,. , , . , Fats and oils 2.0
service groups. Depending on the base material Miscellaneous 2.6
used and its processing technology, the quantity
of the basic material converted to packaging, the Total, food and kindred products 43. 7
particular configuration, and the product to be Beverages:
contained, the package manufacturing step may Malt harrl na^lrao-p mamifflntnrincr Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services
raper ana paperooara pactage manuiacturmg AdminlBtration. containers and Packaging, 20(2): a-n, July 1967.
is a highly integrated activity (Figure 1). The Modified by Midwest Research institute.
typical large paper company obtains its virgin
fiber from wholly owned pulpwood forests and is of converting facilities tied to raw materials
capable of converting the tree into a package. production. In industries where packaging volume
The package buyer needs only to fill, seal, and is not great in relation to total production of the
label the container. At least part of the reason for basic material, far less integration is encountered.
such a high degree of integration is that a large Integration, however, is not strictly applicable
percentage of total paper and paperboard pro- to all paper and paperboard configurations or all
duction enters packaging markets (about 25 per- operations. For instance, the manufacture of set-up
cent of paper, 85 percent of paperboard), thus boxes is usually handled by small companies
creating sufficient volume to justify installation serving limited geographical areas. These contain-
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
RAW MATERIALS
SUPPLY
RAW MATERIALS
PROCESSING
PACKAGE
FABRICATION/CONVERSION^
PACKAGE USER
INDUSTRIES
197 M TONS
240 M TONS
5,852 M TONS
INDUSTRY COMPANIES MAY BE:
Independent
~"
-»
-w
L»
-»
>-»
h-»
-»
-
PACKAGING
2,243 M TONS
(BAGS & SACKS)
SHIPPING SACK
(BAGS & SACKS)
OTHER PAPER
PACKAGING
1,375 MTONS
CONTAINERBOARD
(BOXES)
BOXBOARD
(BOXES, ETC.)
3,615 M TONS
BOXBOARD
(BOXES, ETC.)
560 M TONS
(CONTAINERS, ETC.)
FIBER CAN
& DRUM STOCK
(CANS, TUBES, DRUMS)
529 M TONS
— i
~
—
i »>
> — »
FOOD
TEXTILES &
APPAREL
PRINTING &
PUBLISHING
APPLIANCES, ETC.
RETAIL TRADE
AGRICULTURE
HOUSEHOLD
& OTHER
Sell to ,
^Logging & Lumber ^ •^^Independent Mills __^.
Operators |
i
1 X /
^Integrated Operations - Timber Operations to Mill Products/-
to--/--.
/
Independent Fabricators & Converters ^> *-
' User Industry
Sell to
Captive Fabrication and Conversion - User Industry
Integrated Operations - Timber to Fabricated Packaging Products
Sell to
-
User Industry
a/ Fabricators and converters may make packages from other material as well as
paper or paperboard
Source. Midwest Research Institute
FIGURE 1.—Paper, paper-board, and wood packaging—Industry structure and flow chart: 1966
-------
10
PACKAGING
ers are shipped in finished form—standing rather
than flat. Since much air is transported when
set-up boxes are shipped, freight rates preclude
their manufacture at points far from the user. Also,
set-up boxes are produced in a wide variety of
types; few of the types achieve a sufficiently
large volume to justify their manufacture by
integrated paper producers.
Some paper is also converted by the packager,
who buys the required stock and fabricates it
into a package in his own conversion facilities.
In such a case, the justification for the captive
facility may be found in the large quantities of
uniform packages used by the manufacturer,
which he can produce more profitably in his own
shop.
Certain operations in paper package conversion
are also performed by independent operators,
primarily printing, glazing, and coating of papers.
Where an entrepreneur outside of the paper in-
dustry does such work, the volume of material
to be printed, glazed, or coated is usually large,
or the job calls for custom tailoring of the end
product to a specific requirement.
Metals
The industrial structure which has evolved for
the production of metal containers is slightly
different from the one found in paper, and the
reason may be sought in the fact that metal
containers represent a much smaller percentage
of the steel industry's output (Figure 2). In 1963,
only 9 percent of the industry's output ended up
as containers, primarily metal cans. With such
a relatively small percentage of its total volume
earmarked for packaging, the steel industry has
RAW MATERIALS
SUPPLY
STEEL
ALUMINUM
RAW MATERIALS
PROCESSING
PACKAGE
FABRICATION/CONVERSION^/
PACKAGE
USER INDUSTRIES
IRON ORE
Domestic
Imported
BAUXITE
Domestic
Imported
PRIMARY
MILLS
PRIMARY
ALUMINUM
MILLS
STEEL
ROLLING
MILLS
<
NONPACKAGING
MARKETS
I
ALUMINUM
DRAWING &
ROLLING
MILLS
6,794
MTONS
358
M TONS
p»
CANS
5,174 M TONS STEEL
165 M TONS Al
BARRELS, DRUMS
& PAILS
823 M TONS STEEL
FOIL
177 M TONS Al
TUBES
16 M TONS Al
CLOSURES
337 M TONS STEEL
OTHER
460 M TONS STEEL
-»
-»•
-»
FOOD
BEVERAGES
CHEMICALS
PETROLEUM
HOUSEHOLD
OTHER
STEEL INDUSTRY COMPANIES MAY BE:
^ Integrated Raw Materials Processing "\^= — -
SeU to_
SelltoJJser
Industry
ALUMINUM INDUSTRY COMPANIES MAY BE:
^ Integrated Operations - Raw Materials to Mill Products
V-* Sell to ./• Independei
—, *\___ Converter;
Captive^ Fabrications - User Industry (Cans)
Integrated Operations m Raw Materials to Fabricated Packaging Products
a/Package fabricators and converters may make packages from other materials as well as
steel or aluminum
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
FIGURE 2.—Metal packaging—Industry structure and flow chart: 1966
-------
-------
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
11
not found justification to integrate forward into
can making and is engaged only in production of
sheet steel for packaging uses.
Steel containers are manufactured by independ-
ent converters or by packagers from rolled tin-
plate purchased from the steel industry. Exam-
ples of converters are American Can, Continental
Can, and National Can. Examples of packagers
with captive can manufacturing facilities are
Campbell Soup Company and Carnation Com-
pany. The bulk of can output (80 percent) is
manufactured by independent converters under
contract to the packager.
A somewhat different arrangement character-
izes aluminum can production. Although alu-
minum packages also account for only a small
proportion of total aluminum output (perhaps 8
percent), aluminum producers are also package
producers. Reynolds Metals Company and Kaiser
Aluminum both manufacture beer cans in direct
competition with independent fabricators who
may also be their customers. Another segment of
the industry, exemplified by Alcoa, has chosen
not to compete with converters and restricts its
activity to the sale of aluminum stock to inde-
pendent fabricators.
The different approaches adopted by steel and
aluminum producers trace to the different degrees
of packaging market penetration by steel and
aluminum. Steel is well established; aluminum is
aspiring. In its efforts to create a larger market for
its material, a part of the aluminum industry is
willing to go to some length to establish its prod-
uct, including the construction of a can manufac-
turing plant serving a large user. Historical excess
production capacity in this industry has also led to
nontraditional marketing approaches, such as
competition with its own customers, a novel de-
parture in the metal packaging industry.
Glass
Glass technology is the governing factor shaping
the glass package manufacturing industry. Unlike
other packaging materials, glass cannot be shipped
as an intermediate raw material to a converter for
shaping. Glass containers must be formed as part
of the overall glass production process. For this
reason, the glass producer is also always the con-
tainer producer. He ships the product to the
packager for filling, sealing, and shipment (Figure
3).
Plastics
Corporate approaches to the production of
plastic packages illustrate once more that raw
materials producers will assume converting func-
tions as soon as sufficient packaging volume has
been created (or is anticipated) to make such a
move appear profitable. Until recently, plastic
resins, supplied by chemical companies and petro-
leum refiners, were converted into packages or
films almost exclusively by independent convert-
ers. In the past few years, Du Pont, Monsanto,
Union Carbide, Dow, Phillips, Tenneco, and
other resin suppliers have moved into resin con-
version and today make films, bottles, and tubes.
Some major package manufacturers (e.g., Ameri-
can Can and Owens-Illinois) have also acquired
in-house capabilities to convert resin into finished
packages. The plastics packaging industry appears
to be in a state of transition—from a decentralized
structure in which raw material processors showed
little interest in end products to one in which the
raw material producers have integrated forward
to embrace conversion functions (Figure 4).
These moves are explained by the growth of
plastics in packaging. On the whole, this market
accounts for 18 to 20 percent of all plastics sold on
a tonnage basis. But the percentages do not tell
the entire story. Certain plastics, for example poly-
vinyl chloride, play a very minor role in packag-
ing. About half of all polyethylene produced, how-
ever, goes into packaging. In addition to the
present consumption situation, raw materials pro-
ducers also view the future with optimism—a view
fully borne out by MRI forecasts. Plastic usage in
packaging is expected to double by 1976 on a
tonnage basis.
Wood
With only 3 percent of their output taking the
ultimate form of a package, the nation's saw mills
have not integrated forward into package man-
ufacturing. Wood is usually converted into pack-
ages by independent fabricators (Figure 1).
BASIC TRENDS IN PACKAGING
Much more packaging will be consumed per
capita in the next decade than in the previous one.
There will be more kinds of packages on the mar-
ket and packages will be compounded of dissimilar
materials. These statements summarize the basic
trends in packaging as they are expected to
-------
12
PACKAGING
RAW MATERIALS
SUPPLY
RAW MATERIALS
PROCESSING
PACKAGE •
FABRICATION/CONVERSIONS/
PACKAGE USER
INDUSTRIES
GLASS CONTAINERS
(BOTTLES & JARS)
29.40 BILLION UNITS
16.46 BILLION POUNDS
NONPACKAGING
MARKETS
INDUSTRY COMPANIES ARE NORMALLY:
~, T~r : ~~ „ , . T~;: \ Sell to User Industries
Integrated Operations - Sand to Fabricated Containers ">—
FOOD
10.75 BILLION
UNITS
BEVERAGES
12.05 BILLION
UNITS
DRUGS &
COSMETICS
5.76 BILLION
UNITS
CHEMICALS
0.84 BILLION
UNITS
a/ Package fabricators and converters may make packages from other materials as well as glass.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
FIGURE 3.—Glass packaging—Industry structure and flow chart: 1966
appear in the next 10 years. A look at each trend
in detail follows.
More Packaging Consumption per Capita
At the root of this trend is the rise of self-
service merchandising. In such a distribution
system, the influence of the sales clerk is elimi-
nated. Products on shelves mutely vie for the
consumer's favor. Items which are attractively
packaged have an advantage over products lacking
flashy garments in such a situation, with the
consequence that packaging has penetrated into
areas where it has not been used traditionally.
Lettuce wrapped in plastic film, hand tools
encased in shrink-wrap plastics, and textile
products bagged in paper or plastics are examples,
along with many items of hardware, toys, garden
supplies, etc. which are packaged today whereas,
in the recent past, they were displayed in bins
or placed on shelves without wrappings. Overall,
this means that the volume of products reaching
the consumer in packaged form is increasing, and
with the proliferation of such products, packaging
materials consumption per capita will rise.
Increasing Number of Package Types
This trend also rests in part on the emergence
of the self-service store as the dominant form of
merchandising today and in t!be future. In self-
service outlets, products must sell themselves.
This has led to an unprecedented degree of package
differentiation in recent years. The reason:
packages must stand out to attract the consumer—
and differentiation accomplishes this aim by use
of bolder colors, unusual materials, greater size
ranges, novel shapes, and so forth.
While the types of packages have been multi-
plying in response to competitive pressures en-
countered in the self-service store, the same forces
have also given birth to many new products. To
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
13
RAW MATERIALS
SUPPLY
RAW MATERIALS
PROCESSING
PACKAGE
FABRICATION/CONVERSION^
a/
PACKAGE USER
INDUSTRIES
PLASTIC RESINS
NONPACKAGING
MARKETS
INDUSTRY COMPANIES MAY BE:
/ \ Sell to /- Independent -\ Sell to
< Integrated Operations - Raw Materials to Processing Plant Products > »< _ >- »•
X _± 1 £ / \~ Converters ./User Industri
Integrated Operations - Raw Materials to Fabricated Packaging Products
tries
XSell to
-/User Industries
a/ Package fabricators and converters may make packages from other materials as well as plastics.
b/ Excludes cellophane
Source: Midwest Research Institute
FIGURE 4.—Plastic packaging—Industry structure and flow chart: 1966
look at a single industry, frozen, pressurized,
freeze-dried, and instant foods are some examples
of relatively recent product innovations in food.
These new products call for new modes of packag-
ing or different types of containers. Satisfaction
of emerging packaging needs has led to—and is
still causing—the multiplication of the types of
packages on the market.
A third reason for this trend is intermaterials
competition. For instance, a product which tra-
ditionally has been packaged in paper will usually
come in a bag, on a paper tray, or in a box-like
container. When plastics or glass invade the
packaging market for such a product, different
package shapes frequently appear, but the new
packages may not entirely displace established
forms, with the result that a number of new
types of containers are available for the same
product. Until recently, shampoo could only be
purchased in glass bottles. Today it is available
in glass bottles, in plastic bottles, and in flexible
plastic tubing.
Package types are multiplied also by attempts
to provide shopping convenience and to move
goods with the same merchandising effort. Multi-
packing has been one result. In a multi-pack,
several items are combined into a single sales unit
by packaging: several cans, bottles, flashbulbs,
gaskets, ink cartridges, etc. If the consumer
desires one of these items, he must purchase
several. Similarly, the consumer may wish to buy
several units, and his purchase is facilitated by
having them conveniently united. This type of
packaging has given rise to new kinds of con-
tainers—and is also partly accountable for higher
consumption of packaging materials per capita.
The manufacturer must compete for shelf space
for his goods. Packages which are easier to re-
move from the master container, hold up well
in storage, maintain their brightness and at-
tractiveness under artificial light, and are diffi-
cult to pilfer and damage tend to be preferred by
the retail merchant over products which are de-
ficient in one or more of these service or perform-
ance categories. Novel packages, which the
merchant recognizes as potentially attractive to
his customers, tend to be featured—especially
so if they come in master containers which are
convertible into display cases. The desire to
provide a package attractive to the retail mer-
chant also translates into the multiplication of
package types.
326-388 O - 69 - 3
-------
14
PACKAGING
A final reason for the appearance of new types
of packages is the popularity of the working
package and secondary use package. A working
package is one which helps dispense the product
or aids in connection with use of the contents.
Secondary use packages are those which can be
utilized for some purpose after they are emptied.
The homemaker is most articulate in her con-
demnation of packages which are difficult to
work with. She vigorously condemns hard-to-
open containers—but also containers which are
difficult to reseal adequately after they have been
opened. She likes to have a wide choice of package
sizes, and she tends to reject packages which do
not fit her refrigerator or shelving. She dislikes
breakable containers in her bathroom. Finally,
she does not like the logistical problems involved
in returning deposit type containers.
What does she like? The homemaker likes
packages which make her job easier. She is an
inveterate collector of containers which are usable
for storage and flexible materials in which she
can wrap leftovers, lunches, and household items.
The enthusiastic reception of coffee cans equipped
with plastic lids and the popularity of frozen
foods, boil-in-bag vegetables, and instant food
preparations illustrate the homemaker's preference.
Consumer preference for convenience in pack-
aging and secondary use containers promotes
package type multiplication. Manufacturers are
increasing the size or volume range of their
packages: detergents are available in sizes
ranging from "giant" sized boxes to small pack-
ages sufficient for a single load of wash; portion-
packed cereals complete with family-sized boxes;
dog food may be purchased in a cereal box or in
a huge paper or plastic sack containing a month's
supply; milk is available in containers ranging
from half-pint size up to 5 gallons. Multiplication
of package sizes is observable in most consumer
packaging areas. Significant is the fact that new
package sizes do not displace existing configura-
tions but are presented as new alternatives to the
consumer.
Production of conveniently sized or unitized
products is only one reaction to the demand for
convenience. The consumer is also given the
option to buy a product in a discardable package
or one which can be retained for secondary use.
Jelly containers which become drinking glasses
are one example of the latter. The nonreturnable
bottle and beverages packaged in metal cans are
responses to the consumer's demand for "dis-
posable" packages. Frozen pies and full-course
dinners which can be prepared in the package;
twist-off type closures for beverage containers; a
variety of plastic boxes and tubs to hold food
staples; and the packaging of foods, cosmetics,
paints, and sprays under pressure for ease of
use are all developments which increase the
number of types of packages available and which
result from the consumer's predilection for more
easy-to-use and reusable containers.
More Complex Packages
As packages are called upon to fulfill more and
more functions beyond product containment
and protection, their costs increase. Intense
competition for the buyer's approval, however,
does not permit the manufacturer to pass the
entire cost of the package on to the consumer.
If at all possible, he must obtain the desired
package qualities and functions at a low cost.
In recent years, this has resulted in considerable
activity on the part of the package manufacturers,
package buyers, and material producers to ex-
ploit to the maximum whatever technology is
available to produce the desired packaging
products and to minimize their costs. Activities
have included the use of newer materials, com-
binations of materials, the use of less material
per unit of product packaged, packaging ma-
chinery improvements, and a host of other
innovations which help cut total merchandising
costs while maintaining and upgrading package
quality.
Innovative activity has been especially note-
worthy in the past five or six years and is largely
attributed to the appearance of plastics in
packaging. Many observers; would date the im-
pact of plastics from 1960, when the price of
polethylene dropped. This precipitated inter-
materials competition on a new level of intensity.
Plastics, since then have become strong contenders
for packaging markets. Producers of other ma-
terials have reacted to the threat from plastics
by steps to improve their materials, thus equipping
these for the competitive struggle. The end of
this war of materials for packaging markets is
not yet in sight. While it persists, packaging
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
15
will he characterized by rapid change on the
technological front.
The key to understanding inter-materials
competition and technological change lies in
the nature of the materials themselves. Each
packaging material class has definite advantages
and disadvantages in physical performance as a
package or in package forming, in cost, in ap-
pearance, or in a combination of these. Ad-
vantages and disadvantages are also related to
the product to be packaged. Some require barrier
coatings; others do not. Some look attractive
when displayed through a translucent covering;
others are best hidden behind an opaque surface.
The package designer, looking at his product
and at the multitude of material options open to
him, must find his way to a container which
maximizes the advantage inherent in a suitable
combination and minimizes the disadvantages.
He must hit upon a configuration which gives
him optimum performance at minimum cost.
This situation is difficult to present with pre-
cision because in the manufacturer's language,
"performance" does not refer strictly to physical
characteristics but to physical characteristics and
the more nebulous packaging attributes which
lead to sales growth ("warmth," "gloss," "novelty,"
etc.). Similarly, "cost" does not refer only to
material price and production expenses but also
includes outlays for filling the package, its
transport (lighter, less bulky packages are pre-
ferred, for instance), refrigeration costs, the losses
associated with spoilage and breakage, and others.
When all of these elements are included, a package
which may appear to be more expensive on the
basis of material price alone may turn out to be
the cheapest solution to a particular packaging
problem.
Packaging manufacturers have always combined
dissimilar materials. What is significant today is
that the number of materials suitable for combi-
nation has increased dramatically with the advent
of plastics, whose many varieties and combinations
of varieties have been added to the list of tradi-
tional substances used in this field. Along with
the appearance of plastics has come development
of new coating and adhesive technologies which
permit the combination of materials which have
not, heretofore, appeared in union. The consider-
able increase in the options available to the pack-
age manufacturer, coupled with the demand for
new and better packages, is the predominant
reason for the wave of innovation sweeping
packaging today.
Package manufacturers have not fully exploited
or explored the possibilities of this changed tech-
nological base in packaging. Such exploration of
new choices and use of new materials lies in the
future. As packagers move toward application of
new technology, packages are expected to become
more complex in composition.
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
Paper and paperboard dominate the packaging
materials field. In terms of tonnage, paper and
paperboard accounted for 55 percent of all pack-
aging consumed in 1966.* About half of the pro-
duction of the paper and paperboard industry is
used for packaging purposes (25.2 million tons of
a total 46.6 million tons in 1966).
There are many reasons for the dominant
position of paper and paperboard in packaging.
Paper can package almost any item that does not
need the exceptional protective characteristics
obtainable with metal, glass, or plastic containers.
It is a relatively inexpensive, highly machinable,
strong, and printable material. Paper can be
combined with other materials to improve its per-
formance characteristics and can be formed into a
wide variety of rigid, semi-rigid, and flexible con-
tainers. Even when paper is not the primary
package for a particular item, it is likely to be the
secondary package and also the container in
which the product is shipped to market. For
example, aspirin is packaged in a glass bottle, the
bottle is put inside a paperboard box, and then
many of these small boxes are packed in a cor-
rugated container to be sent to retail outlets.
There are three basic groups of paper and
paperboard. The largest is paperboard, or rigid
*In all paper and paperboard categories the quantity
was based on tonnage production instead of consumption
expressed as shipments. For practical purposes however,
production and consumption were considered to he equiva-
lent. Production figures were used because of the readily
available statistical information by paper and paperboard
grades; conversely, the multitude of packaging applica-
tions for paper and paperboard result in uneven statis-
tical data by end uses, some being very good and others
practically nonexistent. In the case of the other materials—
metal, glass, plastics, wood, and textiles—the actual
consumption figures were used.
-------
16
PACKAGING
papers. The second largest grouping is flexible
packaging papers made up of coarse grades of
paper (grocery bags, shipping sacks, wrapping
paper, converting paper), and glassine, grease-
proof, and vegetable paper. The third and smallest
grouping is specialty papers, which includes
tissue paper, fine grade printing and converting
papers, and wood pulp. Specialty papers are most
often used as parts of other packaging such as
labels, wraps, pouches, and crate fillers.
The following tabulation (Table 4) shows the
relative dominance of the three groups of paper
and paperboard in packaging in millions of
pounds and in percentage of total for the years
1966 and 1976,
TABLE 4.— Production of packaging grades of paper and
paperboard: 1966 and 1976
Paperboard. . .
Flexible paper. . .
Specialty paper. . .
Total
1966
Lbs
(Millions) P
. . 38, 131
. 9, 434
2, 751
50. 316
197
Lba
ercent ( Millions)
75. 8 58, 500
18. 7 11, 780
5. 5 3, 570
100. 0 73. 850
6
Percent
79.2
16.0
4.8
100.0
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
Paper and paperboard are produced from three
principal types of raw materials: virgin fiber,
paper stock, and other fibers. Virgin fiber is wood
pulp obtained from trees and plants; it provides
a broad range of furnish* for all grades of paper
and paperboard. Paper stock, a trade term for
waste paper, comes from a wide variety of sources
including mill and conversion scrap as well as
waste paper and paperboard acquired on the open
market. Other fibers are primarily rag, straw,
bagasse, and plant waste stocks. In recent years
the use of virgin pulp has increased while the use
of other fibers and of paper stock has declined.
Papermaking is a highly developed technology
centering on the conversion of pulpwood into a
finished product. The industry has learned to use
more of each tree and to use trees that formerly
were not cut for pulping purposes. The supply
of pulpwood has been increasing because of ad-
*"Furnish" is a trade term used to designate the fibrous
product entering paper- and paperboard-making machines.
vances in forest technology, resulting in improved
yields and more efficient production methods.
Paper stock is still widuly used in making
certain grades of paper and paperboard, and is
used primarily by paperboard manufacturers, who
consume about 75 percent of all paper stock
used for paper product furnish. However, the
markets for paper stock are subject to rapid
changes in supply and demand, one reason why
consumption of this raw material has not kept
pace with total paper and paperboard output.
Paperboard
Paperboard is the largest single group of pack-
aging materials from a quantity standpoint. Con-
sumption has been growing steadily since 1958.
In that year, 24 billion pounds of paperboard
packaging grades were produced. By 1966, pro-
duction had increased to 38 billion pounds; this
quantity represented 36.8 percent of all packaging
(Table 5). The 1966 tonnage translated into more
than 199 billion package units (Table 6). The
strong and steady growth of paperboard is derived
from its broadly based service as a utility material
in packaging at relatively stable prices. Since 1956,
paperboard prices have ranged between $119 and
$123 per ton. Other materials have increased in
price in the same period, particularly in recent
years.
There are five major types of paperboard, each
of which will be discussed separately: container-
board, set-up boxboard, special foodboard, folding
boxboard, and can, tube, and. drum stock.
Containerboard
Corrugated and solid fiber are the two basic
kinds of containerboard. Corrugated is by far the
most important; it accounts for 99 percent of the
total square feet of board produced. Consequently,
the terms "containerboard" and "corrugated
board" are used interchangeably. There are three
kinds of corrugated: (1) double face, a fluted
sheet glued between layers of liner material,
(2) single face, a fluted sheet with a liner on only
one side, and (3) double wall, two or more lined
fluted sections. Double face corrugated accounts
for more than 90 percent of all corrugated, double
wall for 8 percent, and single face for 1 percent
(Table 7).
Containerboard is made from kraft paper and
small amounts of jute straw and fibered chip.
The resulting material has long fibers and is
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
17
TABLE 5.—Production of packaging grades of paperboard: 1958 to 1966
In millions of pounds ~
Paperboard
Containerboard . .
Folding boxboard .... ...
Special foodboard
Set-up boxboard . . . . ...
Tube, can, and drum stock
19
... 14,
... 5,
. . . . 2,
. . . . 1,
158
519
380
609
077
492
1959
16, 465
5,782
2,889
1,152
669
is
16,
5,
2,
1
160
374
846
894
050
628
1961
17, 323
5,975
3,046
994
668
1962
18, 593
6,241
3,242
1,048
745
1963
19, 277
6,434
3,346
1,054
973
1964
20, 684
6,591
3,503
1,068
1,048
1965
22, 398
6,867
3,673
1,095
1,174
1966
24, 915
7,229
3,809
1,120
1,058
Total paperboard 24,077 26,957 26,792 28,006 29,869 31,084 32,894 35,207 38,131
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Pulp, paper, and board—1966. Current Industrial Reports Series M26A (66)-13.
Washington, D.C., 1967. American Paper Institute, Inc., Paperboard Group. Paperboard Industry Statistics—1966, Chicago. May 1967. p. 15. Fibre Box
Association, Fibre Box Industry Statistics—1966. Chicago, April 1967. p. 29.
TABLE 6.—Consumption of paperboard packages by type: 1958 to 1966"
In millions of containers used
Type
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
Corrugated and solid fiber.... 9,746 10,976
Folding paper boxes 120. 815 121. 910
Set-up boxes . .
Cans and tubes . ...
Drums . . .
5, 950 6, 369
4, 836 5, 840
26 29
10, 853
131, 765
5,621
5,658
29
11, 504
135, 707
5,256
5,913
30
12, 027
147, 825
5,574
7,045
32
12, 856 13, 776
149, 650 153, 227
5, 579 5, 601
8, 724 9, 965
32 34
14, 850
156, 293
5,744
11,352
36
16, 513
164, 542
5,875
12, 958
39
Totals. .
141,373 145,124 153,926 158,410 172,503 176,841 182,603 188,275 199,927
aThis compilation is an estimate (by Paperboard Packaging) based
on judgment about average material consumption per unit. Certain
sanitary containers are excluded, e.g., milk cartons.
Source: Paperboard Packaging, 52(8): 31 August 1967. Modified by
Midwest Research Institute.
TABLE 7.—Containerboard types: Description and relative
importance: 1966
Type of Containerboard
Description
Percent
of total
container-
board *
Corrugated double-
face board.
Corrugated double-
wall board.
Corrugated single-
wall board.
Solid fiber board
Total.
Fluted sheet placed be-
tween two layers of
kraft liner material.
Two or more double-face
boards combined into
a single board.
Fluted sheet lined on one
side only by kraft pa-
per.
Single layer of stiff, solid
fiber.
90
100
a Based on square feet produced.
Source: Fibre Box Association. Fibre Box Industry Statistics—1966.
Chicago, April 1967. p. 16.
strong. Corrugated is relatively low in cost. The
average price in 1955 was $15.77 per 1,000 square
feet; the 1966 price was $16.52. Solid fiber,
basically cardboard, is more expensive and sells
for about $39 per 1,000 square feet.
Uses: Almost all Containerboard is used for
boxes or interior packings. Containerboard boxes
are used primarily as shippers for pre-packed
items and also as packing containers for a variety
of products—furniture, appliances, toys, etc.
(Table 8). The material is also popular as a liner,
padding, and partitioning material in interior
packing. Solid fiber, because of its relatively high
cost, is used primarily for special applications.
Corrugated is sold in large quantities because
it serves utility packaging functions as a shipper
and it is a strong material that effectively con-
tains, protects, and cushions the contents.
New Developments: There is little that is new
in the basic construction and composition of
-------
18
PACKAGING
TABLE 8.—Distribution of corrugated and solid fiber shipping containers to end-use markets: 1958—1966
Percent of shipments based on square footage shipped
End-use markets 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966
Beverages
Food and kindred products ...
Tobacco
Carpets, rugs and other floor covering . .
Textiles (except carpets, rugs, etc.)
Apparel
Lumber products, except f uniture
Household funiture
All other furniture and fixtures
Paper and paper products
Printing, publishing, and allied industries ...
Soaps, cleaners, cosmetics, perfumes, etc
Paints and varnishes
Chemicals and allied products (except paints and varnishes,
and soaps, cleaners, perfumes, cosmetics, etc.)
Paving and roofing material
Products of petroleum and coal (except paving and roofing
material)
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products
Leather products
Stone, clay, and glass products
Primary metal products
Fabricated metal products
Service-industry machinery
Other machinery (except electrical and service industry
machinery)
Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies
Electrical appliances
Communication equipment and related products
Transportation equipment (except motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equip.)
Motor vehicles and equipment
Professional and scientific instruments
Toys, sporting, and athletic goods
Miscellaneous manufacturing (except toys, sporting, and
athletic goods)
Government
3.1
25.4
.8
.4
3.1
1.5
.9
3.6
1.6
9.4
1.3
2.2
.6
2.9
.9
1.1
1.7
.6
9.1
1. 1
7.1
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.9
1.3
.7
3.0
.8
1.4
6.2
.3
3.
24.
3.
1.
1.
3.
1.
9.
1.
2.
2.
1.
2.
9.
1.
7.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
3.
1.
5.
2
7
8
5
2
5
0
1
8
6
3
6
6
7
8
1
0
5
1
2
1
1
9
7
8
1
8
0
6
6
7
3
3.
24.
3.
1.
3.
1.
9.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
8.
1.
6.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
.
3.
1.
6.
5
7
8
5
2
4
8
8
6
9
5
9
6
8
7
0
9
4
6
1
9
0
5
5
5
1
7
1
7
6
4
3
3.1
25.6
.9
.4
3.3
1.6
.9
2.9
1.4
9.7
1.6
2.4
.7
2.5
.7
1.0
2.5
.5
9.9
.9
6.3
.8
1.5
2.3
2.7
1.0
.7
2.6
.6
2.3
6.3
.4
2.9
24.1
.8
.4
3.8
1.6
.9
2.7
1.4
9.7
1.5
2.2
.5
3.1
.4
.9
3.1
.4
10.6
.9
6.0
.9
1.5
2.2
2.5
1.0
.6
3.3
.6
2.5
6.5
.5
3.3
24.8
.8
.4
3.2
1.4
.8
2.4
1.2
9.7
L. 7
2.6
.6
3.0
.4
.9
2.9
.4
10. 1
1.0
5.5
.9
1.6
2.3
2. 5
1.0
.6
3. 1
.6
2.4
7.5
.4
3. 1
25.1
.7
.3
3.0
1.5
.8
2.5
1.2
9.5
1.5
2.4
.6
3.1
.3
.8
3.5
.4
9.9
1.0
5.5
.6
1.7
2.3
3.0
.9
.5
3.1
.7
1.9
8.2
.4
3.2
26.0
.7
.3
3.0
1.6
.8
2.2
1.1
10.4
1.4
2.3
.5
3.0
.2
.8
3.4
.4
9.7
1.1
5.5
.7
1.5
2.5
3.0
1.0
.6
2.8
.6
1.9
7.3
.5
3.5
26.3
.6
.3
3.1
1.1
.9
1.9
1. 1
11.3
1.3
2.5
. 5
3.3
.2
.9
3.3
.4
8.8
1.0
4.4
.7
1.6
2.5
3.5
1.0
.6
2.7
.6
1.6
7.9
6
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration. Containers and Packaging, 20(2): 6, July 1967.
containerboard. Technological developments in
coatings and bulk packaging, however, have
brought about some changes in commercial ap-
plications and have improved the performance of
corrugated boxes.
Coatings of wax, a variety of hot-melt sub-
stances (wax-plastic combinations), plastics, lac-
quer, and latex are being used on corrugated.
These coatings may serve a variety of purposes—
to provide a protective barrier, to increase the
wet strength of the board, or to add to the at-
tractiveness of the container.
Coatings are not extremely important in all-
purpose utility shippers, but they are playing an
increasingly important role in special duty con-
tainers and consumer packaging. For example,
coated corrugated containers are now used in
shipping top-iced goods such as poultry, seafood,
and fresh fruit as well as water-cooled goods such
as fresh vegetables. In consumer packaging,
coatings are used to improve the appearance and
to protect the contents from abrasion and
scuffing.
Coatings are also being used in combination
with bleached liners and printing ink to produce
attractive shipper-display boxes. These con-
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
19
tainers have assumed considerable importance
as a result of the tremendous growth of self-
service and discount stores. Shipper-display
boxes do not represent a significant change in
technology; they do, however, shift the point of
disposal from commercial outlets to households.
Although the use of coated corrugated will
increase in the next 10 years, it is unlikely that
such boxes will account for a large share of cor-
rugated: coated stocks are used primarily for
low volume, specialized purposes. In some cases,
coated corrugated will displace other packaging
materials, such as wire-bound boxes used to ship
poultry and fresh fruits. In other cases, coating
of the board will make a higher quality, better
appearing box ideally suited for consumer pack-
aging. When thrown away, the box will be more
difficult to process in disposal because of the
coating.
Recent developments in bulk packaging tech-
nology, particularly in the packaging of utility
goods such as canned foods, are significant because
of their potential effect on the use of regular
corrugated containers. Two techniques—skrinkase
(shrink-wrapped tray cases) and paper bundling—
would, if widely adopted, noticeably reduce the
amount of corrugated used. A third technique—
corrugated wrap around—may help corrugated
to maintain its present dominant position.
Shrink-wrapped trays are produced by placing
a number of cans, usually 12, on a corrugated
tray. A sleeve of shrinkable plastic is then placed
over the tray (or two stacked trays) and the tray
is passed through a heat tunnel where the film is
shrunk tightly around the cans and holds them
securely in place. The product is then ready to be
sent anywhere without any additional packaging.
One of the main advantages of shrink-wrapped
trays is that they are easy to handle at the retail
level: the film can be stripped away and the trays
can be stacked on top of each other. In addition,
it is not necessary to dispose of bulky corrugated
boxes.
The potential for shrink-wrapped trays is
considerable. If used only for canned food packing,
the process could displace 25 percent of the corru-
gated presently in use. This, however, is unlikely
to occur: shrinkage costs about 30 percent more
than regular corrugated containers. And, while it
is possible that technological advances will cause
price reductions, we do not expect this to happen
within the time-frame of this report.
Present shipping regulations present yet other
obstacles to the widespread use of shrink-wrapped
trays. The trucking industry has approved
shrinkase only for certain products; the railroads
are even slower to act; they have approved
shrinkage only for test shipping. Reluctance of the
railroads to pass favorably on shrink-wrapped
goods stems from the fact that these plastic-
wrapped containers are somewhat less durable in
rough handling and much more likely to burst
upon impact and to spill their contents.
Paper bundling is a more promising innovation.
In this technique, kraft paper is wrapped tightly
around containers for shipping. Usually only
rectangular items can be wrapped in this way.
Paper bundling may be accepted as a means of
packaging certain boxed foods and household
items, e.g., cereals and detergents.
Paper bundling has certain advantages over
corrugated—it costs 2 to 4 cents less per unit,
gives excellent crush resistance to the bundle,
makes the contents less prone to vibration damage,
weighs less per unit, and is less bulky. Trans-
porters are opposed to paper bundling because
excessive in-transit damage can occur. Since paper
bundling eliminates the corrugated tray, retailers
dislike the technique; it causes difficulty in storing
and shelving opened bundles.
Corrugated wrap-around systems have also
made their appearance. This packaging procedure
is essentially the same as paper bundling except
that corrugated rather than kraft paper is used.
A product bundle of 12 or 24 units is gathered
together, and corrugated is folded around the
entire product load. The procedure results in a
tight, stackable, shock resistant package. How-
ever, a rather large capital investment is necessary
to purchase the fairly complex machinery used for
corrugated wrap-around systems.
The corrugated industry is continually develop-
ing new types of packaging in order to retain
its share of the shipper market. The industry
has developed pallet bins that can hold up to
2,000 pounds, containers with more wet strength,
collapsible bulk carriers, six-, eight-, or 12-sided
containers, and multi-walled constructions for
better protection and heavy duty service.
Outlook: In view of the above developments,
we believe that containerboard will continue
-------
20
PACKAGING
to be the largest single packaging material from a
volume standpoint in the 1966- to 1976-period.
This forecast recognizes the fact that container-
board will lose some markets to plastic films and
single-ply papers; however, containerboard pro-
ducers are anticipating such competition and mak-
ing technical improvements (among them new
coatings, superior machinery, new handling sys-
tems, and stronger containers) which will expand
corrugated markets to new uses.
In 1958 containerboard production stood at
14.5 billion pounds; by 1966 production had
increased to 24.9 billion pounds—a growth rate
of about 7 percent annually. For the 1966 to
1976 decade, we forecast a slightly slower rate—5
percent per year. In terms of quantity, this
rate means that 40.6 billion pounds of container-
board will be produced in 1976.
Boxboard
There are three types of boxboards: set-up,
folding, and special food board. Boxboards are
composed of solid fiber grades of paperboard made
from virgin fibers or paper stock. Altogether,
12.2 billion pounds of these materials were
produced in 1966 (Table 9).
Set-up Boxboard: Most set-up boxboard is made
into rigid boxes. The material is stiff and has
poor bending qualities. While it is the cheapest
paperboard made, it is usually converted into
high quality packaging; the unattractive board
is covered with a quality grade, fine paper having
a glossy, metallic, textured, or printed finish, to
produce a box which combines attractiveness with
strength. Textiles, hosiery, shoes, leather goods,
candy, cosmetics, stationery, photographic sup-
plies, and jewelry are typically packaged in set-up
boxes (Table 10).
Most set-up boxboard manufacturers are small
companies which do not have research budgets.
Technological advances in machinery and han-
dling have been slow and modest as a consequence
and are likely to continue to be so. This is ex-
pected to have a depressing effect on boxboard.
Box buyers are increasingly turning to competing
materials and containers, for example plastic
boxes and • folding paperboard. Some boxboard
outlets, however, particularly photographic sup-
plies, cosmetics, candy, stationery, toys and
games, certain textiles, and office supplies are
fairly secure markets for boxboard. Buyers in
these industries view the rigid box as the most
functional form of packaging for their products
and are likely to continue using it even as they
demand better quality and fancier decoration.
In response, boxmakers are expected to use new
wrapping and printing methods; they will also
combine boxboard with plastics, cellophane, and
foil; and they may use higher quality paperboard
stock.
In spite of such innovative; activity, we foresee
a decline in the amount of set-up boxboard that
will be produced. In 1966, 1.1 billion pounds were
made; by 1976, production is expected to have
declined to 906 million pounds—a 1.5 percent
annual market erosion.
Folding Boxboard: Folding boxboard is a paper-
board used to produce inexpensive, simple, and
printable packages. Printing and display charac-
teristics are especially important, and folding
boxboard packages often have cutout windows
for display or functional purposes. About 76 per-
cent of all folding boxboard is used for folding
cartons, such as cereal boxes, frozen food cartons,
cracker boxes, soap and detergent boxes, beverage
cartons, and a wide variety of other containers.
Folding boxboard is also used for diecut backs
of blisterpacks, displays, lids, and the like (Table
ID-
TABLE 9.—Boxboard production: 1958-1966
In millions of pounds
Boxboard type
Set-up boxboard
Special food board
Folding boxboard
IS
1,
2,
5,
158
077
609
380
1959
1,152
2,889
5, 782
I960
1,050
2,894
5,846
1961
994
3,046
5,975
1962
1,048
3,242
6,241
1963
1,054
3,346
6,434
1<;
1.
3
6
164
068
S03
591
1965
1,095
3,673
6,867
1966
1,120
3,809
7,229
Total boxboard production 9,066 9,823 9,790 10,015 10,531 10,834 11,162 11,635 12,158
Source: American Paper Institute, Paperboard Group. Paperboard Industry Statistics—1966. Chicago, May 1967. p. 15.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
21
TABLE 10.—Distribution of set-up paper boxes to end-use markets: 1958 to 1966
In percent of total dollar shipments
End-use markets
Textiles, wearing apparel, and hosiery
Department stores and other retail stores
Cosmetics
Confections
Drugs, chemicals, pharmaceuticals
Jewelry and silverware
Stationery and office supplies
Hardware, household, and auto
Toys and games
Shoes and leather goods
Food and beverages
Photographic products and supplies
Sporting goods
Other major customers
Miscellaneous
1951
. . . . 26.
13.
-2.
7.
... . 2.
7.
5.
6.
2.
6.
1.
.... 7.
.... 9.
3
6
5
4
7
0
1
5
7
4
5
8
7
0
6
5
1959
29.0
15.3
4.1
9.6
2.5
1.8
7.5
6.9
2.0
6.2
1.2
3. 1
1.1
4.3
5.4
I960
24.1
15.3
5.1
7.3
6.3
4.9
7.2
6.7
2.7
5.0
1.2
3.9
1.0
2.9
6.4
1961
21.5
11.4
6. 1
10.6
4.0
6.1
6.9
2.8
3.0
2.6
1.3
4.9
1.0
(')
17.8
19(
28
12
5
9
2
5
6
3
1
4
1
3
('
13
.2
.8
.6
.9
.4
.9
.0
.7
.2
.8
.6
.2
.3
.7
')
.9
1963
24.6
15.8
6.8
12.4
4.8
4.2
5.5
3.6
2.8
3.0
1.4
2.4
1.1
5.6
6.0
1964
16.7
14.1
7.7
11.1
4.8
8.0
6.0
3.0
1.9
1.8
2.7
2.9
1.9
7.9
9.5
1965
18.7
14.3
9.2
12.8
4.3
6.2
7.1
3.7
2.1
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.0
11.6
5.1
1966
27.3
12.3
10.9
7.5
5.3
4.1
4.3
1.3
1.9
3.4
1.2
4.1
1.5
8.4
6.5
1 Included in miscellaneous.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration. Containers and Packaging, 20(2):7, July 1967.
TABLE 11.—Distribution of folding paper boxes to end-use markets: 1958 to 1966
In percent of total tonnage shipments
End-use markets
1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966
Armed forces and quartermaster
Medicinal products
Cosmetics and personal accessories
Soap
Food, except candy and baked goods
Candy and confectionery
Crackers and baked goods
Tobacco and related products
Hardware, appliances, and automotive supplies
Sporting goods and toys
Textiles and apparel
Retail boxes
Laundry boxes
Rubber goods
Beverages
Paper goods or products
Miscellaneous
0.
.... 3.
.... 2.
. . . . 11.
23.
.. . 4.
10.
4.
4.
... 1.
.. . 4.
.. . 3.
. . . . 9.
8.
4.
1
7
3
1
9
9
7
7
5
2
7
7
4
9
5
9
8
0.
3.
2.
11.
23.
4.
10.
3.
5.
1.
4.
3.
.
9.
9.
4.
1
9
4
6
5
7
5
1
6
3
9
7
4
7
6
3
7
0.2
3.7
2.5
11.9
23.7
4.9
10.5
2.5
5.5
1.3
4.7
4.0
.4
.6
9.8
10.0
3.8
0.2
3.7
2.5
12.4
24.5
5.0
9.6
2.2
5.4
1.4
4.5
4.0
.4
.6
9.5
10.4
3.7
0.4
3.7
2.6
12.3
24.0
4.8
9.3
2.2
5.7
1.4
5.1
4.0
.5
.6
9.7
10.0
3.7
0.2
3.7
2.9
12.6
24.1
4.3
8.7
2.0
5.8
1.3
4.8
4.4
.5
.5
10.0
9.5
4.7
0.1
3.8
3.2
12.3
23.5
4.1
8.6
1.9
5.9
1.3
5.4
4.3
.5
.6
10.4
9.4
4.7
0.2
3.7
3.5
12.3
25.3
4.4
8.6
1.7
5.7
1.4
4.7
3.6
.5
.5
11.7
7.5
4.7
0.4
3.2
2.4
8.8
33.9
4.8
9.4
3.0
5.1
1.3
3.3
2.9
.5
.5
10.5
6.3
3.7
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration. Containers and Packaging, 20(2): 7, July 1967.
In recent years there has been a trend toward
upgrading the quality of folding boxboard. Virgin
fibers are being used more frequently at the ex-
pense of paper stock; improved finishes, coatings,
full color printing, and other decorative tech-
niques are more widely employed to improve
appearance. Folding boxboard has also been com-
bined with plastic sheets to form blisterpacks,
skin packs, stretchable film packs, and similar
combination packages. (In general, these last
mentioned packages hold the product to a sheet
of paperboard by means of a transparent plastic
sheet; the sheet is heatformed to the contours of
a die or to the product itself. Use of this type of
packaging has been growing by leaps and bounds.)
Folding boxboard is in a period of intense
competition with plastics and flexible packaging.
Box manufacturers are responding to this compe-
-------
22
PACKAGING
tition with better quality and more attractive
packages, while taking full advantage of oppor-
tunities offered by a "marriage" with their com-
petitors in blisterpacks, skin packs, display con-
tainers, and the like. As a result they should be
able to offset their losses to competing materials.
Most folding boxboard will continue to be used as
the base for functional containers in high volume
consumer products—cereals, cleansing tissues,
medicinals, etc. The rapid growth of no-return
beverage containers is also providing a relative
new high volume application for no return cartons
too. However, in the next 10 years, folding box-
board will continue to grow at a relatively slow
rate of about 2.8 percent per year; production is
expected to increase from 7.2 billion pounds in
1966 to 9.5 billion pounds in 1976.
Special Food Board: Special food board is made
from solid, bleached, virgin-fiber paperboard. It
is used for rigid containers that have high moisture
barrier properties and highly printable outer
surface finishes.
This board is used almost exclusively for
packaging foods—primarily dairy products and
frozen foods (Table 12). Nearly half of the ma-
terial is used to produce milk cartons. A large
proportion of special food board is coated with
polyethylene, hot-melts, or wax. Plastic coating
of paperboard is a relatively recent phenomenon
and should continue to grow. In 1955, 42.8
million pounds of special food board were coated
with 11.2 million pounds of plastics. In 1966 the
figures had risen to 1,588 million pounds of special
food board and 186 million pounds of plastic
coatings. This large increase is attributable to
the substitution of extruded polyethylene for
wax in milk carton coatings, a development which
took place in the 1960 to 1964 period.
The technology of food board packaging is
well advanced. Food board, however, is beginning
to feel some stiff competition from various types
of plastic containers. One example is the all-
plastic milk bottle. The special food board carton
is now being used for a variety of new product
applications—popcorn, fountain syrups, potato
flakes, meat sauces, and other specialty foods,
applications also vulnerable to plastics. The food
board industry can be expected to use more foil
laminations and more polyethylene and hot-melt
coatings to improve the barrier properties and
attractiveness of these paper containers. Addi-
tionally, new forms such as nested cup-and-pail
styles and plate, dish, and tray styles will be
used more widely for packaging direct consumer
purchase items such as cottage cheese, ice cream,
fresh meat, and produce.
These technological moves will counteract the
effects of competition from plastics, which are
expected to penetrate deeply into food boajd
markets in many areas, especially milk, ice cream,
cottage cheese, butter, and margarine packaging.
Barring legislative action, * the growth rate of
special food board will largely depend upon the
relative cost of competing plastic containers and
*New York City for example recently adopted legisla-
tion requiring that packaged meats be fully visible from
all sides.
TABLE 12.—Special foodboardproduction by end use: 1958 to 1966
In millions of pounds
End use
1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966
Milk cartons 1,024 1,099 1,142 1,201 1,357 1,354 1,384 1,504 1,564
Paraffin cartons, paperboard pails, and frozen food
cartons 685 790 737
Heavy weight cups, round nested food containers,
and cup lids 51
Liquid tight containers, milk bottle hoods, and
plugs ... 83 85 110 101 96 80 85 67 68
Plates, dishes, and trays 206 231 247 256 297 320 358 404 464
Other special food board uses 94 108 83 88 81 104 104 106 110
774 762 837
576 575 626 649 651
914
658
905
687
864
739
Total special food board. .
2,609 2,889 2,894 3,046 3,242 3,346 3,503 3,673 3,809
Source: American Paper Institute, Inc., Paperboard Group. Paperboard Industry Statistics—1966. Chicago, May 1967. p. 17.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
23
the forming and filling machinery these latter
will need. If plastics penetrate the market to a
greater degree than we think likely at this time,
the actual volume of food board will decline.
Plastics can penetrate the market to a greater
extent, however, only if the container costs drop,
more attractive machinery purchase plans are
developed, or if consumers become inclined to
pay a premium for more convenient, leak-proof,
and attractive packages. The first two of these
possibilities are likely to materialize relatively
slowly; the consumer, on the other hand, has
already demonstrated a preference for plastics,
even at a higher cost. Consequently, it is difficult
to make a confident forecast in this packaging
category.
We assume that in the 1966 to 1976 period
plastics will not become competitive with food
board in toto even though they will have a signifi-
cant impact on food board. An annual growth
rate of 4.9 percent is most likely to characterize
this material. Production should increase, as a
consequence, from 3.8 billion pounds in 1966 to
6.1 billion pounds.
Can, Tube, and Drum Stock: * Fiber cans, tubes,
and drums are commonly made from heavy kraft
papers in combination with other materials such
as aluminum foil or plastic. The ends or rims of
these containers are often composed of another
material—wood, plastic, or metal—to produce a
composite package. The use of composite cans
and tubes has increased in recent years. Their
chief advantages are lower cost and lower weight
per unit than all-metal cans.
The three major markets for composite cans
are refrigerated dough products, frozen citrus
juice concentrates, and motor oil (Table 13).
About 1.4 billion composite containers are used
every year to package refrigerated dough. An
equal number of composite cans are currently
used to package motor oil. In addition to these
products, composite cans are used extensively for
citrus juices, other food products, and paint.
Fiber tubes are frequently used for mailing
purposes and also serve as cores to provide inner
support for products such as wax paper, paper
towels, and aluminum foil.
*Can, tube, and drum stock is not the only paper grade
used to make these items but is representative of the
products described.
TABLE 13.—Distribution of fiber can and tube shipments:
1965 and 1966
Fiber and composite fiber cans—end use
Million units
1965 1966
Food products:
Frozen citrus juices . ... 985 996
Refrigerated dough products 1, 395 1, 421
Other food products (") (")
Non-food products:
Motor oil... 1,306 1,365
Other non-food products (a) («)
Tubes and cores
Millions of pounds
(net weight)
1965
1966
Spiral tubes and cores
Conglued tubes and cores.
Total
478
74
524
80
552
604
a jNot available.
Source: National Fibre Can and Tube Association. Fibre Can and Tub
Industry Statistics, 1967.
TABLE 14.—Fiber drum shipments by end use: 1966
End use
Percent of
units
Foods and related products 15
Soaps and detergents 6
Pharmaceuticals 7
Plastics—molding compounds and resins 17
Chemicals 41
Abrasives, metal powders, wire alloys, stamp-
ings, machine parts 6
Rolled materials ..... 2
Direct sales to government and other • 6
Total 100
Source: Bulk Packaging and Containerization Institute, Inc. "Fibre
Drums Again Climb to New Records." Press release, August 1967.
Fiber drums are used as shippers of dry or
semiliquid products (Table 14); 11 percent of all
fiber drums, however, are used for carrying
liquids. Fiber drums range in capacity from 5 to
55 gallons and, under Interstate Commerce Com-
mission regulations, they are permitted to carry
550 pounds. In 1958, 26 million drums were
shipped; in 1966 the figure was 38.3 million (Table
15). Fiber drums are frequently used for one-trip
-------
24
PACKAGING
TABLE 15.—Fiber drum shipments 1958 to 1966
Year
Millions
of units
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
26. 0
29.2
28.4
29 7
32. 6
32.2
33.9
34. 7
38. 3
Source: Bulk Packaging and Gontainerization Institute, Inc. "Fibre
Drums Again Climb to New Records." Press release, August 1967.
service, and they compete primarily with steel
drums.*
Given the present state of technology, compos-
ite cans cannot be used for products that must
be packaged under high pressure, vacuum, or
high heat. The main technical frontier facing
composite cans and tubes is development of higher
barrier properties, at lower cost, than can be
achieved by the materials now used. Aluminum
foil is most commonly applied as a fiber can liner
today; but aluminum is being replaced in some
instances by polypropylene, polyethylene, ethyl-
ene vinyl acetate, hot -melt coatings, grease-proof
paper, glassine, and plastic coatings and lamina-
tions.
Technological advances may well open up new
markets for composite cans. For example, a
seven-layer composite can was recently developed
to hold shortening. The can consists of layers of
polypropylene, aluminum foil, polyethylene, kraft
paper, paperboard, and an aluminum foil outer
label. This container performs as well as steel
cans in providing effective grease and oxygen bar-
riers. The composite is also cheaper and weighs
60 percent less than a steel can. The concept is
adaptable to other products, such as containers
for nuts, snack foods, and instant coffee.
One of the most important technical advances
would be development of a composite can that
could be used for packaging beer and soft drinks
*Fiber drums usually enter the waste stream at a slower
rate than that suggested by one-trip use because the drums
are often put to secondary uses, such as storage or trash
barrels.
under heat, pressure, or vacuum. Such a develop-
ment does not appear likely within the next five
years.
The outlook for composite; cans is generally
favorable, but the growth of these containers will
be relatively modest—2 to 3 percent per year—
because they are not expected to penetrate into
new large volume markets soon and because they
already enjoy preeminence in packaging several
non-pressurized liquids and semi-solid products.
At the same time the oil can market is coming
under increasing competitive pressure from both
plastic and metal, and fiber composite cans are
likely to yield ground here in the near future.
Should a technological breakthrough take place
to qualify composite cans for markets now held
by steel and glass, the growth rate would be con-
siderably higher. A paper-based container could
then enter the lucrative beverage packaging mar-
ket or utility goods packaging. While we do not
rule out such a breakthrough, we do not expect it
to take place before the mid-1970's.
Research is also being conducted on ways to
increase the suitability of fiber drums for shipping
liquids. Plastic polyethylene linings have been
developed in a variety of forms—extrusion
coated kraft liners, blow-molded liners fused to
the walls, and semi-rigid liners formed separately
to be inserted into the drums. However, tech-
nological advances that increase the cost of fiber
drums lessen their competitive position vis-a-vis
steel drums.
In the next 10 years, however, fiber drums
should have a growth rate of 3> to 4 percent a year.
Increasing the use of fiber drums for liquids at
the expense of steel and improved structural de-
signs should help create this expansion in fiber
drum use.
The total quantity of all fiber, can, tube, and
drum stock produced in 1966 was 1.1 billion
pounds. Consumption in 1976 should exceed 1.3
billion pounds, representing a 2 percent annual
growth rate.
Paperboard—Summary Outlook
Of the five types of paperboards only one,
set-up boxboard, will decline over the next 10
years. The other types will show increases of 2
to 5 percent. As a group, paperboard materials
will have a growth rate of 4.4 percent in the 1966
to 1976 period (Table 16 and Figure 5).
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
25
i; •jitjftiilvi
J \ I
I I I l
I i i i
J I
saNnoj do SNomia
O
CD
d
p-H
1
U
S,
.3
1
o
I
g,
§
u
u
I
-------
26
PACKAGING
TABLE 16.—Production of packaging grades of paperboard:
1966 and 1976
Millions of pounds
Paperboard type
Containerboard
Folding boxboard
Special food board
Set-up boxboard
Tube, can, and drum stock . .
Actual —
1966
. 24,915
7,229
3,809
. 1, 120
. 1, 058
Fore-
cast —
1976
40, 580
9,530
6,140
960
1,290
Ten -year
rate of
change
(percent)
5.0
2.8
4.9
-1.5
2.0
Total. .
. 38,131 58,500 4.4
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
Flexible Paper
Flexible papers* constitute the second major
group of paper and paperboard materials. There
are five major types of flexible paper: bag paper;
converting paper; wrapping paper; shipping sacks;
and glassine, greaseproof, and vegetable paper.
Flexible papers are used for a variety of basic
packaging purposes. These papers are inexpensive,
machineable, and easily combined with other
materials such as plastic and aluminum foil to
change their physical properties. These com-
binations add strength and stiffness to flexible
papers or increase their resistance to moisture,
grease, and gases.
Flexible papers are usually made from un-
bleached kraft paper. Flexible paper grades are
coarse (as opposed to fine papers made from thin-
ner stock and with a higher finish).
A significant amount of research is being done
on ways to create a "plastic-paper" by combining
the two materials. In one process, paper is im-
pregnated with a thermoplastic monomer at the
paper mill, and the impregnated paper is converted
into a container. This process eliminates the step
of separately coating paper with plastics. Another
plastic-paper process involves encapsulating wood
fibers in a polyolefin (e.g., polyethylene). The en-
cased fibers are then formed into sheets and the
result is a plastic-paper with the characteristics
of both materials.
Neither process has been developed to the point
of commercial application at this time, and very
*The flexible paper grades were analyzed in less depth
than other packaging materials categories because of un-
availability of specific information. Historical trends in
consumption were the chief basis for making volume
forecasts.
likely plastic-papers will not have a significant
impact on packaging before the mid-1970's. How-
ever, these and other research activities should be
watched for developments that may cause sig-
nificant changes in the characteristics of packaging
papers.
Bag Paper
Bag paper is the largest group of flexible papers.
By far the most common bag paper product is the
grocery sack, made from unbleached kraft paper.
A small amount (one-eighth) of bag paper is
converted into variety and specialty sacks used for
carrying merchandise. These sacks are often
bleached and printed.
Converted bag paper products are used primar-
ily for sacking of groceries. The grocery sack is
made of a heavy grade paper and comes in a
variety of sizes, the most common capacity being
one-sixth of a barrel (0.85 cubic feet).
The quantity of bag paper produced has grown
at a relatively high rate in recent years—about
5 percent in the period from 1958 to 1966. The
basic force behind this growth has been the ex-
pansion of retailing operations in supermarkets
and chain stores. In addition, increased volume
has been due to the practice of double bagging
groceries. Double bagging is practiced because a
single grocery sack is not always strong enough to
hold heavy items, such as canned goods, and it
also tears easily when it becomes moist after
coming in contact with frozen foods and other
items that may be damp.
New Developments: To overcome some of the
disadvantages of grocer's sacks, double wall sacks
have been developed. These containers eliminate
the need for double bagging and cost around 25
percent more than single sacks. However, many
store owners object to the price differential, and
housewives often prefer two sacks so they will
have a supply of these available for secondary
uses at home, such as lining wastebaskets. None-
theless, many retailers are expected to eventually
adopt double wall sacks—in place of bagging.
Manufacturers have also experimented with
sacks made of "extensible" paper. This paper is
softer, more pliable, and stronger than regular
paper bag stock, and it stretches when impacted
rather than bursting. Housewives have not ac-
cepted extensible paper bags because the bags feel
weaker, even though they are stronger than the
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
27
ordinary grocery sack. (This paper has been ac-
cepted by many industrial packagers for sacks
because of its high strength.)
Variety and specialty sacks, used to carry
merchandise from the retail store to the home,
are increasingly being combined with metal foil,
polyethylene, other plastic films and coatings, and
wax base coatings. There is a general trend to
higher quality bags with better strength, barrier
properties, and more decoration.
In the future it is possible that the regular
kraft paper bag will be replaced by an all-plastic
lined or coated paper sack. At present, neither
retailers, because of the cost, nor housewives,
because of their dislike of flexible sacks, are willing
to accept plastic sacks. However, new develop-
ments in plastic technology may enable manu-
facturers to overcome these problems.
One new application of paper sacks—as refuse
containers—might considerably increase the
volume of paper bag stock made. In some areas,
large paper sacks have been found to be highly
acceptable substitutes for metal refuse cans in
trash collection. Use of disposable sacks can result
in savings in labor and maintenance costs. Because
of the savings, these sacks are likely to find ready
acceptance in industrial and institutional refuse
collection practice. Various industry sources have
estimated that the potential U.S. market for paper
refuse sacks is 2 billion or more pounds of paper
per year. At present, the prime deterrent to the
widespread acceptance of paper refuse sacks is
cost—8 to 15 cents per unit. At the rate of two
sacks per week at a cost of 10 cents per sack, use
of paper would add about $10 per year to home-
owner costs.
Outlook: Bag paper will continue to be accepted
as a low cost product for grocery sacks and, when
combined with other materials, as stock for variety
and specialty sacks. Since supermarket retailing
and other forms of merchandising are expected to
continue to expand, the consumption of bag paper
stock will also increase. During the 1958 to 1966
period, bag papers had a growth rate of almost 5
percent per year. We expect this growth rate to
decline slightly—to 4.1 percent a year—primarily
on the assumption that double walled sacks will
become more important and partially displace
double bagging (double walled sacks use less
material than two separate sacks). The total
number of pounds used in 1966 was 3.4 billion; in
1976, 5.0 billion pounds should be used.
Converting Paper
Converting papers are coarse grades, produced
for converters who make the paper into some kind
of package. Converting paper is also used for
envelope and creping stock. More than half of the
converting paper produced (58 percent) is made
from unbleached kraft paper (Table 17).
During conversion, papers are usually coated
or laminated with a variety of materials to increase
their barrier properties. The most commonly used
materials are asphalt, wax, polyethylene, lacquer,
resin emulsions, plastic film, foil, and other papers,
such as glassine.
Converting paper is frequently used for flexible
packaging in the form of printed and laminated
rolls, for a variety of bags and pouches, and for
envelopes (manila and heavy-duty mailing),
shipping sacks, cups, and other container forms.
Polyethylene and other plastic resins are re-
placing some of the older coating materials, such
as wax and asphalt. Converters are constantly
offering new combinations of converting paper
and other materials to satisfy the packaging re-
quirements of their customers. Converting paper,
along with all other nonplastic materials, is en-
countering growing competition from plastics in
flexible packaging. Paper's share of the total, for
example, declined from 39.9 percent in 1962 to
38.5 percent in 1966. In the same period, poly-
ethylene fllexible has gone from 33.6 percent of the
market to 39 percent, cutting into the share held
by paper and cellophane.
Converting paper is a basic packaging material
with an advanced and efficient production and
conversion technology. The volume usage should
remain stable for some time in spite of the compe-
tition from plastics. Wax- and asphalt-coated
grades may decline in use, but this decline will be
offset by the increased use of envelope stock and
papers treated with other materials. We foresee a
slow growth rate of 0.3 percent a year, and an
increase in volume from 2.4 billion pounds in 1966
to 2.5 billion pounds in 1976.
Wrapping Paper
About two-thirds of all wrapping paper is made
from unbleached kraft. Wrapping paper is coarse,
strong, and economical. These papers are some-
times coated or impregnated with wax, polyethy-
-------
28
PACKAGING
TABLE 17.—Production of converting paper by type: 1958 to 1966
In muliona of pounds
Type of converting paper
Unbleached kraft:
Asphalting paper including creping stock for
asphalting
Other creping . •
Envelope stock
Gumming stock
Twisting and spinning stock (18-lb and up) . .
Other converting .
Other coarse converting paper:
Envelope stock .
G-umming stock
Cup stock (under 90-lb)
Other, such as asphalting, creping stock, etc .
1958
305
50
114
165
50
41
368
1 093
171
20
14
381
60
271
917
2 010
1959
310
52
166
222
49
48
560
1,407
174
19
24
370
64
283
934
2,341
I960
285
49
163
178
32
53
516
1,276
159
20
26
358
66
254
883
2, 159
1961
283
47
171
173
25
43
532
1,274
183
28
22
369
63
283
948
2,222
1962
277
32
177
181
24
47
570
1,308
187
29
21
363
77
309
986
2,294
1963
293
26
167
128
24
43
648
1,329
168
29
25
363
86
317
967
2,296
1964
370
25
165
93
31
26
615
1,325
215
29
27
342
82
285
968
2,293
1965
384
25
180
110
26
30
627
1 380
264
27
20
330
78
310
1 023
2,403
1966
428
22
• 182
111
22
26
" 624
1 415
* 257
24
19
• 313
98
298
1,009
2,424
a Adjusted by Midwest Research Institute.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Pulp,
lene, lacquers, hot-melts, resin emulsions, and
asphalts. They may be laminated to other kraft
grades or to aluminum foil or glassine.
Wrapping papers are generally used for wrap-
ping from roll stock by machinery and wrapping
from rolls or precut sheets by hand. A great deal
of wrapping paper is used to wrap industrial
products such as lumber, roofing shingles, and
steel; and food products, such as meats and frozen
foods, in the store. Because wrapping papers are
strong, they are sometimes used in making paper
cans, tubes, and other containers.
It is likely that plastic will replace many of the
currently used coatings and laminating materials.
Polyethylene is replacing wax and asphalt as a
coating material because it offers better crease
resistance, heat seal characteristics, and good
moisture and grease barrier properties. Wide-
spread use of the paper bundling technique of
wrapping would mean an increased use of wrapping
paper. However, the future of this technique is
not yet certain.
The volume of wrapping papers increased
slightly from 1.1 billion pounds in 1958 to 1.2 bil-
paper, and board. Current Industrial Reports, Series M26A (59-13)—
M26A(66-13). Washington, D.C., 1960-1967.
lion pounds in 1966. The growth rate shou'd re-
main modest because of competition from plastics
and the decline of hand wrapping. A growth rate
of 2 percent a year, yielding a 1976 volume of 1.5
billion pounds, is forecast for this product
grouping.
Shipping Sacks
The shipping sack grade is used to make ship-
ping sacks primarily to carry powdered or granular
products, such as fertilizers, cement, carbon black,
feeds, mulches, and the like. Shipping sacks are
multiwalled, with at least three plies, and are de-
signed to carry a minimum of 25 pounds. About
30 percent of all shipping sacks are made of ex-
tensible kraft paper, which enables the sacks to
withstand stress more effectively than regular
kraft papers.
Plastics and various forms of bulk packaging
have been competing for the markets traditionally
held by shipping sacks. In response to the use of
all-plastic sacks for some products, many shipping
sacks now combine kraft paper with other kinds
of paper, plastics, or textiles. Paper sacks com-
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
29
bined with plastic as a coating, lamination, or
liner, offer toughness and moisture resistance.
In addition, shipping sacks are in competition
with other packaging configurations such as
barrels and pallet bins; the latter are often used
to ship larger quantities than can be shipped in
sacks, or in place of sacks because they are easier
to handle. Shipping sack manufacturers have
responded by developing a sack with a squared
end that makes the sack easier to handle and to
store and enables it to be placed on a pallet.
Recently, a 30-cubic-foot paper sack that could
hold 1,700 pounds was developed. This "jumbo"
sack can be handled by forklift and may be
useful in bulk shipments if the paper handling
equipment is available.
Shipping sack closures have also undergone
changes. Formerly, shipping sacks were sewn
closed, with the consequence that they were
difficult to open and reclose. Now, many bags
have built-in valves or open mouths that can be
sealed shut, opened, and resealed. In addition to
easy-open features, many bags now have handles
that make it convenient for customers to carry.
For the period 1958 to 1966 the volume of
paper for shipping sacks increased slowly, about
2 percent a year. Because of the increased com-
petition from plastics and other forms of bulk
packaging, this rate will be even slower in the
period up to 1976. Our forecast is for a growth
rate of about 1 percent, from a volume of nearly
2.0 billion pounds in 1966 to a volume of 2.2
billion pounds in 1976.
Glassine, Greaseproof, and Vegetable Paper
Glassine, greaseproof, and vegetable papers are
among the oldest types of packaging materials.
Glassine is a transparent super-calendared paper
with a smooth surface and high density. Grease-
proof has been treated during the papermaking
process to make it resistant to grease, fats, and
oils. Vegetable paper has been treated with
sulfuric acid to make it tough, dense, and highly
greaseproof.
Glassine, greaseproof, and vegetable papers
are used primarily in food packaging. These
papers may be plain, or they may be coated with
wax or lacquer when additional resistance to
moisture, odors, or gas is necessary. They are
used as pouches, bags, wraps, and envelopes for
such food products as snack foods, cake mixes,
baked goods, candy bars, and butter. These
papers are also used as package liners, dividers,
and inserts for meat products, cereals, cookies,
candy, and the like.
Here as in other areas, plastic films are com-
peting with glassine, greaseproof, and vegetable
papers. However, flexible papers are gaining in
such new applications as liners for baked goods
packages, refrigerated dough tubes, motor oil cans,
and cooking pouches. Glassine, greaseproof, and
vegetable papers will be important packaging
materials for some of the new food products that
continue to be introduced—prepared mixes,
powders, and dehydrated foods. These papers
may also be used for highly specialized applica-
tions, such as wrapping of pre-greased mechanical
parts.
In the future, glassine, greaseproof, and
vegetable papers will continue to be important
food packaging materials, especially in those cases
where barriers to grease, odors, moisture, and
gases are important. Because they are adaptable
to many new uses, especially consumer food
products, their use will continue to grow. We
forecast a growth rate of approximately 2 percent
a year, from 434 million pounds in 1966 to 520
million pounds in 1976.
Flexible Papers—Summary Outlook
The flexible papers category of packaging
materials will have an overall growth rate of 2.2
percent until 1976. Bag paper will have the highest
growth rate in the group—4.1 percent, while con-
verting paper will have the lowest at 0.3 percent
a year (Table 18 and Figure 6).
TABLE 18.—Production of flexible packaging papers by type:
1966 and 1976
Flexible paper type
Millions of pounds
Ten-year
rate of
Actual— Forecast— change
1966 1976 (percent)
Wrapping paper
Shipping sack
Bag paper
Converting paper
Glassine, greaseproof, and
vegetable paper
Total
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
1,244
1,984
3,358
2,424
424
9,434
1,520
2,240
5,000
2,500
520
11, 780
2.0
1.2
4. 1
.3
2.0
2.2
3Z6-388 O-69-4
-------
30
PACKAGING
:';|i|:.;|||
isii
3IWB
M
m
I I I I I I I I
Mil I I I I
^iplil:
iiiifll^-i:!
SHE
a
o!
o
I I I I I I
* I
to
§
CO
tJC
a
'So
cs
cu
I
o
c
OH
a
a
§
do SNomie
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
31
Specialty Paper
Specialty papers* include coated converting
paper (one side); uncoated converting paper (book
paper); tissue paper; and pressed and molded pulp.
These papers have limited or specialized applica-
tions in packaging and are of lesser importance,
from a volume standpoint, than the other paper
and paperboard categories.
Coated Converting Paper (One Side)
Coated converting papers are relatively in-
expensive, easily convertible, and, when printed,
have an attractive appearance. These papers are
not strong and are not used to protect the product.
Printed can labels, gummed labels, printed outer
wraps, and cover papers are the principal appli-
cation for coated converting stock. These papers
are also commonly foil-laminated to provide
moisture control for certain products, for example,
cigarette wraps.
New coatings and coating techniques, new ad-
hesives, and advances in printing methods are
being developed, although at present these de-
velopments are of relatively minor importance.
Uncoated Converting Paper (Book Paper)
Uncoated converting paper is usually of a
finer grade than coated stock. Most uncoated
converting papers end up as books, magazines,
and writing tablets. However, about 20 percent
of the book paper goes into packaging applica-
tions. Of the proportion used in packaging, about
75 percent is used for envelopes. These uncoated
papers may be coated and then used in ways
similar to coated converting paper. Consumption
for packaging uses was 1.1 billion pounds in 1966
and will increse to 1.4 billion pounds in 1976.
Tissue Paper
Tissue is a lightweight paper made from pulp,
with either a hard or soft surface finish. Some
tissue paper is impregnated with resins or chemi-
cals to inhibit tarnish, corrosion, and the action of
fungi or bacteria.
Tissue paper has limited uses. It is used pri-
marily as an inner wrap for such items as hosiery,
flowers, silver, and candy. Tissue paper is also
*Reliable end use data are not available for materials in
this category; thus, this paper group could not be analyzed
as completely as were others. The quantitative forecasts
are based primarily on historical trends, modified by other
factors where appropriate.
used for in-store packing to cushion clothing and
to protect fragile goods. In industrial applications,
it is used to form protective layers between sheets
of glass, metal, plastic, linoleum, and the like.
About one-third of all tissue paper is used as
stock for wax tissue paper (Table 19).
Tissue is most frequently used in hand pack-
ing or with semi-automatic packing machinery.
These packing methods are becoming less im-
portant and are being replaced by more automated
operations. Because tissue is soft and pliable, it
is not easy to use on automated machinery.
Waxed tissue paper is being replaced by other
coated papers and plastic films. The volume of
waxed tissue paper has declined from 215 million
pounds in 1959 to 171 million pounds in 1966.
Tissue paper should continue to be used in
considerable quantity, especially in those applica-
tions where its special characteristics are impor-
tant. For example, tissue serves as an inexpensive
protective material for silver and other environ-
ment-sensitive products. On the other hand,
because tissue paper is not readily adaptable to
many modern packing techniques and because of
competition from other coated papers and plastics,
there will be an overall decline in the use of tissue
paper. We estimate this decline will take place at
a rate of 1.6 percent a year; volume should go
from 472 million pounds in 1966 to 400 million
pounds in 1976.
Molded Pulp
Pulp can be molded into low-cost packaging
shapes. It is made from unaltered wood fibers
such as pulpwood or chips (sawmill waste) or
secondary fibers such as waste newsprint. The
resulting material is absorbent, has a low density,
and can be formed into rigid pieces.
There are two basic forms of molded pulp
products—plates and dishes, and packing con-
tainers. Plates and dishes are commonly used for
pies, cakes, and other baked goods; food service
trays; paper plates; meat and produce trays.
Molded pulp packing containers are used for egg
cartons, egg crate flats, fresh fruit trays, and
inserts to hold fragile items such as fluorescent
lights and electronic parts. Most molded pulp is
made into egg cartons and meat and produce
trays.
The technology of producing molded pulp
packages is relatively stable. Molded pulp prod-
-------
32
PACKAGING
TABLE 19.—Tissue paper production by end use: 1958 to 1965
In millions of pounds
End use
1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
Wrapping tissue ...
Twisting tissue stock
Fruit and vegetable wraps; pattern tissue stock ...
Creped wadding . .
Total tissue paper ' .
95
185
14
41
.... 58
47
440
98
215
20
37
70
52
492
97
208
18
38
66
53
480
91
210
19
37
60
52
469
99
194
22
39
63
54
471
101
186
21
40
58
66
472
118
163
19
39
62
61
462
119
171
23
40
62
60
475
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Pulp, paper, and board. Current Industrial Reports, series M26A(59-13)—-M26A
(66-13). Washington, D.C., 1960-1967.
ucts are facing competition from plastic foams.
Polystyrene foam meat trays, for example,
accounted for about 15 percent of all meat trays
in 1966, and this share is likely to increase.
Polystyrene foam packing inserts and pads may
also displace some molded pulp products. Molded
pulp meat tray sales are also threatened by clear,
rigid plastic meat containers. These competitive
thrusts, however, should be limited by the low
cost of molded pulp and its excellent protective
and absorbency characteristics. At the same time,
while losing some markets to plastics, molded
pulp products are gaming ground in certain types
of industrial packaging, such as in packing sensi-
tive electronic parts. All together, growth of this
material should continue at a modest rate—2.2
percent annually. Production will grow from 481
million pounds in 1966 to 600 million pounds in
1976.
Specialty Paper—Summary Outlook
As a group, the specialty papers will maintain
a modest 10-year growth rate of 2.6 percent.
Coated converting paper will be the leader with a
growth rate of 4.5 percent. Only one material—
tissue paper—will have a declining growth
rate (Table 20 and Figure 7).
GLASS
Along with wood and textiles, glass is one of
the oldest container materials, tracing its history
to the early civilizations. Glass makes a strong
container with high gloss and transparency. It
is chemically inert and an absolute barrier against
all external influences except temperature and
light. Foodstuffs which come in contact with glass
do not take on an offtaste, which has made glass
TABLE 20.—Production of specialty packaging papers by
type: 1966 and 1976
Specialty paper—type
Millions of pounds Ten-year
— rate of
Actual— Forecast— change
1966 1976 (percent)
Coated converting paper (one
side)
Uncoated converting paper
(book paper) 1,066 1,430
Tissue paper 472 400
Pulp, pressed and molded... . 481 600
'32 1,140 4. 5
3.0
—1.6
2.2
Total 2,751 3,570
2.6
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
a favorite in food packaging. Glass containers
can be made cheaply with automatic bottle
making equipment which became available in the
early part of this century.
Shipments of glass containers have been growing
steadily in the period of this forecast, from 20.2
billion units in 1958 to 29.4 billion units in 1966.
The basic trends in glass container usage indicate
growth in coming years will continue along tradi-
tional lines in spite of competition from plastics
and metals—with one major exception. Shipments
of glass containers for beverages will more than
double in the 1966 to 1976 period as nonreturnable
glass containers come to replace the returnable
bottle in soft drinks and beer. The radical change
in this one container application prompts us to
devote a separate section to beverage containers
which will be presented under this heading but is
also important for understanding trends in metal
container usage.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
33
SNomie
co
"d
oo
a
o
OS
lO
.s
6E
CIS
-iC
O
£
13
00
•3
o<
OD
§
u
-------
34
PACKAGING
Of the 29.4 billion units used in 1966 food prod-
ucts accounted for 10.8 billion units, beverages for
12.0 billion, drugs and cosmetics for 5.8 billion and
industrial and household chemicals for 0.8 billion.
Of these, 2.7 billion units were returnable beer,
soft drink, and milk containers. Each of the re-
turnable containers will make about 19 trips to the
market on the average during its useful life of
slightly over one year. In total, glass containers
made 71.8 billion trips to the market place in 1966.
Of this total 26.7 billion trips were made by non-
returnable containers and 45.1 billion trips were
made by returnable containers. Thus if it were
not for the returnable container, glass container
requirements would have been 71.8 billion units in
1966. This illustrates the tremendous service per-
formed by returnable bottles in keeping glass out
of waste, despite their small share of total new
units (under 10 percent). It also shows the huge
potential market which glass makers see when they
contemplate replacing returnable bottles with
throw-away types.
Glass containers can be classified broadly into
two groups—narrow neck and wide mouth.
Bottles and jugs are defined by the first term;
jars and tumblers by the second. On a unit basis,
narrow neck containers are by far the more impor-
tant.
Technological Trends
Glass is both fragile and a relatively heavy ma-
terial. The breakable nature of glass is one of its
severest limitations, for this requires that bottles
be processed more slowly on filling lines than
metal, requires more care and cushioning in ship-
ment, and, in the case of returnable containers, has
an effect on the life of the container. Weight of the
glass package is a demerit because shipping costs
tend to be high and tend to offset the material cost
advantage which glass enjoys over materials with
comparable performance characteristics.
In view of these facts, glass technology has been
directed toward the creation of stronger and lighter
containers. During the past 20 years, glass makers
have slowly but certainly advanced toward
the ideal container (from the packaging point of
view)-—the unbreakable and feather-light bottle.
Bottle weight has declined by a third during the
past two decades, and new glass coatings have
made bottles more durable.
Weight of the container and its strength are, of
course, related. More than 90 percent of the
strength of glass is in the surface layer; conse-
quently, reduction in breakage can be accom-
plished in one of two ways—by increasing the
thickness of the container (which accounts for 10
percent of a bottle's strength) or by increasing the
strength of the surface and its resistance to
scratching and impacts. The present thrust of
glass industry research is in the latter direction,
because improvement of the surface strength can
mean reduction of bottle thickness—which in turn
means a lighter container that can be shipped at
lower cost.
New ways to crystallize and arrange molecules
on the surface layer and new surface treatments
(e.g., with metallic oxide while the container is
hot, polyethylene after it has cooled) are presently
helping to make bottles stronger and lighter.
Unit weight of glass containers is expected to
decline,* as a consequence (Figure 8); handling
speeds are expected to increase; and the thickness
of materials used to cushion glass containers,
for example, protective separating materials such
as corrugated sheets, should decline.
Rapid technological change is also taking place
in glass decoration, an important area for making
glass a more attractive and competitive material
in an innovation-hungry market environment.
Direct decoration is becoming more widespread
in this technique, enamel is fused onto the glass
surface directly. New organic coatings have been
developed which fuse at low temperatures; they
are expected to have a wide impact, particularly
on nonreturnable beverage containers, making it
possible to differentiate such bottles more ade-
quately. A relatively new process also permits
glass coloring in small batches.
Another area of development is in closures.
In a market that rewards convenience features,
glass container manufacturers have met the
challenge of pop-top beverage can closures by
developing new closures of their own. Consequently,
easy-open features are now being introduced in
*Average size of all glass containers and complexity
of shape contribute significantly to average weight per
unit. Technological advances, therefore, guarantee con-
tinued average-weight decline only if there is no signifi-
cant change in the size mix and configurations now in
common use.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
35
86
78
"1I I T
1 I T
1954
I
1956
1958 1960
1962
1964 1966 1968
YEAR
Source Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Unpublished Data
Forecast by Midwest Research Institute
1970
1974
FIGURE 8.—Average weight of glass containers: 1954-1976 (pounds/gross)
glass bottles. These usually take the form of
twist-off or lift-off caps. Aside from convenience
in use (they do not require any utensils for opening
the bottle), these closures also seal more effec-
tively. It is expected that twist-off caps and lift-off
caps will be introduced universally on beverage
containers, eventually spelling the demise of the
traditional metal crown.
Competitive Trends
Glass faces serious competition from metals and
plastics in all of its traditional markets. Metals
will be particularly strong contenders for beverage
markets; and while they will not grow as rapidly
as glass, they will limit the potential growth of
glass bottles.
In competing with glass, plastics are favored by
two factors. First, while glass prices have been
inching upward in recent years, plastic container
prices have been moving toward a more competi-
tive price position with glass. Prices for poly-
ethylene bottles in the 8- to 16-ounce size range
are approaching comparable glass prices (Table
21) making plastics competitive for toiletries
and cosmetics. Second, glass is not a desirable
container material in the homemaker's view for
products used in the bathroom or laundry. She is
inclined to select household chemicals and toilet-
ries packaged in plastics because plastic con-
tainers do not break. The appearance of clear
poly vinyl chloride (PVC), and its approval for
food packaging, will result in strong plastics
competition for food containers that are presently
of glass. In this area, however, glass enjoys an
-------
36
PACKAGING
TABLE 21.—Typical 1967 prices of glass and plastic bottles
for toiletries and cosmetics °
Capacity and type of bottle
Price per
1,000 units
Glass Plastic b
4-Ounce Boston-round ° $43. 54 $51. 17
8-Ounce Boston-round 54. 67 56. 87
16-Ounce Boston-round 78. 89 79. 96
& Small-order prices; large orders are discounted up to 30 percent •
b High density polyethylene.
c A common bottle style with rounded shoulder areas and narrow neck.
Source: Modern Packaging, 40(11): 177-180, July 1967.
"image" advantage: the homemaker views glass
as a natural container for food products.
Glass and paper competition for liquids
packaging is almost over. Wax- and now plastic-
coated paper cartons have assumed dominance of
the milk packaging market. Glass containers still
make over five billion trips per year to homes
carrying milk, but the outlook for glass in milk
packaging is dim. Paper, and now plastic bottles,
will continue to nibble away at the remaining
glass markets in milk in continuation of an
histortic trend (Table 22).
While its competition with paper milk con-
tainers has been one-sided, glass has scored
well in its battle with metals, capturing the baby
food market, powdered coffee, spice jars, and a
variety of new instant food packaging applica-
tions which have been or could have been held
by steel.
Outlook for Nonbeverage Glass Containers
Food
On the basis of the foregoing, we anticipate an
increase of glass container shipments for foods
from 10.8 billion units in 1966 to 12.7 billion
units in 1976. This growth rate of 1.7 percent per
year compares with a rate of 2.6 percent in the
period 1958 to 1966. The decline in the growth
rate is projected because we expect plastics to
make a strong showing in such applications as
the packaging of vegetable oil, vinegar, salad
dressings, ketchup, juices, syrups, pickles, and
peanut butter. All told, plastics should capture a
market of at least 1.5 billion units from glass in
these applications.
Drugs and Cosmetics
In 1966, 5.8 billion glass containers were
shipped for drug and cosmetics packaging. Strong
competition from plastics will result in completely
eliminating the growth in this application area.
By 1976, about the same number of containers
(5.8 billion) will be shipped for packaging drugs
and cosmetics as in 1966.
Chemicals
The decline in glass container consumption in
industrial and household chemicals is already a
well established trend. Between 1958 and 1966,
glass lost 800 million units to other materials. We
do not expect a turn-around in this area and esti-
mate that by 1976, 400 million units will be pro-
duced and shipped for chemicals packaging, down
from 800 million containers in 1966.
Historical data and projections are shown by
end-use groupings (Tables 23 and 24). The tables
also show glass container shipments for beverages,
which are discussed in the next section. Figures 9
and 10 present these data graphically.
Outlook for Glass Beverage Containers
The most significant activity in glass containers
must be sought in the area of beverage bottles
where nonreturnable containers are gaining popu-
larity rapidly at the expense of returnable bottles.
By 1976, nonreturnable containers will have
TABLE 22.—Milk container consumption and milk glass container fillings: 1958 to 1966
In millions of units and fillings
Type of container
Papcrboard
Glass (fillings)
Plastic
1958
. . . . 14, 450
10 017
0
1959
15, 032
9,550
0
1960
15, 364
8 971
0
1961
16, 158
7,835
0
1962 1963
18, 270 18, 214
5, 842 6, 206
0 (<•)
1964 1965
18, 61 5 20, 232
6, 038 5, 926
(") 45
1966
21 002
5 382
74
Total 24,467 24,582 24,335 23,993 24,112 24,420 24,653 26,203 26,458
0 Not available.
Source: Paperboard Packaging, 52(8): 69, August 1967. U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Closures for containers. Current
Industrial Reports, Series M34H(59-13)—M.'$4H(66-13). Washington,
D.C., 1960-1967. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Plastic Bottles, Current Industrial Reports, Series M30E(65-13)—
M30E(66-13). Washington, D.C., 1966-1967.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
37
t5
ON
2
IO
LO
ON
3
•B
e „
^i 'E
•O g
t, *o
S a
•S §
i ^
s «
W tl
J
00
>
1
E
if
T
CO
IM
Gil
B
• NO t^*
pH* Tj^
"^ C~~* ON
LO t- co
r- LO
t- LO l>
rH CO"
pH O •**
rC O ^O
i> m i— i
rH erf
t^* O t~"
(N (N t-
IT- H/< co
I-H" el
CO •*? iO
r- LO co
rH rH
co r— i r-
iO O (N
O CO \O
rH" rH~
T^ IO rH
^O \O O
O CO >-O
rH r-H
CO C- (N
t- LO T?
NO Tt LO
rH rH
rH LO NO
NO CO O
VO CO IO
r-T rH~
«
o
.1 !jj
o o
NO O
Hp vo
co"
o o
ON rH
Hp CO
f^
o o
CO CO
in CM
NO"
t— rH
t~ CO
LO O
in"
88
to c-
^T
LO CC
.— i r-
T? CO
^f
CO rH
CO LO
CO CO
co"
CO r— I
LO !M
CO "*
co"
LO O
t- ON
CO t-
(N
fH NO
co -^
Tf O\
rH
LO O
CO CO
I— 1
CO ON
CO CO
CO (M
rH
t~- CO
CO (M
• LO
LO CO
CO rH
rH
(N "^
LO LO
CO rH
i — 1
J
jq
» a
Beer returnab
Beer nonretur
1
T?"
rH
1
0
rH
1
l>
§
ON
co"
rH
CM
CN]"
1
CN]"
CO
CO
CN]"
rH
0
IM"
o
HP
i"
rH
NO
LO
NO
rH
t-
PH
CN]
t
1 1
I— 1
O
^p
1 — 1
rH
O
rH
CO
O
rH
I
a
'C
"8
en
(M in
PH" co"
rH
§o
o
rH ON
§ i
r4 NO"
fM O
(N CO
ON ON
i— 1 rH
rH ^°
ON O
rH rH
(N (M
ON "O
^
(M O
r~" I-O
rH
^ E:
t- t-
LO •«?
i-H
CO (N
CO O
CO ^
1— 1
t- ON
Tf fM
rH
ir> rH
i — 1 i— 1
** CM
rH
O C^
TP Ov
(N PH
rH
t- CO
rH CO
(M rH
rH
0 rH
co r-
CO i— I
•— i
CO ON
CO NO
CM fH
i — I
A
e i
O c
s § •:
4J
a a 3
'd T3 £
•S 4n 3
O O *^
en en
o
LO"
I
in"
o
NO
in"
0
NO
LO"
CO
LO
in"
HP
ON
CM
LTJ°
LO
CO
rH
in"
CO
ON
LO"
CO
LO
rH
in"
CM
pH
in"
o
S
m"
S
CO
•*"
«
o
in"
0
CO
Hp
IM
r-
-*"
3
o
"^
rug and cosmetic
Q
o o
NO O
NO rH
co" IM"
0 O
rH LO
NO rH
co" CM*
0 O
NO O
LO CM
co" CM"
ON rH
IN CO
Hp CO
co" IM"
CO -HP
ON ON
CO rH
CO" CN]"
CO NO
CO O
rH rH
CO
-------
38
PACKAGING
isitmm^
111
111
3p
:':•:; ;;• -••!•- • •
•II;!!;:
liii
i l I i l i
11:
Ii;
il
i!
;;p
i!|;i
ii
1:1
11
;-:v|:;i:
m
j|
ii
Hi
I I
: •::.::-:: :::;::::• :^j
jo sNomia
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
39
' ::|: -::
|;
'."-
:p
;J|:!!i
Mill:"
-;f.::
i::::|;;:
Y-i
:¥£•:
..-&:;
:1:::|-
iiiip
^i
I?:*'
i!::!f:
•v-|.c
=;;|-
:'%
S = |: =
:::,|:;-
1:1
O
H
cq
§
CO
05
-d
a
03
£
bC
S
fafi
es
t.
§
13
a
_B
'8
4-»
§
Li
a
x
o
M
^
siiNn do sNomia
-------
40
PACKAGING
TABLE 24.—Distribution of glass container shipments by end use: 1958 to 1976
Percent of total units
End use
1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1970 1973 1976
Food total - 42.9 41. 5 41. 3 40. 5 40. 6 39. 7 39. 5 39.1 36. 7 32. 9 30. 7 27.9
Beverage, total
25.0 26.3 27.7 30.3 32.5 35.1 36.6 37.7 40.9 48.8 53.3 58.6
Wine 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 7.8 7.3 6.7
Liquor 6.7 6.9 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.0 6.0
Beer, total 8.0 8.6 10. 6 13.4 15.2 16. 7 18.0 18.5 19. 1 19.3 19.7 19.8
Beer, returnable 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.4 1. 5 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0
Beer, nonreturnable 6. 1 6. 6 8. 7 11. 8 13. 8 15. 2 16. 4 16. 7 17. 1 17.8 18. 5 18. 8
Soft drink, total 7. 1 7. 5 7. 4 7. 4 8. 2 9. 2 9. 6 10. 4 13. 2 21. 7 26. 3 32. 1
Soft drink, returnable 6.1 6.5 6.3 5.7 6.3 7.0 7.2 6.8 6.5 4.6 3.5 2.6
Soft drink, nonreturnable... 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.4 3.6 6.7 17.1 22.8 29.5
Drug and cosmetic, total 23.9 23.3 22.5 21.8 21.4 20.2 19.9 19.7 19.6 16.5 14.7 12.6
Medicinal and health.,
Toiletry and cosmetic .
14.8 14.3 13.5 13.2 13. 1 12.2 12.0 12.0 11. 7 10.2 9.2 8.0
9.1 9.0 9.0 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.9 7.7 7.9 6.3 5.5 4.6
Chemical, household and industrial.. . 8.2 8.9 8.5 7.4 5.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 2.8 1.8 1.3
0.9
a Includes dairy products.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Glass
Containers." Current Industrial Reports, Series M32G, 1958 to 1966. U.S.
virtually replaced the deposit type bottle; and
since each returnable bottle makes about 19
round trips before it is retired, each returnable
bottle eliminated means the production of 19
nonreturnable containers, either glass or metal.
Three factors are bringing about the switch to
nonreturnable containers: (1) the consumer's pref-
erence for a container which need not be returned
to the retail establishment; (2) the retailer's dis-
inclination to handle returnable bottles; and (3)
the packaging material manufacturer's desire to
exploit the potential of the beverage container
market to the fullest.
The first two of these factors are the result of
a desire for convenience which is difficult to
quantify; the third factor can be measured more
readily. In 1966, beer and soft drinks accounted
for 65 billion fillings. However, in the same year,
only about 26 billion beer and soft drink con-
tainers (glass and metal combined) were manu-
factured (see Table 25, p. 41). On the average,
in other words, every container was filled twice.
From the manufacturer's point of view, conse-
quently, a potential market for 35 billion con-
Government Printing Office, Washington. Forecasts by Midwest Research,
Institute. Table 23.
tainers existed in 1966, which could have been
achieved if no-return containers had been used
exclusively. This is readily apparent to both metal
and glass manufacturers. Glass makers, however,
have more at stake: their markets are being
eroded by plastics in foods, drugs, toiletries, and
in chemicals. For glass, the nonreturnable beverage
bottle is a last major growth frontier.
Competition for the beverage packaging mar-
kets is extremely keen. All major materials—
steel, aluminum, and glass—have distinct ad-
vantages and are comparable in final cost. Final
cost, in this instance, would include all expendi-
tures such as those for materials, forming, filling,
packing, and shipment. Disposal costs, of course,
are not included.
Metals, generally, are favored by convenience
features: they are easy to open with pop-top
closures; they are less bulky in storage; they are
convenient to handle; their contents chill rapidly;
and they lend themselves to flashy decoration.
Cans are more expensive than bottles on a unit
basis. However, they can be filled more rapidly
and they enjoy an advantage in shipment be-
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
41
cause of lower weight. For instance, a "thin-tin"
can weighs about one-fifth as much as a compara-
ble nonreturnable bottle.
Developments in glass technology are now re-
moving certain disadvantages of glass in these
markets. Twist-off and lift-off closures have been
introduced. Lighter weight bottles are becoming
available, aiding in the reduction of glass shipping
costs. Stronger glass containers promise higher
filling rates. Decoration technology in glass is
improving, pointing to more attractive bottles.
The greatest advantage of glass, however, is
that in the consumer's view it is the traditional
container for beverages.
Distinct differences between beer and soft
drink packaging markets exist. Nonreturnable
containers have been established in beer packag-
ing for some time, while they are a relative new-
comer in soft drinks as these shipment figures,
given in billions of units, indicate:
1958
Increaae in
1966 period
(percent)
Nonreturnable beer containers . .
Nonreturnable soft drink con-
tainers
9. 6 18. 0 88
.6 7.6 1,163
During the same period of time, returnable con-
tainer shipments have increased much more
modestly, and the absolute quantities (in billions
of units) are much lower:
Returnable beer bottles
Returnable soft drink bottles
1958
0 4
. . 12
1966
0 6
1 9
Increase
in period
(percent)
50
58
It is well to remember, however, looking at
returnable bottle figures, that each container
represents about 19 trips to the market. Con-
sequently, although low in overall number of
units, returnable bottles represent many more
fillings than nonreturnable containers.
All returnable beverage containers are glass.
In the nonreturnable category, metal dominates.
In 1966, of a total of 25.6 billion nonreturnable
containers used for beer and soft drink packaging,
18.6 billion units, or 72 percent, were cans.
TABLE 25.—Beer and soft drink container production by
type of container and use: 1958, 1966, and 1976
In millions of units
Type of container
1958
1966
1976
Nonreturnable containers:
Bottles:
Soft drink
Beer
Total
192 1,980
1, 239 5, 031
13, 500
8,600
1,431 7,011 22,100
Cans:
Soft drink.
Beer
409 5,612
8, 337 12, 947
17, 000
19, 000
Total 8, 746 18, 559 36, 000
Nonreturnable total. 10,177 25,570 58,100
Returnable containers:
Soft drink ... .
Beer
. 1, 240
388
1,922
577
1,200
460
Returnable total. . 1, 628 2, 499 1, 660
Total containers. 11,805 28,069 59,760
Total fillings 52, 921 65, 213 79, 500
Ratio, containers to fillings . . .
1:4.48 1:2.32 1:1.33
Source: Table 23.
Looking toward 1976, we forecast the following
changes in the beverage container market on
the basis of our analysis of technological changes
and consumption patterns:
—Nonreturnable container production will
increase from 25.6 billion units to 58.1
billion units, an increase of 127 percent in
the period or an annual growth rate of 8.5
percent.
—Metal cans will still represent 72 percent
of all nonreturnable beverage packaging in
1976, or 36 billion units. Glass will maintain
its 1966 share of this market throughout
the period, growing to 22.1 billion units in
1976. But since glass starts from a lower
quantity base than metal cans, the growth
rate of nondeposit glass bottles will be
more vigorous (12.2 percent annually) than
that enjoyed by metals (6.8 percent annu-
ally). Strong growth in glass is attributed,
in this forecast, to recent technological
improvements in the throw-away container
-------
42
PACKAGING
m
IP
::M:
IS
ii'-~-
K:\:
.\..:i.
;t;\
'
l:;:\i.
:::i::r':;
,„ {„.::..
n,
tti
i i i i i i
iP
>4H
o
ID
§
g
,£,
\O
c~-
ON
-H
et
S
.g
5
§
~ o
^
.g
tj
T3
43
cn
a
Pi
P
o
l l I l
AVi
L I I I L
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
43
100
80
2
w
o
60
40
20
METAL CANS
0
1957 1959 1961
a/ Based on total fillings .
Source: Midwest Research Institute
,-•• NONRETURNABLE BOTTLES
I I I I I I I
1963
1965 1967
YEAR
1969
1971
1973
1975
FIGURE 12.—Soft drink containers by type: 1957-1976 (market share in percent)'
and the fact that glass enjoys an "image"
advantage over metal in beverage packaging.
Also, proprietary shapes (e.g., "Coke") in
no returns are expected to make their
appearance very soon.
—Nonreturnable metal beer and soft drink
containers, as will be shown in the next
section, is one of the major growth oppor-
tunities for aluminum in competition with
steel containers.
—Returnable container consumption will
decline, from 2.5 billion units in 1966 to
1.7 billion units 10 years later.
These data have been summarized for the
years 1958, 1966, and 1976 (Table 25) and are
presented in greater detail in Table 26. The
source data are shown in graphic form (Figures
11 to 14).
Glass: Summary Outlook
On a unit basis, glass container shipments will
grow at a rate of 4.5 percent annually in the 1966
to 1976 period, resulting in consumption of 45.7
billion containers in 1976, up from 29.4 billion
units in 1966.
During this period, the average unit weight of
glass containers will be declining. Consequently,
calculated on a weight basis, the growth in glass
will not be as great as unit increases. In 1966, the
29.4 billion glass containers weighed 16.5 billion
pounds; by weight glass consumption will increase
at a rate of 3.7 percent annually, resulting in 23.8
billion pounds of containers in 1976.
METALS
In 1966, 14.3 billion pounds of metals were
converted into packages, making metals one of
-------
44
PACKAGING
0-
\o
OS
*H
2
w
S
»«H
1
£
o
u
r^
U
t °
^ 1
1 J
is>
a
S
i
|_
•&•
-C
T
i
o
CM
a
M
n
H
alii
S-SJe
2S^£
rl g1— '
•C
&
S
«
S
O
t^
O">
s
ON
S
ON
rH
S
g
iH
i
^H
1
1
i-H
ON
S
wv
CO
8
Type of container
CO CO CO CM CO CM
rH rH rH -r? ^ rH
1 rH rH 1 CM
§OOOOO
O O O O O
o o i— CM m
in CO f- -^ rH CO
•^ CM rH rH rH
§OOOOO
O O O O O
m CM co •<* -^ o
IM O CM O rH ON
** CO rH rH
rH rH O NO NO O
O rH ON t— rH VO
•* CO
SCM CM (M CM O
LO rH O CM CO
m ON NO ON ON ON
F- rH lO CO rH rH
CO CO
CO CM rH rH T? t—
ON in ^* CM rH O
ON rH CO ON ON O
NO CO CO CM rH rH
CO CO
•** ON in •* CM CM
CO CO ON •* rH CO
co m t- in ON NO
*3* rH CM CM rH
CO CO
Tf vo CO CM CM O
vo o m co t- vo
CM CM O CO t- in
CM O CM (M rH
CO CO
CM rH rH rH -r? t-
co co m in t- r-
CM m NO o m •*
rH ON rH CM rH
CO CM
TJ ON m o co CM
in CM IM TJI co o
t- in CM r- co ••*
O ON rH rH rH
CO CM
ON t- CM NO t- ON
ON CO rH in O -TP
CM «* CO NO *# CM
ON CO rn" rn"
CM CM
co o co t- m CM
CM CO •* CM rH rH
(M NO in SO ^* CM
CM rH rH rH
CO CO
CM CO ON CM O CM
NO -r? O CO ^ ON
CM CO -^ -^ CM rH
O" ON* rH* r-T
CO CM
G> '. '.
W) ...
C ....
3 ; a : . :
~~^ . a . . u
a 2 -H1 S : 3
S 5 13 -3 o 5
0 1 $ 5 3 S
•o <* e 2 « s
e u S •* S S
« .* .* .* h c
" t~-"
CO rH rH
O O O O O O
in in o NO co co
rH O rH C^ lO ^
vo" -^ r-T m" "^
CM rH rH
CM NO NO co m co
NO NO ON CO rH r-
t- CO CO t- Tt CO
in" ^<" o" •* •*"
CM i-H rH
ON in •* ON co rj
co NO CM co co in
m CM co CM co co
•*" in" oC -^ co
CNl rH
NO rH in in co CM
CNJ in r- r~ m CM
O ON O t- CO •"*
" " " " *^~
-* it ON CO CO
CM rH
ON CO rH Tj» in ON
ON CO NO NO t- CO
rH -^ t^- rH CO ^*
co" •*" Co" co" CM
CM rH
t- ON CO O rH NO
ON O CO f- CO "^
•^P NO CO CO ^ ON
CM" co" co" CM" 1-1
CM rH
ON CO NO LO in O
•*f ON in NO co co
rH C~ rH CO •** **
CO •*" ON rH~ rJ
S | .
«.o &2
a'tSOj a
d^t •-
.a S § s
ftagi
:! M^-g
^) w K
^ •§ S 2
if!!
i'u a S
C S"£
-2 §•!
JJU£ =
St^ft,
O S "^
"12'i'0
"A a I
al33
.,"2* E
V * C O
HUM6"
SSxu .
«0^£
ei -^ ON
•s §2":
t! 1 JU
•i3 oQ
" 2t« -
4) M ~ g
;iE* s 2
ai . w M>
tffSi
h\ov° w
i>SS^
=21
•gu
x I"3
!! •§ B
» c s
x 1-1 B
« B C
(• KM
" fc 1
»•> ao
« OQ
15 )f"j
§ .P
T'S «r^
O *^ \O
& §2
1 II
3 «rt.
i! S"
s go
g UB
12 II
10 Hj P
Js ^3
11 Ir*
to »co
£ epartment of Comnw
2G (59-13)— M32G{6'
'S M CO
n5 t/iS
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
45
°l 1 1 r
60
P
w
o
A
W
fc 40
H
ta
20
0
n r
RETURNABLE BOTTLES
NONRETURNABLE BOTTLES
_L
_L
J_
_L
1957 1959 1961
_a/ Based on total fillings
Source: Midwest Research Institute
1963
1965
1967
YEAR
1969
1971
1973
1975
FIGURE 13.—Beer containers by type: 1957-1976 (market share in percent)
the major packaging materials. The overwhelming
bulk of metals (nearly 75 percent) were converted
into metal cans. These cans, made mostly of tin-
coated steel stock and a small amount of alumi-
num, provided 54.4 billion packaging units.
The remaining tonnage was distributed among
six other configuration categories: (1) aluminum
foil and semi-rigid containers; (2) collapsible
metal tubes; (3) steel drums and pails; (4) metal
strapping; (5) gas cylinders; and (6) metal caps
and crowns.
A summary of quantities of metals that were
used in each of these applications in 1966 and are
expected to be used in 1976 is presented in Table
27 and Figures 15 and 16. Overall, we foresee
growth in this area to be taking place at a modest
rate of 1.6 percent annually in the 1966 to 1976
period.
TABLE 27.—Consumption of metal packaging materials by
type: 1966 and 1976
Type
Steel cans
Aluminum cans and ends ... .
Collapsible metal tubes
Rigid aluminum foil contain-
ers
Aluminum foil converted
Steel drums and pails
Metal strapping ... . . . .
G-as cylinders .
Metal caps
Metal crowns ....
Quantity
(millions of pounds)
Actual — Forecast —
1966 1976
10, 348
329
32
88
266
1,646
800
120
263
412
11, 420
1,400
25
150
465
1,560
990
120
320
380
Ten-year
rate of
change
(percent)
1.0
15.6
-2.4
5.5
5.7
-1.5
2.2
0
2.0
-.8
Total 14, 304 16, 830
1.6
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
326-388 O - 69 - 5
-------
46
PACKAGING
m^
'&?!:'
:fi;;:.:
m- ••;
W<-
-I :;:
ih-;:::
III
Pi-:;:
m-{i-\
^ii.i
Silt';'::.
ftl
id'iiT:
:ii:i^
,t;t::!l
if
::h:ti
||
iMIii
•:•:. * •• '•'
... .1:::::.:.:
:||::|;::;
:-ii:::P
;.:,l:i-i
;::Iio;
•liP.1;
iffis
llfc
!•-! ;;|1
II; !•!-
^i:.^!/
I I J I L J
i\i i i i i
|:|
I I I I I
O
_g
'3
+j
§
u
1
13
en
i-H
a
K
o
fi
2 5
SIINTI
SNomra
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
47
Each of the configurations mentioned above is
found predominantly in either consumer or
industrial markets:
Type
Aluminum foil and semi-rigid
Collapsible metal tubes
Steel drums and pails
Gas cylinders ....
Predomi-
nantly
consumer
X
X
X
x
Predomi-
nantly
industrial
X
x
x
About 90 percent of all metal packaging
material, on a weight basis, is steel. Aluminum
accounts for most of the rest, along with small
amounts of lead, zinc, and tin. Aluminum plays a
relatively minor role in packaging at present; this
material, however, has been growing rapidly and
can be expected to become significantly more
important as a packaging material in the future.
All metals have one overriding advantage over
any other kind of packaging material—their
strength. Metal containers also protect their con-
tents from the effects of heat, cold, moisture,
rough handling, and light and lend themselves
to attractive decoration.
Metal Cans
Metal cans are by far the most common type
of metal package. In 1966, cans accounted for 75
percent of all metal packages by weight. They
are used for more than 2,500 products by 135
industries. However, food and beverages are the
products most often packaged in metal cans.
These two outlets account for 84 percent of all
cans produced. A summary of metal can produc-
tion is provided in Table 28. Tables 29 and 30
show the same data in greater detail; Figures 17,
18, and 19 present the information graphically.
The dominance of cans for consumer packaging
of food items may be illustrated by the following
statistics:
—Americans purchase and consume the con-
tents of more than 131 million cans in an
average day;
—The average American family uses about 850
metal cans in a year; and
—The average American empties about 252
cans in a year, or almost five per week.
The most common and familiar metal can is
the cylindrical, three-piece (wall and two ends),
sanitary food can. However, there are other
shapes—oval, oblong, and square. The cylin-
drical food container usually has both ends
sealed, although many different kinds of clo-
sures—basically friction fit, key opening, and
hinged lid—may be used on metal cans. Cans
range in capacity from a few ounces to more
than a gallon.
Most cans are made from steel. Available
statistics on can production do not differentiate
between steel and aluminum cans; consequently,
aluminum cans will be discussed in this section.
TABLE 28.-—Consumption of metal cans by end use:
1958, 1966, and 1976
In billion units
Can end use
Foods'
Beverages
Nonfood
Total
1958
. 25.6
9. 7
8.0
. . 43. 3
1966
]
26.2
19.5
8.7
54.4
Rate of
change
1958 to
1966 (%)
0.3
9.1
1.1
2.9
1976
]
29.0
36.9
12.4
78.3
Rate of
change
1966 to
1976 (%)
1.0
6.6
3.6
3.7
a The food canning rate varies with fruit and vegetable crop yields.
Source: Can Manufacturers Institute. Annual Report—Metal Can Ship-
ments—1966. Washington, D.C., 1967. Forecasts by Midwest Research
Institute.
Aluminum
Aluminum cans are relative newcomers to the
market. In 1966 aluminum accounted for only 4.6
percent of total base boxes* of can metal shipped.
Aluminum containers are used primarily for beer,
but some are used for soft drinks, frozen foods,
canned meats, fish, pet foods, and aerosols. They
are lightweight—between 39 and 45 pounds per
base box compared with 55 pounds per base box
for the lightest steel cans. Aluminum cans cost
more than steel cans, but the weight differential
and subsequent shipping savings offset their
higher price.
Aluminum has many attractive features in this
application. It is corrosion resistant and highly
*A base box is the unit of measure used in can sheet
stock. It is an area of 31,360 square inches, equivalent to
112 sheets 14 x 20 inches in size. About 500 12-ounce cans
can be made from 1 base box.
-------
48
PACKAGING
*-&.W*M\
l-li-iiHi-lillHi
ji9jy§Mmjijt
*?!::.. :' ''•: . '. :-:':':'.o '•
•Hr:-
*•.!
4:
ij-!
^.:
:::. v::-:: :1;: :':^.::;:;; J:
i;^:i:; \:; ;;' W;;i;;-!;|
i?";:i:;;=^.tt':-=^
311 B£>I ;lf-ll*|
fl :p
- ! : : • •:
:'•'•'•- '••-.
• vX:>Xv ;
:.:£ ;'.;£:
::: ^:-.: •'':
• •?! :'-
. !!: ::
::r- ::.:::?•' ••|::i :':::
-
-
-
Mill
1
:•::;{!
nP:r" -^fr::ii
iiiip
- :xf
IMim-l
IIH iis^:^
.:¥:V:V:';;:--: :.':-'^.:- *.\\: \: |
i;.:-iPMI:;l:[:l>f:i
M^'ilfM
fJi^lSi? lW^I^:!r4^W^
iilllSi'iw^^^^^
:x-.y :: i ; • • : ; ; i vJ: : : : '•': ;••'.?;.: : 'f; : * : • i*-! I • : r ;|
•'••;:;;:•: :.; J i ; y •;% '. 'J- ^ ?.'! ? i;'; | : i.:.V j™| ; : .; ^ ! J-; !
^5iR&:: ;-ISI"1tKS
:': i '; :_:;•! -.:f: :| x • :. i . ; ' ••;'• $ . .;:j : ! i y- '• •• \ \. • :.!;t: ^ :';::: ;
1111111118
i : ' Z '?•• •>?..:: !:!:;': _•: :: • .;' '.:. :. • • • ; f.;.: ; : ; | : : . ; ] ] ,;
f' '. ': '••'•• • '•• i i . I ''.'. '? '/'••• :-: ' i>:' \:l ' ! T: • :' 1 '."-f-f : 1
iisiP-sy^si
i I £:'£' :::::';>-: I:;-.;-:' ' f ' ' . : '. '. '' '•'• 0/^L ::x: i i
S58ft::;x:01i|8j:|
QSS£-^^';:tKK.;::;:
[?^::-?te:°:=fflK:iK
^!:"i^^i;jii:i!£^O^i:liijfi^''Ji^
: • ; i i !•! ?: Vr • ; ; : ' ! i '.-. " : :f i': • v ! i i !-v. i i i Iliji* x:l:i i i i'.; •
EI:i^:!!:|Sii|i|iiS
:i::v:V:::.'::::;:":-::::-;..|:: :::..|L. " '-.:.,:^.; -:":J.,/X '. - -:: -.:.! •- ': "||$ : . i "". :
1
CO
-1
£
ta
S
j
<
1 I
^
f
I
V
a
SS
i
1 *
a
?5
f STEEL 1
1 s
§
Q I
d\
" \
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
ill
ijY:l: :-;t:ii;:
&'• •:::-
li. •:•,;
iiP.::i:::-.;
I.l:-l:i
*•:•! yi
^ipii
•pV'-'.jl:-
fee:
•l-i';:;:;:?
i||i
::i|:.::;!;:::::':
'Mill
*::til!:-::
Mvl
; i;P.;H.:
:ir-;I.;
.-:-:'t:":::-
:;•:•:«... '.
H:|:--...
•:.*::••••••• •
mM
;l:i?::-
'liJ-iiii'"
•:" *: : . ..../ . -
:I"'.':'±J:'."W :;•:•::::'
• ?^!|bs
:i
1
!. 'i:;.|;V.';|?;::?;
!
::r:|:::: .-.:::• :':'
11
:;l-Mi.:: i?:
;il-T::::l.f;
sijap
:^il::i.:.,:i:;--
illf!
11
; m-m
. mf&
^isi
, m
v.¥ft :•:'*:":
iiilll
If
|; ;i|
:.?.: ti-:ji
• : :; J-j"
;:: :il
iii ml
'::jj::ij
i-: ;'iii:;i;
:•" : m
••'•:. '%':::
:-:: ill
•i m
:•••••;.• :t • v
xg ::;:|';::-
{' :::!
.'•:
•-II
:.::':. ::U
"1 B
:f::i:':;!'i':l:"
x'x-;V; : 14. • •
:.-'.. •"!'•::
iNit!
i!i|i|;;ii
:-S:: ::.:.:*:*!
::T:::?J:I:;::':
,:.:-:.:|::;-ii: "' :pl M .i.ii;;sf,>
11
I
|
\
\
w
g
ai <
o u
j J
S iS
w w
s s
,,.,11 1
l~
I
\~
\
1
j
L
\
\
y
i
8
8 /-
z /
3 /
>• /
u /
w f —
< \
o \
1 \
"~ *
F^
O
O
C-~
Os
1
00
2
S3
o> a
" >•
VO
s
un
*
I
CO
- 1
m .3
o ^
i>
a
00 O
in w
0 -H ^. -1
soNnod do sNomia
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
49
I
03
§
00
in
ON
SO
'So
CS
I
o-
E
p
O
soNnoa do
-------
50
PACKAGING
"O
o
1
os o "
pH
O O O O
co CM r~ so
o in m co
t-" in" •*" eo"
PH
O O O O
CM m -* co
CO CO ON ON
so" ^<" co" CM"
pH
S§ §J3
•* co CM in
in" en" cn" PH"
pH
•* m co so
CO ON SO CM
pH I> pH SO
in" co" en" PH"
pH
CM ON en ON
co •* O o
CO O CM CO
•^ co" co" PH"
pH
m PH m -^
CM O ON ON
vo m ON PH
-*" CM" co" PH"
pH
rf eo TJI co
m co o co
VO PH CO CM
•*" CM" vo" PH"
pH
in PH vo co
tr m CM so
•* vo O O
•*" PH" vo" PH"
pH
CO ON •* so
CO ON ON o
•Sfi CO PH [5
T?" PH" in" o"
pH
o o t~-
CM a\ t—
co ^^ PH en
•*" ~~^ vo" eo"
pH
CM O O
in so co
pH ^~, t- CO
^" ~~^ m" CM"
pH
•*
CO
O
a
o
X
1
"C
1 — 1
1— 1
^t
1— 1
(N
CO
(N
S
rH
S
(N
r™J
rH
cq
rH
(M
^O
rH
rH
"
0
O
rH
Irt
S
^J*
r— (
rH
r^-
m
CO
S
rH
rH
„
g
rH
!>•
CO
rH
S
rH
CO
eo'
0
rH
" "2
w
II
O « en
G
cd
o
"3
+*
»
3
I
u
a
s
If
II
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
51
3
*
•H
2
?
)N
H
1J
5
3
8
i
&•
i I
Millions of <
j
5-1
.
••
?
s
a
<
4
« u,-^
!§vo £ £
c!r- e «
p^t^^o.
vc
g
fO
r-
ON
O
2
,
S
1
S
rH
I
I
1
1
i
s
1
"§
o
fe
ON Oinr
O CO rH T
1
O O O C
ON t— ON C
t— vo t- C
m PH co
PH
O O O C
t- (N CO u
CO CO VO IT
in PH co
pH
o O o c
vo o r- o
•*" IN" co"
pH
co in vo e
•* CM IM C!
'S1 IN CO
m ON co t
•* ON -# T
CO pH pH p
't CM" co"
•H
F- CO CO C
vo T|< o ci
CM CM CM P
"?" CM" co"
PH
F- ON CO C
PH CM m P
CO CM rH CI
CO" IN CO
rH
§ON vo ci
CO O r
T? CM T
m" of co
PH
CO in ON \
TP oo co c
CN] in O CI
•*" CM" fo"
pH
CM ON F- p.
vo vo in cr
IM m ON ff
2 01 0)
ft- rH C
ON CO C-
2] IN" CM"
£3 CM •* v£
n S ^ ^
2 co «M"
i
u
"> o< -a
•U Q
> >• 5
*T3 '3 es
g -e g
h _,
V J3 5
•* o j!
oo *"rt &
4) X c±2 t
.S S . e
.3 jj £,-;
,f 1 |j
«* "8 S rg °
III NS-1
1 *•< """' ^ "* M c
^fe H SP.
o
fe
H l_O
f (N
S O
•q CM
^ in
F-
5 O
t CO
vo
5 O
33
vO
•5 O
1 t-
•5 CO
in
?!
m
h ON
1 CO
•) ON
VO
h co
•5 m
^ m
vo
ti lO
H (N
f irt
•» ^
vO
•t ^
: co
VO
fs t-
N CO
^
S3
5 CO
T?"
X
**•!
Ui
•£
0
r.
OJ
r^
1 P
1
: s
1 n
t
1
o
pH
O
co"
IN
O
8
CO
o
ON
f-^
IN
2
IN
1
LO
(N
1
VO
IN
vo
S
vo"
IN
S
CO
CM
£
VO
CM
CO
rH
VO
IN
CO
in
IN
in
in"
CM
OQ
•B
1
1
H
m ONF-
PH CO -H
Iff
rH rH
O O O
ON ON CO
i-H rH
III
m ON
f is
Nuf
lii
" PH" co"
pH rH
cq vo in
PH ®" N*
Q ^i CO
P^ CO O
PH" ON" cvf
T? m PH
rH ON PH
co PH m
in vo IN
O F- IN
PH eo" PH
CO CO IN
ON CO rH
ON CO CO
CO
co \o co
ON 1/5 ^t
ON rH 1/5
ON
ON r- ON
ssf
co"
n
fi
V ^
all
m
vo
S
CO
vo
CO
O
CO
rH
8
O
o
m
(N
in
m
2
VO
(N
vo"
rH
t-
^T
rH
rH
EH
t-
rM
rH
ON
§
rH
rH
S
o"
rH
F-
ON
VO
o"
r-H
1
ON
00*
1
8
1
H
vom voo
CO uO iO CN]
11 §S
o o o o
rH O Tf F-
in co CMO
co c*q PH ^
VO pH F- ^J"
PH CO O ON
CO PH PH CO
O O CO (N
Tf CO t- CM
F- m co in
of PH" co
PH F- vo m
in F- m PH
m m co m
CM" i-T co
pH O vo CO
O IM VO O
CO IN CO O
cvf PH" co"
SO O CO
O CO PH
CM O O O
CM PH PH CO
VO CM VO T*
pH Tf F- O
(NO in •*
Ol PH pH CO
pH vo F- ^
CO CO O CO
pH F- in CO
-------
52
PACKAGING
: ,: • ± '•" .::
i
!i-
I'll
iiiff
:1:::1|-
III
tfiW:
ivii
ifll
Ml::i
lill
^•p:;y
iil;::.?
:.;:il;-
II
is
ll
II
1
-fep:'i;|:'-:v;i
••••*: •*:;::::•::••¥
i;*/:;*:::-"?
••.± ••*:.""...••:
fei
II
IJg
i^ii
a
I m
I ;;i
I iP
1
sfl
;-V::fs:; ?.-:
Sll
:•: *:?:":::•:' :
• vS-Xv.-. *
ili
tis
111
IIP
IIP
•"'''x^:j.v
:;x:: ::-l[.:.'
iwi
:iii:;il|-
iilllr;;;
|||l:
IIP
ii$i
PH;:?p§
i i i i i
s 5
<* a
i!
saxoa asva
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
53
$:•
'K
T-
V^I
-'4-
Q
O
i I i
1 1
:;.::::|i
XXif
•:T.:I:.
;;;. •; j •;,
VISl"
••:•!
•f-i.
>m
!;iiirr
-;i;..
•:. m
'.'If
Jf
'"::•«'••:$:
"y:.'W.
•::^M:i.
-," .;:::;:::£::,
: - .::,:.x|:::
•••••y^
'WK
•Z.:-^;~:
'&".'W-
ii ii
1 II 1 1
g
cs
CD
O
-a
i—
ot
&
.3
>•
"O
S
9
o
g
I
en
CO
1—I
a
o
- I
saxoe asvH aNvsnoHJ.
-------
54
PACKAGING
.
i"?:":!!"
.. :•.•::»' ::
.;.;•:•"._'.'.* ;;;;
f.:".-!p:
f|;||
fM
l¥:
':;i:
i::1:
•4:
.m
i i
Ill
:;P?ll
2
'
in S
00 O
m to
sHXoa Hsva aNvsnoRL
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
55
workable; the exterior of aluminum cans can be
attractively decorated, and manufacturing tech-
niques for aluminum containers allow versatility
in size, shape, and wall thickness. There are four
basic aluminum can types, differentiated by the
production method used to fabricate them:
(1) Impact extruded cans are produced by
striking a slug of aluminum with a metal punch.
The metal flows around the punch to form a cup,
which is then ironed by draw dies to create the
sidewall.
(2) Three-piece cans are produced on standard
can manufacturing machinery. The side seam is
bonded with an adhesive rather than soldered.
(3) Draw and ironed cans are created by drawing
an aluminum sheet into a cup, then deepening or
lengthening the side by ironing.
(4) Draic cans, usually twice as wide as they
are high, are made by drawing sheet aluminum
into a shallow cup. Snack and cheese dip containers
are examples of such containers.
For some applications aluminum cans have
gained an advantage over steel cans, and the
former are likely to increase their share of the
can market at a fairly rapid pace.
Trends in Steel
Until recently, all steel cans (usually called
"tin cans") were made from standard tin-plate
steel. (The tin is necessary to form a solder bond;
it serves no other purpose. The interior protection
is provided by special resin coatings.) Recently
"thin-tin," a lighter gauge of tin plate, has been
developed, which yields more cans per unit of
metal than standard tin-plate steels. Given its
present strength and structural rigidity, thin-tin
is somewhat limited, however. It cannot be used
for products that are packaged under high vacuum
because the containers tend to collapse; its major
use is primarily in beer and carbonated beverage
packaging.
Thin-tin, however, is not the most ideal material
for metal cans because of its tin content. The can
manufacturing industry has long been vexed by
sudden variations in the price and supply of tin
as a result of political instabilities in Bolivia and
Malaysia—the major source locations of tin. To
avoid these fluctuations, can manufacturers have
sought for and discovered a way to make tin-free
steel (TFS) cans. The material has been developed,
and two of the most important technological
problems of tin-free steel—side seaming and
coating—have been solved.
One side seaming method uses a thermo-plastic
cement; another employs a special heat induction
welding process that produces a barely noticeable
seam. This last method enables full, wrap-around,
direct lithographic decoration of the can. The
wrap-around decoration produces a more attrac-
tive container which is especially desirable in
packaging consumer products. Special resin and
enamel coatings, have been developed for tin-free
steel cans to perform the protective and decorative
functions.
Today, tin-free steels account for less than 10
percent of all steel cans. Eventually, however,
such cans could displace tin-plate cans; by 1976,
perhaps 50 percent of all steel cans will be made
from tin-free steels. Tin-free steels are less expen-
sive than tin plate. For example, in 1965 the price
of tin-plate was $8.55 per base box versus tin-free
steel at $7.20. The primary deterrents to the more
widespread acceptance of tin-free steel at this time
are the relatively high capital investment required
to change over from tin-plate to TFS, and refine-
ment of the production technology. Also, food
packagers must test these new units extensively to
be assured that performance of the new TFS cans
will equal that of tin-plate steel.
Another significant current development both
in aluminum and steel cans has been the intro-
duction of easy-open devices for beverage con-
tainers. Many beverage cans now have this
easy-open device; and this feature is beginning to
appear on cans for sardines, sausages, and other
specialty foods. How far these devices will spread
throughout the can market is not clear—con-
sumers want convenient packages, but many still
use can openers on cans with easy-open devices,
either from habit or from dissatisfaction with the
devices.
Aerosol Containers
Aerosols are convenient but expensive packages.
The price of any product in an aerosol container
is considerably higher than that of the same
product in any other container. About 95 percent
of all aerosols are cylindrical tin-plate containers.
The remainder is made of glass and plastic
(Table 31).
Household products (air fresheners, window
sprays, waxes, paints, etc.) and personal care
-------
56
PACKAGING
products (hair sprays, personal deodorants, shav-
ing lather, etc.) accounted for 78 percent of the
total units filled in 1966 (Table 32). A few food
products, for example, cheese snack foods and
whipped cream, are packaged in aerosols, but it is
unlikely that pressure packaged foods will get
into high volume production in the near future,
primarily because technological problems in valve
design and dispensing must still be solved.
Improvements must be made to prevent clogging
of valves and excessive waste of the product
before aerosol food containers are accepted by
the consumer.
The typical aerosol container consists of a
pressurized container with the product and pro-
pellant mixed inside. The product is dispensed
through a valve and dispenser spout that includes
an actuator device. Several new kinds of aerosols
are now under development. These will eliminate
the physical mixing of propellant and product and
open new markets for products that are incompati-
ble with present propellants. Some of the major
types are: (1) bag-in-can—the product is inside a
bag, and the propellant between the wall of the
container and the bag; (2) free piston can—the
propellant is contained within a piston at the
bottom of the aerosol; (3) cartridge assembly
unit—the unit fits inside or outside the container
and applies pressure directly to the valve, in
which the product and propellant travel separate
passageways and are mixed only in the vapor
phase as they leave the dispenser; and (4) spring
action—works by pressure imbalance provided
by a metal spring fitted under a plastic piston that
acts as the dispensing mechanism.
Most of these new aerosols represent an
improvement over the traditional type, but they
are more expensive; for this reason, they have
not been accepted for high uniit volume products.
Another development in aerosols is the "total
service" unit. Such a unit has an attachment near
the dispenser that adds convenience in using the
product as it is dispensed. Examples of total
service units are upholstery cleaners with an
attached brush and windshield de-icers with an
attached scraper.
Manufacturers are also developing new pro-
pellants that are either less expensive or com-
patible with products that were incompatible with
the old propellants.
In the last eight years aerosols have grown at
the rate of 20 percent a year. Aerosol manufac-
turers are optimistic about the future of this
container configuration; many sources in the
industry predict a volume of more than 4 billion
units in 1976, a prediction which we consider to
be too high under prevailing market conditions.
In the future, glass, composite cans, and plastic
bottles will probably account for a larger share of
aerosol containers, although most such containers
TABLE 31.—Nonfood aerosol containers consumed by size: 1955 to 1966
In thousands of units
Year
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
Glass and
plastic
containers
(all sizes)
10, 412
15, 093
21,279
11,262
.... 25, 260
42 902
34, 942
. . 44, 237
37, 658
57, 373
77, 762
73 015
Metal containers
Over 6 oz
119, 720
151, 035
167, 871
171, 121
286, 098
364, 810
445, 238
541,917
702, 644
789, 512
977, 611
1, 083, 310
6 oz and less
104, 985
127, 062
150, 341
159, 001
186, 930
199, 280
196, 082
196, 042
175, 684
206, 681
304, 743
287, 578
Reported total
235, 117
293, 190
339, 491
341, 384
498, 288
606, 992
676, 262
782, 196
915, 986
1, 053, 566
1, 360, 116
1, 443, 903
Complete
total »
240, 000
320, 000
390, 000
470, 000
575, 000
670, 000
796, 000
1, 019, 000
1, 135, 000
1, 293, 000
1, 711, 200
1, 800, 000
a Adjusted to include estimated nonreported total.
Note: The unit total for metal does not correspond with that under
metal cans because the reporting and data gathering approaches differ
somewhat between the Can Manufacturers Institute and CSMA.
Source: Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, Inc. Aerosol
and Pressurized Products Survey. Annual rep>orls for 1958-66. New York.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
57
will continue to be metal. Improvements in tech-
nology will probably lead to dispensers being used
more for food and drug products. There will be
a greater volume of aerosols in 1976, although it
is likely that they will be in radically different
forms.
Despite the increase in volume, metal aerosols
will still account for only a small percent of total
packaging containers in 1976. We expect the unit
output of metal aerosol containers to grow at the
rate of 5.5 percent a year, from 1.6 billion units
in 1966 to 2.7 billion units in 1976.
Competing Materials
Metal cana are in competition with composite
cans, glass, and plastic containers. Cans have
been extremely successful in their competition
with glass bottles for the beverage container
market; and this success is likely to continue. As
shown in Table 28, beverage cans will have a
growth rate more than six times greater than food
cans in the next 10 years. Of course, steel and
aluminum are in competition with each other for
the same can markets; and the different kinds of
steel cans also compete with one another.
Aluminum's share of the beer can market is
likely to increase substantially in the near future
as more major breweries switch to aluminum
cans; soft drink manufacturers may follow suit.
The only other area where aluminum is likely to
enter the market in the next few years on a volume
basis is seafood canning.
The amount of metal used for cans might be
further reduced by the use of clear plastic tops on
cans. Such a top has been developed, and although
there are still many problems, it may soon be tried
on cans of sliced fruit. If the clear plastic top is
adopted on a wide-scale basis, which we do not
foresee, the amount of metal used in cans would
be reduced.
Metal Cans: Summary Outlook
The use of lighter steels, more aluminum, and
technological advances in both steel and alumi-
num cans will lead to a rate of growth in the num-
ber of units consumed that is twice as high as the
rate of growth of pounds of metal consumed in
producing cans.
We expect the number of cans to grow at a rate
of 3.7 percent a year, resulting in an increase from
54.4 billion units in 1966 to 78.3 billion units in
1976. The consumption of steel and aluminum in
cans will grow at the rate of 1.8 percent per year,
from 10.68 billion pounds in 1966 (10.35 billion
steel and 0.33 billion aluminum) to 12.82 billion
pounds in 1976 (11.42 billion steel and 1.40 billion
aluminum).
Aluminum Foil
In addition to cans, aluminum foil is also used
for semi-rigid containers and other foil forms such
as in laminates. In fact, 8.1 percent of all alumi-
num shipments in 1966, or 683 million pounds,
went into packaging applications. Although alu-
minum has a relatively small share of the metal
packaging market, this share will undoubtedly
increase because of the many advantages alumi-
num has over other materials and because of ad-
vancements in technology. Total aluminum con-
sumption in packaging (including aluminum
cans) to 1976 is shown in Table 33.
Aluminum is highly competitive with other
materials. The properties of aluminum enable it
to be tailored to meet the performance and appli-
cation requirements of many products. Aluminum
packaging materials provide excellent moisture,
vapor, and gas barriers. In thicknesses above
0.001 inch, the material is almost totally imper-
meable. Aluminum can be attractively decorated,
it has good heat conductivity, and performs well
in heating, freezing, and drying processes.
Aluminum metallurgy has not completely
matured and it is likely that significant new
packaging applications will be developed in the
future.
Semi-Rigid Aluminum Foil Containers
The semi-rigid foil container is most frequently
used for products in which the barrier properties
and heat conductivity of aluminum combine to
make a convenient consumer package. Semi-rigid
containers have been particularly successful in pre-
pared and pre-cooked foods such as bakery
products (pies and cakes) and frozen meals.
Semi-rigid aluminum trays and tubes are also
being used for refrigerated products, such as
soft margarine, and for dry products, such as
hermetically sealed dehydrated vegetables. More
recently, semi-rigid aluminum containers have
been used for institutional foods. Prepared foods
are packaged in heat-and-serve, disposable,
single-service containers. These containers reduce
-------
58
PACKAGING
«
NO
NO
ON
^H
a
eo
**4
&
(4
3
t$
6
«
fe «
c .2
*** c
s °
i "s
t> H
g
•2
1
<3
CNI
CO
a
P9
I
i
1
rH
M
2
I
i-t
1
1
O\
a
8'
V
s
*o
w
o in
co m
r- in
S£{
r- co
CO IN
O CO
eo" o"
CN] rH
l-H rH
r- I-H
TP t~-^
IN rH
in rH
"
rH
IN rH
rH
eo
CO CO
cT oC
IN rH
rH
m NO
in I-H
r- TJI
IN" i-T
l-H i-H
rH
• . •
in
o
eo
eo"
eo
in
eo
t-
NO"
t~-
O
IN
NO
in
in
IN"
m
CO
IN
rH
o"
CO
atings and finishes:
Finishes
Coatings
o
O
ON
O
F-H°
rH
IN
IN"
m
rH
NO
CO
ON*
CO
l-H
l-H
t-
l-H
(N
l-H
m
o
co
eo"
CO
m
eo
r-
r-
o
IN
s"
in
m
CNI"
m
eo
IN
rH
o"
eo
13
in in C ^J1 NO
NO IN rH in IN
I-H in eNi rH m
ON co co in •*
in in o eo NO
•<# in r- NO in
NO IN rH »* IN
in co TJI NO o
m t— o ON co
t- NO IN t— eo
NO t- O ON CN|
NO l-H ^1 rH CO
IN r- T}I -ON
t- •* OS • (N
oC oo" I-H" • I>"
in rH rH - •*?
§r~ - • o
NO • • rH
t- NO • 'IN
ON CO • • N
Tf • CNI
00
«-»
fl ; ;
o • 2
•a : | £
•1 --s a
usehold products:
Room deodorants and dig
Cleaners
Waxes and polishes
Starches and laundry pro
All other household prodi
o
ffi
m
0
rH
l-H
CO
m
NO
NO"
ON
^r
r-
IN
i
r- r
IN
•<*
l-H
eo
CNp
CO
rH
0
IN
ON"
rH
CO
I-H
CO
JS"
l-H
CO
CO
CO
CO
rH
r-
m
>o
m"
t—
1
\o rH rf o ire oo
m 1/5 c^i o n>* eo
r-t T}* Tj CO '^ -^
«o I-H r^1 \o —* CQ
o o\ co ^o ir- r-t
rH «5 i-H
§CO (N rH '-O Irt
M5 O O\ '-M CO
w crT ic co i^- c^
C\ c\i co "O i-O eo
W 1/5 CO ^ CO
Irt O rH T}» O
CO (N \O VD rH
<*" o" oo" r^ \o
rH CSl N ^
t- (N . rH N \n
ON rH O CQ CO
ON (M CO M ON
ON" i/f i-T rjT r-"
C- (N CO -* CO
(N
co *o co m NO
m rH CO ^O M
eo »N o -^ m
N" o" co" r-^ \o"
CO Tj* i— I ^ i-H
rH
T? rH r- rH \Q
O \O t- C^ VO
rH 00 t- O CO
co rn" r-T ON" of
VO rH i-H CO rH
rH
rH O \O I— CO
rH 00 CO t- CO
SO NO O O rf
cvf oC cT ^ co"
O- l> rH CO C^
•^ Tf O CO rH
rH Os CO ^O «*
co to I-H m c^
\_f$ r\f |-^ CO" O*
"^ ON rH cq
rsonal products:
Shaving lather
Hair spray
Medicinals
Colognes and perfumes . .
Personal deodorants
Other personal products .
£
IN
r-
o"
§
1
S
ON
f-
8
NO"
IN
m
r-
rH
m
m"
^J*
o
IN
CO"
rH
in
o
CO
ON
ON
O
5"
IN
S
CO
ON
rH
IN
1
co"
t-
"«
4H
CO
IN
co"
m
eo"
Tfc
rH
in
NO"
S
in
r~
eo
eo
NO"
in
l-H
r-"
l-H
t-
•*
CO
rH
•*
i
co"
3
u
a.
*^
S,
13
a
OS
rj
imal products: Veterinariai
.|
eo
IN
co"
S
co"
*
rH
in
NO"
S
in
t— "
CO
CO
NO"
m
l-H
r-"
l-H
rH
I—
Tf"
CO
rH
rH
"*
i
eo"
I
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
59
o
f>
S
s
c
a
0
s
3
5
•^
>"
0
<
L,
•*
t
fi
o
ei
C
y
o
t-
g
ei
f
o
t-
i~
c-
c
Cf
1-
0
•}
•)
1
1
>\
I
I
i
>"
^
F-
§
oc
P"
C1*
If
c
T
F"
•
C
*
H
\
>
4
E
«
c
c
c-
u
C
y
F-
T
C
p-
e
H
f\
3
5
g
q
•5
5
9
^
fi
\
>
4
a
ir
i/
r
Cf
cf
t~
r
a
Cf
s
c>
(t
£
r-
^
Cfi
«-*
V
9
•5
3
)
5
h
!
5
^
j
i
5
^
1
fS
I "
1 3
i
;
,
t-
1 c-
S
w
T
I/
^
c
a
D
^
?
^
3
5
r\
3
!
H
4
C
L
C
r
L
F
C
r
0
T
ei
\
u
«
^
a
c-
u
a
c-
t-
T
ff
if
t^
C'
o
oc
«f
^
c
a
p«
§
T
r-
r-
a
1
m
O \J
§ I
S §
§ ^
0 ^
~( F1
^
•- u
3 5
c
? s
5 "
•i" «
^
r-
3 ^
ff¥
f
5
q i/
I "
s" *•
^ i-
VC
a ^
^ i~
5" 5
! v«
> T
r
>
>
4
S
s
bo
;S
w
4)
£
§
.s
o
f
"3
i
^
i
3
H
?
5
q
}
f
r
5
5
!_
H
i
>
5
H
>
|
>
i
c>
CO
«
c^
IN
t~
N
r-
N
m
pq
S
I-H
oC
•*
pH
VO
S
•\
^)
0
?
f*
H
S
s
1
H
^
H
H
^
5
H"
I
f
^
^
;
\
H
r
i
g
i
r
s
H
*,
)
)
'
N
4
M
co
•*
CO
co
1-1
S
co
FF)
1
s
CO
1
frf
0
i-T
^
5
§
*o"
s
i
o
t—
§
m"
VO
g
O
crT
in
1
95
3
S
•B
§
•g
I
^
I
as
I?
S-B
II
-------
60
PACKAGING
TABLE 33.—Aluminum consumed in packaging
In millions of pounds
Aluminum foil
Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962.
1963.
1964
1965
1966
1970
1973
1976
Semi- Noarigid
rigid aluminum
foil foil
containers
36
48
54
57
66
72
80
85
88
110
130
150
157
185
174
190
202
218
238
251
266
350
400
465
Total
foil
193
233
228
247
268
290
318
336
354
460
530
515
Aluminum
cans and
ends i
a
a
50
65
76
170
220
275
329
700
1,000
1,400
Total
iluminum
193
233
279
312
343
460
538
611
683
1,160
1,530
2,015
• Not available.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services
Administration. Containers and Packaging, 20(1): 9, April 1967. Modern
Packaging Encyclopedia, William C. Simms, ed. Vol. 40, No. 13A. New
York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., September 1967. 879 p. The Aluminum Asso-
ciation. Aluminum Statistical Review—1966. New York, July 1967.
Forecasts by Midwest Research Institute.
labor requirements, equipment needs, and sani-
tation problems in hospitals, schools, and other
institutions.
Recent technological developments have been
in the areas of alloys, new forming techniques,
and combinations with plastics. New alloys
that allow deeper drawing and more flexibility
in configuration have been developed. Other
alloys have produced lighter, stronger containers.
New package-forming processes include air
forming or air blowing of the foil against a mold
to form the package. The air blowing technique
produces a smooth, attractive container that
may be used for frozen meals.
Aluminum packagers are effectively combining
semi-rigid aluminum containers with plastics,
either as coatings or transparent coverings that
both protect the product and make it visible.
Semi-rigid foil containers will grow substan-
tially in volume in the next few years because of
the increasing number of convenience food prod-
ucts that will use aluminum containers. Growth
should take place at a rate of 5.5 percent a year,
with consumption rising from 88 million pounds in
1966 to 150 million pounds in 1976.
Nonrigid Aluminum Foil
Nonrigid, flexible aluminum foils range in thick-
ness from 0.00025 to 0.00059 inch. These foils are
not self-supporting and are usually combined with
other materials, such as paper or plastic. In 1966,
266 million pounds of foil were used for packaging
purposes. Of this total, 126 million pounds were
household wrap and 140 million pounds were used
in commercial packages. The latter figure, meas-
ured in square inches, amounted to about 4.1
billion MSI (1,000 square inches). By comparison,
7.7 billion MSI cellophane and 21.1 billion MSI
polyethylene film were produced in the same year.
Nonrigid aluminum foil is applied either on the
outside of a package to enhance its appearance or
on the inside to act as a barrier material. This
material is almost always combined with paper or
film so that it can be handled easily in converting
and packaging operations.
End uses of this material are shown in Table 34
as quantities and in Table 35 as a percentage of
shipments.
New foils have been developed with more
strength and ductility so that they can be formed
in the new shapes without overstressing. Foil is
also being combined with other materials to
produce an aluminum foil laminate that will stand
up on vertical form-fill-seal machinery and thus
will be more adaptable to rapid handling in pouch
form.
The aluminum foil laminate may be particu-
larly successful with convenience food products,
"unit of use" packaging such as single portion
catsup, multiple pouches, and snack food items.
Laminated foil liners are now used extensively as
the barrier material in boxes of sugar-coated
breakfast cereals.
As a laminate, aluminum foil has some competi-
tion from plastic coatings and other materials.
However, in containing liquids and foods, alumi-
num foil laminates have many natural advantages
not shared by the other materials, such as imper-
meability and high strength, so> the competition is
not too great at this tune.
One product, steel foil, was designed specifically
to compete with aluminum foil, but has not been
successful. There has been considerable interest in
the packaging industry in steel foil because of its
many advantages—it has high tensile and com-
pression strength; it can be formed by bending,
creasing, soldering, corrugating, laminating, and
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
61
other processes; it is puncture resistant; and it is
impervious to vapor and moisture. In spite of
these merits, steel foil has not been accepted
because its advantages are outweighed by its
disadvantages—it is difficult to cut and handle;
there are no satisfactory adhesives to use in lam-
ination; packages of steel foil are difficult to open;
and the price of steel foil is relatively high.
Because of the many problems of steel foil, it is
unlikely that it will have an impact on aluminum
foil in the near future.
With continuing advances in food technology,
development of new foods, convenience packaging,
and improvements in foils, aluminum foil should
be a rapidly growing packaging material. We
forecast a growth rate of 5.7 percent a year and
growth in foil use from 266 million pounds in
1966 to 465 million pounds in 1976. This growth
TABLE 34.-—Consumption of aluminum foil by end use: 1958 to 1965, in millions of pounds
End-use product group
Semi-rigid foil containers:
Frozen, precooked foods, dairy products, etc
Other foods .
Nonrigid foil:
Food:
Dairy products and edible oil products
Dried and dehydrated food products . .
Cookies, crackers, baking products, bread,
cereals, and kindred products
Meat, poultry, and seafoods . . .
Chocolate, coffee, tea, gelatins, deserts mixes,
powders, salt, sugar, etc . ,
Gum, confections, snacks, nuts, etc . ....
Total food nonrigid
1958
34.3
1.6
35 9
9 6
1 5
6.0
6
9.0
29 0
1959
45.2
2 7
47 9
9 9
2 0
7.3
8
2.2
9.3
31 5
I960
51.2
2.4
53 6
10 2
1 9
6.3
6
2.2
9.0
30 2
1961
54.9
2.2
57 1
9 3
2 5
6.9
. 7
2.3
9.3
31 0
1962
64.4
2. 1
66 5
9 1
1 9
7. 1
7
2.9
9. 1
30 8
1963
70.1
2.0
72 1
9 8
1 6
8.5
1. 1
3.0
9.8
33 8
1964
76.8
2 9
79 7
10 1
2 0
7 1
1 5
3.0
10. 7
34 4
1965
79.7
5.2
84.9
10.8
2. 7
8.3
1. 7
2.8
12.5
38.8
Nonfood:
Tobacco 16. 6
Industrial parts, rubber goods, tape, soaps,
chemicals, photographic and x-ray film,
photographic paper, corrugated shippers, etc. 7. 0
21. 1 18.5 21.8 19.9 20.7 19.6
21.2
7. 8 6. 7
6.5
Total nonfood 23. 6
8.6 13.3 16.2 16.9
28.9 25.2 28.3 28.5 34.0 35.8 38. 1
Other:
Cap liners and packaging closures
Labels, tags, seals, and beverage wraparounds . .
Military packaging (direct and indirect orders) .
Decorative papers, gift wrap, etc
Locker plant, freezer, restaurant, and house-
hold packaging . ...
Unknown end use, scrap and waste
Total other
8. 7
9.4
1.2
7 3
59. 1
18 4
104 1
9
9.
1.
9
75
19
194
4
3
4
4
4
s
4
8
9.
1.
11
79
16
119
9
0
0
4
5
s
1
8.3
8.8
1. 1
10 4
82.7
19 2
130 5
8
9.
1.
9
94
19
141
0
2
2
S
R
0
7
8.2
9.2
2.1
12 0
101.4
17 5
150 4
7 5
9.2
3.7
12 9
113 7
21 4
168 4
6.6
9.6
5.4
11. 6
116. 1
24.4
173.7
Total nonrigid foil 156.7 184.8 174.5 189.8 201.0 218.2 236.8 250.6
Grand total—aluminum foil 192.6 232.7 228.1 246.9 267.5 290.3 318.3 335.5
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration. Containers and Packaging, 20(1):9, April, 1967. Modified
by Midwest Research Institute.
326-388 O - 69 - 6
-------
62
PACKAGING
rate is based on a faster growth rate (about 6.8
percent a year) until 1970 and a slower growth
rate (about 5.0 percent) thereafter. The slow down
in the growth rate is expected to occur because
traditional aluminum markets will mature and
alternate barrier materials will be developed and
will displace some aluminum foil.
Collapsible Metal Tubes
Collapsible metal tubes are used primarily to
package and dispense semi-liquid or pasty prod-
ucts such as toothpaste, cosmetics, and glue
(Tables 36 and 37). These tubes are convenient,
easy to store, and dispense the product in an
easy, sanitary fashion.
The metals most often used are tin, tin-lead,
lead, and aluminum (Table 38). The type of
metal used and the internal protective coating
required are determined by the characteristics of
the product. More tubes are made from aluminum
than any other metal; however, a greater quantity
of lead is consumed because lead weighs much
more per unit. Tin is most often used for products
that require a chemically inert container, as for
eye ointments. The usual coatings for tubes in-
clude wax and resins such as vinyls, phenolics,
and epoxies.
TABLE 35—-Consumption of aluminum foil by end use: 1958 to 1965, in percent of total pounds
End-use product group
1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
Semi-rigid containers:
Frozen, precooked, dairy, etc 17. 8 19.4 22. 4 22. 2 24. 1 24.1 24. 1 23. 8
Other foods 8 1.2 1.1 .9 .8 .7 .9 1.5
Total semi-rigid foil 18. 6 20. 6 23. 5 23.1 24. 9 24. 8 25. 0
Total other 54.1 53.5 52.2 52.9 53.0 51.8 52.9
Total nonrigid foil 81.4 79.4 76.5 76.9 75.1 75.2 75.0
25.3
Nonrigid foil:
Food:
Dairy products and edible oils . .
Dried and dehydrated food products
Cookies, baking, cereal, and kindred products . , .
Meat, poultry, and seafoods .
Chocolate, coffee, tea, gelatins, powders, etc ......
Gum, confections, snacks, nuts, etc
5.0
8
3. 1
.3
1.2
4.7
4.3
9
3. 1
.9
4.0
4.5
8
2. 8
1.0
3.9
3 8
1 0
2 8
3
.9
3.8
3 4
7
2 6
3
1. 1
3.4
3 4
5
2 9
4
1.0
3.4
3 2
6
2 2
.9
3.7
3 2
8
2.5
5
.9
3.7
Total food 15.1 13.5 13.3 12.6 11.5 11.7 10.8 11.6
Nonfood:
Tobacco
Industrial parts, chemicals, photographic, etc 3. 6
Total nonfood 12.2 12.4 11.0 11.4 10.6 11.7 11.3 11.3
8.6
3.6
9. 1
3.3
8. 1
2.9
8 8
2.6
7.4
3.2
7. 1
4.6
6.2
5.1
6.3
5.0
Other:
Cap liners and packaging closures 4.5 4.1 3.9 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.0
Labels, tags, seals, beverage wraparounds 4.9 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.9
Military (direct and'indirect) 6 .6 .4 .4 .5 .7 1.2 1.6
Decorative papers, gift wrap, etc 3.8 4.0 5.0 4.2 3.6 4.1 4.0 3.4
Locker plant, freezer, restaurant, household 30. 7 32. 4 31.8 33. 5 35. 4 35. 0 35. 7 34. 6
Unknown end use, scrap, and waste 9.6 8. 4 7. 2 7. 8 7.1 6. 0 6. 7 7. 3
51.8
74.7
Total—aluminum foil 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Table 34.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
63
The most significant current development in
tube making is the appearance of laminated,
composite tubes. One such container, made of
layers of polyethylene, foil, paper, and a second
polyethylene layer has already been introduced
commercially. A composite tube has several
advantages over an all-metal-tube—lower cost,
compatibility with products which cannot be
packaged at present in all-metal tubes, and better
printability.
There is some interest in using tubes for food
products; however, consumers do not seem too
eager to switch to this form of food packaging.
Cosmetics and pharmaceuticals seem to have
the most promise in new applications for tubes.
Aerosols and plastic tubes have taken some of
the markets previously held by metal. Plastic
tubes are being used increasingly for cosmetics,
where the nonbreakability, transparency, and
durability of plastics make them especially
TABLE 36.—Shipments of collapsible tubes by end use: 1958 to 1966, in millions of units
End use
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965 1966
Dentrifices . . .
Medicinal, pharma . . . .
Cosmetics
Shaving cream .
Food products
513
... 204
. . 166
78
43
.6
581
249
176
104
39
.6
579
234
169
113
32
.6
609
248
159
123
25
.6
529
258
163
112
20
.7
582
283
152
159
20
.7
637
302
160
125
19
.6
619
287
194
173
14
1
623
338
208
147
19
5
Total 1,004.6 1,149.6 1,127.6 1,164.6 1,082.7 1,196.7 1,243.6 1,288 1,340
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration. Containers and Packaging, 11(2): 23, June 1964. Ibid. 18(3):
20, October 1965. Modern Packaging, 40(9): 103, May 1967. Midwest Research Institute.
TABLE 37.—Shipment of collapsible tubes by end use: 1958 to 1966, in percent of shipment
End use
1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966
Dentifrices 51.0
Medicinal, pharmaceutical 20.
Household, industrial 16.
Cosmetics
Shaving cream 4.
Food products
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
51 0
20.3
16.5
7 8
4 3
. 1
50.5
21.6
15.3
9. 1
3.4
. 1
51.3
20.8
15.0
10.0
2.8
. 1
52.3
21.3
13.6
10 5
2 2
. 1
48.8
23.8
15.0
10.4
1 9
. 1
48.7
23.7
12.7
1 6
. 1
51.2
24.3
12.9
10.0
1.5
.1
48 0
22.3
14. 7
13 6
1 3
. 1
46.5
25.2
15.5
11 0
1 4
. 4
Source: Table 36.
TABLE 38.—Shipments of collapsible tubes by type of metal: 1958 to 1966
In thousands of pounds
Type of metal
1958
1959
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
Tin 1, 194 1, 422 1, 153 1, 344 1,187 1,285 1, 353 . .
Tin-coated lead 689 731 639 493 427 389 390 .
Lead 13, 777 13, 082 15, 827 22, 569 22, 959 28, 305 26, 217 .
Tin-lead alloy 560 645 694 449 506 535 416
Aluminum 8, 196 9, 891 9, 401 8, 417 7, 839 9, 397 10, 146 .
Total 24,416 25,772 27,714 33,272 32,918 39,911 38,522 35,000 32,000
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration. Containers and Packaging, 17(2): 24, June 1964. Ibid. 18(3):
20, October 1965. Midwest Research Institute.
-------
64
PACKAGING
attractive containers. Water-based and oil-water
emulsions (shampoos, creams, lotions) perform
well in plastics, but products that are oxygen
sensitive or permeable through plastics are
difficult to package in plastic tubes.
The development of plastic tubes has been a
major factor inhibiting the growth rate of metal
tubes. In recent years the number of metal tubes
has varied between 1.1 and 1.3 billion units,
or about 30 to 35 million pounds of metal. Plastic
tubes now account for 250 million units.
Competing materials and packaging forms,
and the problems presented by product com-
patibility with the metal tube, are deterrents to
their more extensive use. Because of these factors,
volume should decline in metal tubes—from 32
million pounds of metal in 1966 to 25 million
pounds in 1976. The rate of decline will be about
2.4 percent a year.
Steel Drums and Pails
Steel drums and pails are used primarily for
shipping liquid or paste-type products—chemicals,
petroleum, adhesives, paints, and the like. Steel
drums and pails were once used in volume to
ship dry products, but now other types of con-
tainers, such as fiber drums and multiwall bags,
are used. Tables 39 and 40 give shipments of
these containers by end use in number of units
and as percent of market held for the years
1958 through 1966.
Steel drums and pails have had a modest
growth rate in recent years. In 1958, 31.5 million
new drums were shipped; by 1966, shipments
had advanced to 35.8 million units. Corresponding
figures for steel pails are 72.2 million units in
1958 and 89.1 million units in 1966. Since 1959,
the amount of steel used for drums and pails
has remained steady at around 1.6 billion pounds.
Recent trends in steel drums and pails are
toward improved materials, better decoration,
improved shapes, use of coatings and linings,
and less reconditioning and re-use.
Lighter gauge steels and improved structural
designs have been developed to increase unit
strength, improve its performance, or reduce
its weight.
Steel drums and pails are being given a better
appearance by use of more decoration to promote
brand names and the quality of the product
inside the container.
Pails that nest together to saves space in storage
and shipping, drums that can be taken apart,
and sidewalls that nest together for shipping
prior to filling have been designed.
Improved coatings and liningfi to protect both
the product and the container have been de-
veloped. The most important coatings are pheno-
lics, epoxies, and vinyls. Polyethylene liners
of 10 to 15 mil thickness are being used with
either steel or fiber outer shells.
At present, drums are reconditioned and re-
used at the rate of about 50 million units per
year. However, reconditioning of drums has
become less important as the lighter gauge
drums replace the heavier drums, which have a
20-gauge body and an 18-gauge head. The lighter
gauge steel drums can be reconditioned only a
few times, if at all. The most important factor—
cost to the user—seems to favor the use of the
lighter gauge drums. For example, an 18-gauge
drum that is reconditioned 15 times may have an
average cost per trip of around $2.50 (original
cost plus 15 reconditionings). A lighter gauge
steel drum may cost about $3.00 per trip (original
cost plus two reconditionings). However, the
user saves a substantial amount on freight cost
because an 18-gauge, 55-gallon drum weighs
about 48 pounds and a 24-gauge drum of the
same capacity weighs only 30 pounds. Also,
reusable drums consume a good deal more record
keeping time. Because of these cost factors
the lighter gauge drum seems to be the least
expensive to the user; it is more than likely
that the heavier gauge steel drums will be dis-
placed by lighter gauge drums and drums made
from other materials.
Steel drums and pails are feeling some competi-
tion from other materials that perform satis-
factorily for one.trip service—iBber drums, cor-
rugated containers, multiwall bags, and plastics.
It is unlikely, however, that fiber or plastic
drums will replace steel drums for most liquid
or paste products in the near future. Blow-
molded plastics for liquid chemicals have made
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
TABLE 39.-—Shipments of steel shipping barrels, drums, and pails: 1958-1966
In thousands of units
65
Container type
1958
1959
1960 1961
1962 1963
1964
1965
1966
Shipping barrels and drums:
Heavy type, total. .
55-gal, 16- and 18-gauge. . .
55-gal, 19-gauge and lighter.
19,018 20,467 17,949 18,874 20, 192 20,057 21,381 21,209
15,359 15, 797 12,932 12,715 13,000 12,930 13,967 13, 182
(») (•) (») (•) 245 258 232 338
586 1,541 2,217 3,082 3,900 3,713 4,180 4,609
All other heavy type bbls . .
Lieht tvpe .
Grease drums
Total
Steel shipping pails:
Tapered pailg ....
Dome top pails
Other types, total
Total
3,
9,
3
31
9,
4,
58,
72
073
315
158
491
039
143
097
179
3,129
10, 170
2,891
33, 528
9,894
4,027
66, 729
80 650
2,
£>,
3;
30
8
4
61
73
800
531
106
586
419
18Q
138
84'
3,077
9,537
3,134
31, 545
9,636
4,489
62, 138
76, 263
3,047
9,602
3,172
32, 966
12, 368
4,488
62, 442
79, 298
3, 156
9,234
3,007
32, 298
16, 207
4,606
58, 260
79, 073
3,002
9,514
2,931
33, 826
19, 198
4,526
59, 052
82, 776
3,080
9,794
2,924
33, 927
22, 055
5,262
60, 173
87, 495
(»)
(b)
(b)
35, 765
26, 981
4,431
57, 237
88, 649
* Included in figures for 55-gal, 20/18-gauge, and lighter.
b Not available.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Steel
shipping barrels, drums, and pails. Current Industrial Reports, Series
M34K(59-13)—M34K(66-12). Washington, D.C., 1960-1967.
TABLE 40.—Shipments of steel barrels, drums, and pails by end use: 1958—1966
In percent of unit shipments
Container type
Steel barrels, drums:
Chemicals
Petroleum ....
Paint and printing ink ...
Industrial maintenance .
Food
All other (adhesives, roofing, etc.)
Total
Steel pails:
Chemicals . .
Petroleum . . .
Paint and printing ink
Industrial maintenance
Adhesives, roofing . . .
All other (food, Armed Forces)
Total
195
41
38.
4
1
4
. . 8
100
19
. . . 21
28
4
... 11
14.
. . . . 100
8
7
6
S
7
7
a
o
i
i
3
p,
9
8
0
1959
47 8
28.9
5.8
2 2
4 8
10.5
100 0
18 9
17 6
33.4
5 3
10 4
14.4
100.0
1961
50
27.
5.
2
3
11
100
19
18
32.
5
9
14.
100
a
4
S
1
3
4
3
n
8
i
3
9
a
R
0
1961
52 4
27.0
5.0
2 4
3 6
9 6
100 0
18 0
16 4
32 9
4 5
14 8
13 4
100 0
1962
51 4
26.5
6.2
2 3
4 9
8. 7
100 0
18 6
15 9
32 1
4 7
15 4
13 3
100 0
1963
51 7
25.4
6.4
2 6
6 3
7 6
100 0
19 2
16 2
31 9
5 0
15 5
12 2
100 0
1964
51 1
24. 0
5.8
3 5
5 8
9 8
100 0
18 6
16 0
32 3
5 5
15 2
12 4
100 0
1965
51 8
25 1
6 7
3 8
4 4
8 2
100 0
28 2
19 7
23 2
5 4
10 5
13 0
100 0
1966
54 3
26.8
6 1
2 9
3 6
6 3
100 0
19 7
20 1
27 3
5 7
14 0
13 2
100 0
Source: Steel Shipping Container Institute, Inc.
-------
66
PACKAGING
some inroads in small drums and pails. Because
of their high cost, most users do not use larger
plastic containers.
Bulk shipment of many products, made possible
by growing volume requirements, has taken
away some of the market for steel drums. Many
products can now be shipped in bulk in tank
cars or in special bulk containers on wheels.
As a result of lighter weight per unit and
continuing market erosion by competing ma-
terials, there will be a slight decline (1.5 percent
annually) in the quantity of steel used in steel
drums and pails. Steel consumption should dip
from 1.6 billion pounds in 1966 to 1.56 billion
pounds in 1976. However, the number of units
should increase during this period because of the
normal increase in demand for products shipped in
steel drums and pails and because of the increasing
use of lighter one-way containers.
Metal Strapping
Metal strapping is used primarily to unitize
shipping containers such as corrugated boxes or
to hold palletized loads in place. Steel is the most
common strapping material because the strapping
is usually applied under considerable tension,
and steel can absorb heavy impact without
breaking. Both heavy duty steel strapping and
common cold-rolled steel strapping are used, the
latter in cases in which there is not likely to be a
great deal of shock or impact on the straps.
The use of steel strapping is increasing because
use of unitized loads and palletizing is growing.
These techniques require strong, tough steel
strappings. Also, unitizing systems are set up as
part of production lines, and strapping machinery
can prepare the unit automatically or semi-auto-
matically in high volume. This trend toward
integration of the strapping process with the rest
of the packaging operation will continue as unitiz-
ing and palletizing become more important in the
distribution process.
Nonmetallic strappings, most often of nylon,
polypropylene, or rayon cord, are being used on
packed goods and unitized groups of packages.
The nometallic strappings are more easily re-
moved than steel strappings and are finding ready
acceptance in retail stores and consumer packag-
ing.
Nonmetallic strappings are more resilient but
less dimensionally stable than steel; consequently,
they are less satisfactory where continuous high
tension is required. It is likely that nonmetallic
strapping will displace steel strappings where
the primary function of the strap is to keep a
package or group of packages together rather than
to absorb heavy impacts.
The trend in packaging toward unitized loads
and more palletizing should more than offset the
use of nonmetallic strapping in some applications.
Steel strappings will grow at a rate of about 2.2
percent annually, with volume rising from 800
million pounds in 1966 to 994 million pounds in
1976.
Gas Cylinders
The production of gas cylinders varies from
year to year depending on the demand for indus-
trial gases and the retirement of old containers.
These packages have a relatively long life and are
used predominantly in industrial applications.
However, some small cylinders are also produced
for the consumer markets; these containers carry
small amounts of carbon dioxide for use with
gas-powered rifles and pistols and carbonation
devices used in the residential bar. Of all packaging
configurations considered in this report, only gas
cylinders appear to be immune from competition
by plastics or other materials.
Relatively steady demand should characterize
gas cylinders in the 10-year period under study.
Gas cylinders weighing 120 million pounds were
produced in 1966; although the weight of all
containers produced will vary slightly from year
to year, we do not foresee any major increase or
decline in this category.
Metal Caps and Crowns
More than 75 billion closures of various kinds
were produced in 1966, up from about 62 billion
units in 1958. The bulk of these closures in 1966,
65 billion units, were metal, the balance plastics
(Table 41). Two major types of metal closures
can be identified—caps and crowns.
Metal Caps
Metal caps, usually made of steel or aluminum,
are used as closures for bottles, cans, jars, and
tubes. Sizes, styles, and configurations exist in
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
67
great variety. A list of the principal types of metal
caps along with a typical application illustrates
their diverse nature: screw type—catsup bottle;
lug type—pickles; rolled-on—beer; snap-, fit-, and
press-on types—jelly; vacuum—jelly; and tamper
proof—medicines. Most metal caps are lined with
some other material, such as paper, film, foil, wax,
plastic, or cork, to assure a tight seal.
Improved caps offering easy opening and reseal-
able features have recently been developed and
have enjoyed widespread consumer acceptance.
Plastics are the chief competitors of metal closures.
Plastics are somewhat more versatile and func-
tional than metal for some applications. They can
be hinged, formed as dispenser openings, are
visually more attractive, and need no liner. How-
ever, metal caps are the preferred closures for
large containers of all kinds and for glass contain-
ers. Continued technological improvements and
the low cost of these materials will keep metals in
a strong competitive position for many years.
In 1966, 18.5 billion metal caps consumed 263
million pounds of metal. By 1976, 320 million
pounds of metal will be used for metal caps—a
growth rate of 2.0 percent.
Metal Crowns
Closures in the form of metal crowns are used
almost exclusively for beer and soft drink con-
tainers made of glass.
It is unlikely that the basic shape of metal
crowns—the fluted or rounded skirt shape—will
change significantly. However, in recent years
there have been a few changes in and additions to
this basic closure. The familiar cork liner, for
instance, has been replaced with a plastic ring.
The most significant development has been the
addition of pull ring or tab extensions to the caps
so that they can be opened without an opener. This
easy-open closure puts glass containers on a more
competitive basis with soft drink and beer cans
with pull tabs. Other types of self-opening crowns,
such as twist-off caps have also been developed.
The metal crown should continue to be used in
quantity on beer and soft drink bottles. However,
because of the gains that will be made by metal
cans in beer and soft drink packaging, metal
crowns will have an overall decline. This decline
should be at the rate of about 0.8 percent a year,
resulting in a decline of metal consumption from
400 million pounds in 1966 to 380 million pounds
in 1976.
PLASTICS
Probably no other material merits as much
attention in packaging circles as plastics. To
borrow a current slang expression, in packaging,
plastics are what's happening.
The excitement which plastics generate is under-
standable. These materials are truly new in
packaging, a field which has been dominated for
many decades by paper, glass, and metals. The
appearance of plastics has created a renaissance
in packaging: they have initiated round after
TABLE 41.—Shipments of closures for containers: 1958-1966
In millions of units
Type of closure
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
Metal caps
For glass containers
For metal containers
For plastic containers
Metal crowns
Plastic closures
For glass containers
For metal containers
For plastic containers
For metal tubes
14,
653
14, 653
(
(
44,
3,
3,
. . . . (
(
(
•)
•)
175
026
026
»)
")
•)
15, 419
15, 419
(")
W
46, 473
3,014
3,014
(»)
(•)
W
14, 884
14, 884
(•)
(')
42, 096
2,962
2,962
(•)
(•)
«
16,
15,
43,
7,
4,
1,
1,
050
361
559
130
967
076
295
500
205
076
16, 570
15, 747
623
200
44, 532
7,688
4,522
638
1,362
1,166
17, 169
15, 980
784
405
45, 471
8,862
4,668
725
2,284
1,185
17, 170
15, 980
785
405
46, 455
8,862
4,668
725
2,284
1,185
17, 950
16, 761
792
397
47, 982
9,510
4,972
861
2,471
1,206
18, 459
17, 287
726
446
46, 654
10, 384
5,446
1,010
2,728
1,200
Total closures ............... 61, 854 64, 906 59, 942 67, 093 68, 790 71, 502 72, 487 75, 442 75, 497
» Not available.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Clo-
sures for containers. Current Industrial Reports, series M34H (59-13) —
M34H(66-13). Washington, D.C,, 1960-1967.
-------
68
PACKAGING
round of intense materials competition; they
have penetrated many established markets;
they have created new packaging outlets for
themselves; and they have been combined with
traditional materials to improve the latter. Most
importantly, however, their full potential seems
hardly to have been tapped. They promise new
opportunities for producers, converters, and
packagers, and they represent competitive threats
to all other packaging materials.
How new are plastics? They have been used in
packaging since the 1950's. Volume usage did not
develop, however, until about 1960, the year
when polyethylene prices dropped and this—the
most popular—plastic began to expand in volume.
Since that time, plastics have grown rapidly.
In 1966, 2.2 billion pounds were manufactured
for packaging applications, compared with about
736 million pounds in 1958* (Table 42). On a
weight basis, plastics still represented only 2.4
percent of total packaging in 1966, which would
seem to indicate that the excitement about plastics
is much ado about very little. However, tonnage
"The figures cited include cellophane, actually not a
plastic material in the conventional usage of the term.
If cellophane is excluded, 1966 plastics production would
be 1.8 billion pounds, up from 333 million pounds, or an
increase of 550 percent in eight years.
does not tell the whole story: on a dollar basis,
plastics held just under 10 percent of all packaging
shipments in 1966.
Description of Plastics
Although this does not hold, for all plastics,
all of the major varieties are derived from a
single, prolific petroleum raw material, ethylene.
Ethylene is the base for a multitude of inter-
mediate substances and end products, including
such things as explosives, detergents, DDT,
certain perfumes, and the aspirin tablet. Poly-
ethylene, polyvinyl chloride, and polystyrene
are three of the four major plastics derived from
ethylene. Polypropylene, the fourth, is obtained
from a process by which ethane is produced
(Figure 20).
Cellophane is the maverick. This material,
usually included with plastics because it is used
in the same products and has similar character-
istics, is produced in large quantities (395 million
pounds in 1966) from wood pulp. This material
will be discussed separately below.
All of the large volume plastics are thermo-
plastics, i.e., they can be heat-softened repeatedly.
Small quantities of thermosetting plastics are
also used in packaging. These materials—prin-
cipally phenol-, urea-, and melamine-formalde-
hyde—can only be molded once; thereafter they
TABLE 42.—Consumption of plastics by end use: 1958 to 1976
In millions of pounds
End use
1958 1959
1960
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1970
1973
1976
Rigid and semi-rigid:
Bottles
Tubes
Forme
Closures
Total.
d and molded
23
61
22
32
73
22
65
120
22
125
140
53
175
(»)
175
58
195
3
213
65
227
3
288
66
270
10
375
72
304
15
478
85
730
30
800
120
1, 150 1 700
35 40
1, 000 1, 400
160 210
106 127 207 318 408 456
584
727 882 1,680 2,345 3,350
Film:
Cellophane b
Polyethylene film
Other plastic film . . . ,
403
175
52
436
247
54
439
280
57
423
340
65
410
380
84
405
440
104
410
500
116
405
615
133
395
730
192
360
1,280
300
340
1,610
400
320
2,030
560
Total 630 737 776 828 874 949 1,026 1,153 1,317 1,940 2,350 2,910
Plastics total 736 864 983 1,146 1,282 1,405 1, 610 1,880 2,199 3,620 4,695 6,260
• Not available.
b See footnote asterisked above.
Source: Modern Packaging Encyclopedia. William C. Simms, ed.
Vol. 40, No. 13A. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., September 1967.
879 p. Modern Plastics, 45(5): 93-94, January 1968. Midwest Research
Institute.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
69
OTHER PRODUCTS
.PACKAGING
ETHANE AND
PROPANE FROM
NATURAL GAS
(62%)
REFINERY OFFGAS
(25%)
NAPHTHA, GAS OIL,
NATURAL GASOLINE
AND CONDENSATE
— OTHER PRODUCTS
PACKAGING
— OTHER PRODUCTS
— PACKAGING
—OTHER PRODUCTS
— PACKAGING
a/ Most propylene comes from gasoline manufacturing operations.
Source Midwest Research Institute
FIGURE 20.—Packaging plastics commonly derived from ethylene
cannot be heat-softened again. Thermosets are
used primarily for closures.
The key to the popularity of plastics is their
outstanding performance characteristics in pack-
aging applications:
—They are strong, durable materials which
perform well both at high and low tempera-
tures.
—They may be used as rigid, flexible, or semi-
rigid materials.
—They can be colored readily and can be pro-
duced as clear or opaque containers.
—They are excellent barrier materials which
resist chemicals, oils, greases, and can be
made to either transmit, exclude, or con-
tain vapors and gases.
—Finally, they have many characteristics
which favor them in package manufacturing
or package filling: they are easy to machine,
can be thermoformed, are printed without
difficulty, and are heat-sealable.
Given such characteristics, plastics can be pro-
duced by a number of techniques, including ex-
trusion, casting, solvent dispersion, fabrication,
injection molding, blow molding, thermoforming,
compression molding, and cold forming.
Uses
Plastics in packaging are used in three basic
groupings: (1) as films and thermoformed and
fabricated sheets; (2) as molded containers and
closures; and (3) as coatings and adhesives.
Coatings and adhesives are discussed under the
heading of Miscellaneous Packaging Materials in
a separate section. The others are discussed here.
Production volume is fairly evenly divided be-
tween films and sheet (922 million pounds in
1966, excluding cellophane) and the more rigid
container groupings (882 million pounds). An
overview is presented, for 1966, in Table 43.
Table 44 shows more detailed breakdowns for
1965, 1966, and 1967.
General Trends
The basic trend which characterizes plastics
in packaging is rapid expansion. Underlying the
growth of plastics are popular demand by the
consumer and technological developments aimed
at improving the performance characteristics of
these materials by combining them with one
another and with other materials.
-------
70
PACKAGING
TABLE 43.—Plastics consumed in packaging by type of material: 1966
In millions of pounds
Material
Polyethylene, low and high density
Polypropylene ...
Polyester ....
Cellulosice . .... ....
Urea and phenolics . .
Other
Film
and
sheet
730
58
60
8
8
30
22
6
Formed and
molded
containers
95
371
12
Bottles
and
tubes
304
12
3
Closured
26
9
10
29
11
Total
1,155
67
72
392
8
30
22
29
29
Percent
64.0
3 7
4 0
21.7
0.5
1.7
1 2
1.6
1.6
Total.
922
478
319
85 1, 804 100. 0
Source: Modern Plastics, 45(5): 93, Jan. 1968, Modified by Midwest Research Institute.
Flexible Plastics Packaging
More than 1.3 billion pounds of plastics,
including cellophane, were converted into a
variety of films for packaging in 1966. Packaging
films represented nearly 60 percent of all plastics
packaging produced in that year. Overall, this
material grouping will enjoy very good growth
(8.2 percent annually), resulting in a volume of
2.9 billion pounds in 1976 (Table 45, Figure 21).
In that year, however, flexible plastics will repre-
sent only 46 percent of total plastics packaging,
having been outdistanced by formed and molded
plastics which will enjoy much greater growth in
the 10-year period of this forecast.
Two broad groupings of flexible packaging can
be distinguished: flexible packaging with films
and shrink packaging. Separate sections will be
devoted to these two types of packaging, followed
by sections on polyethylene, other plastics, and
cellophane.
Flexible Packaging
On a tonnage basis, flexible packaging is dom-
inated by paper. In 1966 more than 9.4 billion
pounds of paper were used in such packaging
service versus about 1.3 billion pounds of plastics
and cellophane.
Two types of plastic materials—polyethylene
and cellophane—are used extensively as flexible
films in packaging. Several other types of films
also find substantial, if notably smaller, outlets.
Among them are: polypropylene, polystyrene,
saran, polyvinyl chloride, polyester, polycarbon-
ate, pliofilm, nylon, and cellulose acetate (Table
46 and Figure 22). Most of these films are used
either as inner and outer wraps, as bags and
envelopes, or as pouches. They may find appli-
cation either as unsupported film or as lamina-
tions to other films, foil, and paper.
The great bulk of films still appears in mono-
lithic form—pure polyethylene, coated cellophane,
polyvinyl chloride, and polypropylene. However,
an increasing percentage of these films is appear-
ing in specialized forms and in combinations.
Over the last few years, simplicity of film design
based on monolithic films has given way to a
complex array of laminations and multilayer or
"structured" films. Today there are more than
500 coated and laminated composites, com-
bining thermoplastics, cellulosics, paper and foil
for packaging service. In addition, the traditional
distinctions between rigid and flexible packaging
are also disappearing.
Underlying the rapid historical growth of plas-
tics in flexible packaging are four forces:
1. The ability to use these materials to package
a wide variety of products, combined with a
trend toward packaging many items which have
not traditionally rated such distinction;
2. Plastic film technology, which is improving
the utility of these materials and endowing them
with new characteristics;
3. The competitive promise of plastics against
such materials as glass and metals, which spurs
research effort and experimentation aimed at
future market growth;
4. The drop in polyethylene prices mentioned
earlier.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
71
TABLE 44.—Plastics consumed in packaging: 1965-1967 TABLE 44.—Plastics consumed in packaging: 1965-1967
.„, , , Continued
In millions of pounds
Type of plastic
1965
1966
1967
T>pe of plastic
1965
1966
1967
Film and sheet up to 10 mils: Bottles and tubes:
Polyethylene, low and high Polyethylene bottles 265 289 350
density, including industrial Vinyl chloride compounds 5 12 22
packaging, drum liners, Other, including PS and
garment bags, heavy-duty acrylic multipolymer 3 8
bags, etc 615 730 800 Collapsible tubes, polyolefins... 10 15 20
Polypropylene (cast and
oriented, 75% cast).. . 40 58 61 Total 280 319 400
Poiyvinyl chloride (shrink, cast, -^
extruded) 43 60 70 Closures:
Unplasticized PVC (mostly for Urea 18 19 19
thermoforming) 8 12 15 Phenolics 8 10 10
Polystyrene (film only, sheeting Polyethylene, high density 5 10 18
is included under containers).. 689 Polyethylene, low density 15 16 16
Polyester 8 8 8 Polypropylene 6 9 10
Cellulosics, including skin and Polystyrene 10 10 10
blister packaging, film and Vinyl plastisol gaskets for jar
sheet for thermoforming.... 16 30 32 lids 8 8 8
Vinylidene chloride (excluding Vinyl chloride cap liners 2 3 3
household wrap) 7 10 11
Miscellaneous (including nylon, Total 72 85 94
ionomers, fluorocarbon, poly- -
vinyl alcohol, netting, poly- Total—all categories 1,478 1,804 2,032
carbonate, etc.) 5 6 7 .
• Source: Modern Plastics, 45 (5): 43, January 1968. Midwest Research
Total 748 922 1,013 Institute'
Formed and molded containers and „. . , , . . ,
j.j . ihe most important recent technological ad.
Styrenic sheet for thermoform- vance in flexible plastics packaging has been the
ing 105 125 133 development of techniques for combining various
Oriented polystyrene sheet for types of films (or other materials) to form com-
forming 25 30 32 pOgite or structured materials. These packaging
Styrenic molded containers . „ . , u ,,
,. , j. ... composites are actually materials systems,
(including such items as cups, r ' J
berry baskets, cheese mating the different characteristics of dissimilar
containers, lids, etc.; materials to yield a new substance with superior
excluding foam and closures).. 150 170 172 performance. Film structuring is not a new idea,
Foam (styrenic, including but the technology to combine films is of recent
genera -purpose ex ru e ^ vintage, dating from about 1962. Essentially the
Miscellaneous (including method involves extruding films in combina-
cellulosics, methacrylate, tions so that they are intimately bonded during
urethane; excluding sheet manufacture.
listed under "film and sheet" The mogt migi technique is coextrusion,
above) 10 12 13 * ° . *
Polyolefins (including ice cream whereby two or more conventional film extruders
containers, coffee can lids, feed the film into a common die where various
beverage cases, etc.; nml meits are combined into laminates. Although
excluding thermoformed , i
-------
72
PACKAGING
4..
•V
n
i- :-\
.;. i
'""••.\.
, 1
''....I.
I f;
I
I
I
I
4
2 a
J I
SNOmiN
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
73
TABLE 45.—Consumption of film in packaging: 1966 and
1976
Type of film
Cellophane
Polyethylene film ... .
Other plastic film ....
Quantity
(in millions of pounds)
Actual —
1966
395
730
192
Forecast —
1976
320
2,030
560
Ten-year
rate of
change
(percent)
-2.0
10.7
11.3
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
extruded thermoplastic film to effect the lamina-
tion. Yet another way in which composites are
formed is by depositing a coating, dispersed in a
solvent, onto a preformed substrate. When the
solvent evaporates or is dried, the coating remains
on the substrate.
Whereas monolithic materials have various
limitations—cost or performance—composites can
be prepared to overcome these at an economical
cost. For instance, structured films can be pro-
duced to provide barriers to moisture, gases, oils,
and chemicals; to give controlled gas or vapor
diffusion rates; to resist heat or thermal shock;
to be heat scalable at any point between 150
and 600 F; to give stiffness or flexibility; and to
provide a material at any point between full trans-
parency and opaqueness.
This type of composite material has also ex-
cited researchers and packagers, who see struc-
tured materials as potential competitors of glass
and steel containers. The excitement rests on
some recent developments. For instance, re-
tortable pouches that protect a product as effec-
tively as a steel can are already possible, and
structured packaging has already replaced cans
for emergency rations in Vietnam.
Before such materials (retortable food contain-
ers) will win wide acceptance, many problems
need to be solved, and many hurdles must be
overcome—development of suitable materials at
an acceptable cost, development of suitable con-
verting and filling machinery, counteracting pop-
ular preconceptions which would work against
plastics in high-barrier, high-protection applica-
tions, etc. Work to develop the technology and to
market test such packaging products will most
likely take place in the 1966 to 1976 period. Dur-
ing this time, however, we do not expect to see
significant competitive threats from plastic film
composites to traditional rigid containers in util-
ity food goods.
The rapidly developing film technology may be
viewed also as a barrier to film marketing in the
near future. Packagers are being bombarded with
news of film and film combination developments
and are asked to evaluate a wide array of pro-
prietary developments by resin producers. Their
choices are becoming so extensive, and the film
variations are sometimes so small, that the pack-
agers cannot effectively tailor the films to their
package requirements without substantial engi-
neering analysis. Thus, they often stick with an
TABLE 46.—Films consumed in packaging by type: 1958 to 1966
In millions of pounds
Type of film
1958
1960 1961 1962 1963
1965
1966
Cellophane
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Polystyrene
Pliofilm
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
Polyvinylidene chloride (Saran)
Polyester
Cellulose acetate
Miscellaneous
415
183
1
10
10
14
1
5
436
250
2
11
12
15
1
5
1
439
272
3
12
15
17
2
5
2
423
340
3
5
13
17
19
3
5
2
410
380
15
7
14
19
20
4
5
3
405
440
25
8
15
21
21
6
5
3
410
500
28
9
15
24
23
8
5
4
405
615
40
10
15
30
20
8
5
4
395
730
45
11
15
40
20
8
5
5
Total« 639 733 767 830 877 949 1,026 1,152 1,274
• There are minor differences between these totals and Table 41 as a
result of adjustments primarily in "other plastic films."
Source: Modern Packaging Encyclopedia. William C. Simms, ed. Vol. 40,
No. ISA. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., September 1967. 879 p. Ibid.,
Vol. 38, No. 3A. November 1964. 833 p.
-------
74
PACKAGING
10,000
Q
Z
D
g
w
O
1,000
_ POLYETHYLENE
100
10
TOTAL
,
CELLOPHANE
POLYPROPYLENE ~
SARAN
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
YEAR
1963
1964
1965
1966
_§/ The following are not included here: pliofilm, polyester, cellulose acetate and
miscellaneous.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
FIGURE 22.—Films used in packaging: 1958-1966 (millions of pounds) a
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
75
established package which has served their pur-
poses well.
A packager must consider not only the charac-
teristics of the material as a package for his
products, but also its relative cost, its machine
handling characteristics, and the obsolescence
time of the package in a period of rapidly changing
technology. Thus, while the long-range outlook is
for more use of special film designs and combina-
tions, these new developments will be accepted
only as fast as packagers can assimilate them;
film technology will be running ahead of market
acceptance for a few years. This may result in a
"shake-out" of materials; certain of the newest
types of films and film combinations will probably
emerge victorious; others will drop by the way-
side. This is not as likely to apply to monolithic
films already used in substantial volume as to
more exotic combinations.
Shrink Packaging
Plastic films have been used effectively for
shrink packaging. In this technique, an oriented
or prestretched film is wrapped around a product,
such as fresh meat in a tray, which is sent through
a heat tunnel. The temperature in the tunnel and
speed of the package moving through the tunnel
are controlled so that the film heats and attempts
to return to its prestretched condition. In so
doing, it forms a tight wrap around the product.
A shrink-wrapped package gives a contour fit to
unusually shaped products and often increases
their storage life and maintains product quality.
The tightened film also eliminates wrinkles and
looseness and gives a neat appearance and im-
proved display characteristics to the product.
Shrink-wrapped films provide good moisture
protection for the product packaged. Controlled
gas transmission rates are also possible with shrink
packaging; low oxygen transmission films are used
for oxygen sensitive products, and films which
allow high gas transmission rates are used for
such products as fresh fruits, vegetables, and
fresh red meats.
Resin consumption for shrink packaging dou-
bled in the 1963 to 1966 period—from 24 million
pounds to 51 million pounds (Table 47). There is
considerable competition among films for shrink
packaging, with polyvinyl chloride, saran, poly-
ethylene, and polypropylene sharing the greatest
volumes.
TABLE 47.—Film consumed in shrink packaging: 1963-1966
In millions of pounds
Type of film
1963 1964 1965 1966
Polyethylene .... 4 6 9 10
Polyvinylidene chloride 11 11 11 12
Polyvinyl chloride 5 7 15 20
Polypropylene (•) (*) (a) 4.5
Other 4 5 6 4.5
Total.
24 29 41 51.0
» Included in "Other."
Source: Modern Packaging Encyclopedia William C, Simms. ed.
Vol.40, No. ISA. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., September 1967. 879 p.
Polyethylene film is the lowest cost plastic film
available today. It heat seals at low temperature;
it makes a good, tough, moisture-proof wrap, bag,
or pouch. It has been used in about equal volumes
in food and nonfood packaging over the last
several years (Table 48).
Machinery requirements can be quite simple;
equipment is low in cost. While there have been
problems of design for certain products, these
have been largely overcome, and shrink package
systems are generally available for most appli-
cations. One of the most important problems
has been to overcome tearing of the film either
during the shrink operation or afterwards as a
result of small nicks or cuts on the film edge.
Another has been that most of the shrink wrap
films are too soft to be pushed through the
packaging machinery; they have to be pulled
through high speed packaging machines or stiff-
ened in some way where pushing them is un-
avoidable.
Shrink packaging promises to continue to be
one of the major growth areas in plastic films
in the next decade as shrink characteristics of
the films are perfected and more types of food
and nonfood products are packaged in films.
The greatest volume use is most likely to be in
fresh meats and produce. Another area of potential
is in shrink-wrapping of packed products for
shipment as an alternative to the use of conven-
tional corrugated boxes (see the earlier discussion
of shrinkage in the section on containerboard).
This innovation is already being used for shipping
unfilled soft drink bottles and is being widely
tested by some companies for canned foods.
-------
76
PACKAGING
TABLE 48.—Polyethylene film consumed in packaging
by end use: 1961-1966
In millions of pounds
End uge
1961 1962 1963« 1964 1965 1966
10
30
1
5
11 13
55 57
1 3
7 10
15
60
5
12
16 20
80 85
5 8
16 20
Food packaging:
Candy
Bread, cake
Crackers, biscuits....
Meats, poultry
Fresh produce ..
Snacks
Noodles, macaroni. .
Cereals
Dried vegetables....
Frozen foods
Dairy products.. .
Other foods
Frozen food bags,
household wrap. . .
Total food uses. . 180 210 235 260 310 360
95 100 112 125 145 160
111222
555667
223334
5
5
1
10
10 .
5
7
1
15
6
10
5
10
8
12
7
5
8
14
8
7
10
19
12
13
Nonfood packaging:
Shipping bags, liners. .
Rack and counter ....
Textiles . .
Paper
Laundry, dry clean-
ing
Miscellaneous. . .
40
35
15
35
35
15
35
15
35
40
58
40
17
42
48
70
35
45
20
50
20
80
40
60
25
60
40
95
50
90
30
75
30
Total nonfood
uses 160 170 205 240 305 370
Total packaging
uses 340 380 440 500 615 730
• 1963 Estimated by Midwest Research Institute.
Source: Modern Packaging Encyclopedia. William C, Simms, ed.
Vol. 40, No. ISA. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., September 1967. 879 p.
Ibid., Vol. 39, No. 4A. December 1965. 863 p Ibid., Vol. 38, No. 3A.
November 1964. 833 p.
However, at this point it does not appear that
shrink-wrapping will displace corrugated in sub-
stantial volumes:
Polyethylene Films
Polyethylene film (predominantly low density
polyethylene) has led all plastic films in flexible
packaging end uses. Consumption rose from 175
million pounds in 1958 to 730 million pounds
in 1966, an increase of over 400 percent in eight
years. Polyethylene passed cellophane in 1963 in
quantity used and has since left this traditional
material far behind.
One of the significant factors about polyethylene
film (and other plastic films for that matter) is
that its growth as a packaging material has been
in two directions. First, it has competed directly
with cellophane and paper for existing applica-
tions. Second, it has opened up entirely new
packaging markets for itself and is used on prod-
ucts that were previously either not packaged or
were packaged in larger aggregations. Examples
are the use of film for fresh produce, meat, and
textile products packaging. Polyethylene is used
also as a laminated material and as a liner for
barrels, drums, and shipping sacks.
Polyethylene (PE) will continue to be the
dominant plastic in flexible packaging in the 1966
to 1976 period. The basic resin technology is well
established; production methods are well developed
and equipment is readily available. Additional
factors which will support PE in its dominant
position will be the appearance of new types
of polyethylene films for packaging applications—
"oriented" films for shrink packaging and "cross-
linked" films for meats and other products
requiring special characteristics. Furthermore,
polyethylene will be the most popular substrate
or prime segment material of structured or layered
film combinations, thanks to its low cost. The
greatest volume will continue to be in monolithic
form, however.
PE has enjoyed rapid growth in both food and
nonfood packaging (Table 48). Bulk shipping con-
tainers (bags, sacks, barrels, pallet bins, etc.) are
also often lined with polyethylene. The develop-
ment of substantial volume in shrink wrapping
for utility canned goods or in household waste
disposal bags is not expected in the period of this
forecast.
On the basis of the foregoing, we foresee an
increase in PE production for flexible packaging
to 2.0 billion pounds by 1976, up from 730
million pounds 10 years earlier. Growth between
1966 and 1970 will be even more rapid; PE pro-
duction should reach 1.3 billion pounds by 1970.
Thus, beyond the early 1970's, we expect a slow-
down in the rate of growth for polyethylene film.
Other Plastic Films
In addition to polyethylene, a large number of
other plastic films are also used in specialized
packaging applications in flexible packaging.
About 192 million pounds of such plastics were
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
used in 1966, up from 52 million pounds in 1958
(Table 45), showing that polyethylene is not the
only fast-growing plastic in flexible packaging
materials. The most important of these "other"
plastics are polypropylene—45 million pounds;
vinyl—40 million pounds; and polyvinylidene
chloride (Saran)-—20 million pounds.
An important use of these films is in shrink
packaging of such food staples as meat and prod-
uce. They are also used in structured films, again
primarily for foods, and in a variety of wrappers
and bags.
The outlook for "other plastics" is favorable.
Overall, these films should grow from a 1966 base
of 192 million pounds to 560 million pounds by
1976. This growth will be primarily in specialty
applications to package sensitive foods such as
meats, snacks, cheese, produce, etc., and other
packaging where the superior strength, barrier
properties, and appearance of these more expensive
plastics will make them the preferred choice over
dominant but low cost polyethylene, cellophane,
and paper.
Cellophane
Although it is usually included with plastics in
any discussion of flexible packaging, cellophane
differs from plastics in basic chemical makeup.
Most plastics are hydrocarbons. Cellophane is
regenerated cellulose derived from wood pulp. It is
one of the few materials which is produced almost
exclusively for packaging. It is commonly used as
a transparent wrapping or bag material for food
products such as baked goods, meats, snacks, and
candy. Its largest and most familiar nonfood
application is as the cellophane outer skin on
cigarette packages (Table 49).
Virtually all cellophanes are coated to make
them moisture-proof and/or heat scalable. Princi-
pal coatings are nitrocellulose, polyvinylidene
chloride, vinyl copolymer, and polyethylene.
Cellophane costs 63 to 81 cents per pound or
from 2.9 to 5.8 cents per 1,000 square inches;
prices vary depending on material thickness and
type. Compared to polyethylene film, selling for
1.1 to 1.3 cents per 1,000 square inches, cello-
phane appears to be a high cost material; actually,
it is quite competitive with other materials
(Table 50) as well as with polyethylene if all
factors are taken into consideration.
TABLE 49.—Shipments of cellophane by end use: 1962-1969
In percent of shipments by weight
End use
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966
Baked goods
Meat. .
Tobacco
Snacks .
Candy .
Other foods
Nonfoods
Total
. . 33
15
10
... 10
10
7
15
.... 100
30
20
10
12
10
8
10
100
28
20
10
12
10
9
11
100
25
17
13
11
8
14
12
100
20
15
15
15
8
17
10
100
Source: Modern Packaging Encyclopedia. William C. Simms, ed. Vol.
40, No. ISA. New York. McGraw-Hill, Inc., September 1967. 879 p. Ibid.,
Vol. 39, No. 4A. December 1965. 863 p. Ibid., Vol. 38, No. 3A. November
1964. 833 p.
Cellophane continues to be a popular material
for three reasons: first, it is highly machineable;
it is possible to process cellophane at much higher
speeds than plastics; this fact serves to overcome
some of its price disadvantages; second, it is a
highly uniform material available in a wide
variety of types (about 120); finally, it has high,
TABLE 50.—Representative 1967 prices of selected packaging
papers, films, and foils a
Material and trade designation
Cellophane, MS b 220
Saran coated MS 140
Polyethylene coated, 182
Polyethylene:
Low density, 1 mil
High density, 1 mil
Heat shrinkable, 1 mil .........
Polypropylene, cast, 1 mil
Polystyrene, oriented, 1 mil
Polyethylene-cellophane, 1 mil/ 195
MS
Saran, 1 mil
Poly vinyl chloride, extruded, 1 mil . . .
Cellulose acetate, extruded, 1 mil. . . .
Glassine, bleached, 25 Ib
Pouch paper, coated MS 25/29
Waxed paper, bread wrapper, 39 Ib . .
Aluminum foil, 0.00035 in
Aluminum foil, 0.001 in
Film cost
($/U>)
$0. 64
.81
.77
.32
.36
. 39-1. 00
.59
.63
1.05
1.08
.55
. 74
.26
.52
.23
.64
.56
Cost/
1,000 sq.
in. «)
2.9
5.8
4.2
1.1
1.2
1. 3-3. 3
1.9
2.4
8.9
6.6
2.6
3.4
1.5
3.5
2.1
2.2
5.5
•Prices are based on standard or basic materials and large orders.
Many variations exist for grades, type, gauges, combinations, and prices.
bMS indicates moisture proof and heat sealing properties.
Source: Modern Packaging Encyclopedia. William C. Simms, ed.
Vol. 40, No. 13A. New York. McGraw-Hill, Inc.. September 1967.
879 p.
326-388 O-69-7
-------
78
PACKAGING
sparkling transparency, which favors it in uses
where good appearance of the package is desired.
Despite these advantages, cellophane use in
packaging has been slowly declining. Production
in 1966 was 395 million pounds, down from 439
million pounds in 1960. This material has been
giving way to monolithic plastics and combina-
tions of plastics as the producers of these materials
have developed flexible packaging which dupli-
cates cellophane properties at competitive costs.
The decline of cellophane in packaging should
continue for some years to come as competing
products are improved, gain in volume, and de-
cline in cost. We expect the decline to be taking
place at a rate of 2 percent per year, resulting in
a 1976 production of 320 million pounds.
Molded Plastic Containers
Plastic materials weighing 882 million pounds
were converted into molded plastic containers in
1966. These containers are generally rigid or
semi-rigid. The basic configurations are: bottles;
formed containers such as blister packs, tubs,
trays, plastic foam products, and the like; tubes;
and plastic closures.
On a tonnage basis, formed containers rep-
resented the bulk of total consumption in 1966
in this area or 54 percent, followed by bottles
(34 percent), closures (9 percent), and tubes (3
percent). By 1976, the relative dominance of
these configurations will have changed somewhat,
with bottles taking on the lead, formed containers
having dropped to second place (Table 51,
Figure 23).
TABLE 51.—Consumption of formed and molded plastics by
type: 1966 and 1976
Type of container
Quantity (in millions of Ten-year
pounds) rate of
-——- — change
Actual— Forecast— (percent)
1966 1976
Formed and molded
Bottles
Closures . .
Tubes
478
304
85
15
1 400
1 700
210
40
11 3
18 8
9. 5
10 3
Total.
882 3,350
14.3
a Includes plastic forms.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
Each basic configurational category will be
discussed in detail below. Plastic foams, although
usually included under formed containers, are
discussed separately, so that the special charac-
teristics of this application area can be treated
more adequately.
Formed Containers
Formed and molded containers have been
quite successful and have enjoyed the high growth
rates of other plastics in packaging. From 1958
to 1966 the consumption of plastics in formed
packaging rose from 61 million pounds to 478
million pounds—an increase of 780 percent in
the period (Table 42).
Formed containers are usually produced from
sheet material by thermoforming. In this process,
heated sheet materials are shaped by mechanical
pressure and/or air pressure into a die to give
the material a specific configuration. More
recently, cold forming technii^ues have also been
applied successfully to certain types of plastic
sheet.
There are several common formed and molded
configurations. One of these is the blister packs
in which plastic sheet forms a pocket around a
product. The pocket is preformed and then sealed
to a paperboard backing after filling. (A form
related to this is skin packaging in which the
plastic, usually film, is shaped to the contours
of the product and is then tightened by shrinking
to hold the product tightly.) Another common
configuration category is open mouth boxes, tubs,
and baskets for cottage cheese, margarine, berries,
and so forth. Usually, the lids for these containers
are made of formed plastic also. Trays and in-
serts are produced also from formed plastics.
These items are most familiar as meat trays,
vending machine trays, and inserts to fit injection
molded containers. They also show up as dis-
posible items in hospitals, restaurants, schools,
and other institutions.
Formed containers are low in cost, often com-
petitive with pulp and paper; permit high
production speeds on relatively simple equipment;
provide good product protection; and are effective
merchandising tools. Formed containers, especially
blister packs, are used to package many items
which were shelved without packaging in the
recent past. Formed packages have the rigidity
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
79
SIP
I
o
CO
in
d
•a
I
CB
b
.a
o
-0
03
'S
I
I
J
a
a
SdNDOd dO SNOmiW
-------
80
PACKAGING
and display features of folding cartons, the light
weight and low cost characteristics of pouches.
They are usually transparent, and can be dec-
orated readily for display purposes.
The dominant material used for formed plastic
containers is polystyrene. In its diffierent forms,
it accounted for nearly 80 percent of the total
plastics used in formed and molded containers
in 1966. (This category excludes bottles.) Poly-
styrene is preferred because of its relatively low
cost, good forming characteristics, and excellent
performance as a package material.
Most forming technology is based on forming
heated sheet by vacuum or pressure (or a com-
bination of these) to achieve the package shape
desired. Sheet thickness ranges from 4 to 40 mils.
Thermoforming molds are relatively low in cost
in comparison with injection molds and, there-
fore, thermoforming is usually favored where
it can be used. Considerable scrap is produced
during the thermoforming process, and many
converters augment their sheet purchases by using
their own extrusion equipment and recycling the
scrap.
Recently there have been advances in forming
technology which improve the methods of heating
and cooling the plastic sheet and also permit
automation of thermoforming sequences.
Although polystyrene is the dominant material
used at present, other plastics are receiving in-
creased attention. One application where other
resins already compete with polystyrene is in
packages for soft margarine, a food product that
has become very popular in the last two years.
An estimated 650 million half-pound tubs were
sold in 1967, with a material breakdown as
follows:
High density polyethylene
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS).
Acrylic multipolymer
Aluminum
Total.
Million
units
400
160
30
60
650
These containers are typical of the "deep draw"
type, now possible in formed plastics, and repre-
sent significant competition in a field which has
been the traditional preserve of paperboard.
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) has
attracted considerable attention recently because
it can be cold-formed on metalworking machinery
to yield a package of uniform wall thickness, high
impact strength, and good stress-crack resistance.
Polyethylene, because of its relatively low price
and good forming characteristics, is also becoming
a significant factor in formed plastics.
Outlook: There is considerable activity in
forming and fabricating technology of plastic
sheet materials. New approaches are under devel-
opment—for example, continuous processing from
resin to finished product—which promise con-
siderable production versatility at low cost. Un-
fortunately, the information available about new
technology in this area is quite sketchy, since
these are proprietary developments not yet
secured by patent positions. Individual companies
have not publicized their activities for competitive
reasons. Our industry contacts indicate, however,
that these developments will be of significant
impact and will have considerable packaging
potential, particularly in competition with present
paperboard packaging.
Targets of these new forming developments are
package markets now held by paper and paper-
board. The recent success of plastics in dairy
products, for example, is only one area in which
plastics will be much more competitive in future
years. Other food products, of course, have been
and will continue to be the competitive goal of
formed plastics. Nonfood products are also getting
considerable attention. For example, fabrication
of shipping containers to replace corrugated paper -
board has recently been introduced (in addition
to shrink wrap already discussed). This is done
by using conventional box-making techniques;
reusable as well as single-use containers can be
made in this way. While cost is a major deterrent
at present, this type of formed and fabricated
container is representative of the many possi-
bilities which exist in nonfood packaging.
Styrenes and polyolefins will be used in the
greatest volume in the future. Although styrenes
now account for about 80 percent of the consump-
tion, they will likely take a somewhat smaller
share of the total in the future as the polyolefins
are adapted to formed and molded applications.
In addition, there will be continued use of other
types of materials such as urethanes, cellulosics,
and methacrylates; none of these, however,
appear to be headed for substantial volume use.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
81
On a quantity basis, we expect consumption
of formed plastic containers of 1.4 billion pounds
of resins in 1976, corresponding to an annual
growth rate of 11.2 percent for the period.
Plastic Foams
The forecasts given for formed and molded
containers include plastic foams, which have been
used in an increasing array of applications in
recent years and have become familiar in plastics
packaging. The reasons may be found by listing
foam characteristics which have made them adapt-
able to package applications. Foams have:
—Low density—in the range of 1 to 30 pounds
per cubic foot. While foam packages are
usually somewhat bulky, they have good
strength-to-weight ratios and usually weigh
less than equivalent conventional materials
such as wood or containerboard;
—Shock absorbency (or energy absorbing)
capability;
—Good thermal insulation properties; and
—Chemical inertness and low water absorbency.
The resins commonly used for plastic foams in
packaging are polystyrene, polyurethane, and
polyethylene. Two other materials—styrene acry-
lonitrile and polyvinyl chloride—have also been
used in very limited quantities. By far the most
common today are the styrenic foams which ac-
counted for about 10 percent, 46 million pounds,
of formed and molded plastics in 1966, compared
with 8 million pounds of polyurethane. The poly-
styrene foams are generally favored because they
are much lower in cost than other foams and are
adaptable to a variety of packaging applications.
Foams may be formed by molding, by fabri-
cation from slabs, and by thermoforming from
sheet. They are also combined with other ma-
terials like paper, paperboard, and other plastics
by laminating.
Probably the most familiar foam products are
packaging components such as molded shapes to
protect fragile instruments, machined parts,
glassware, and military hardware; cushion in-
serts; pads, and loose fill or dunnage. However,
foams are also used for cups, trays, shipping
crates, and other types of containers. For ex-
ample, meat trays—used at the rate of about 9
billion units per year—were long the exclusive
domain of pulp and paperboard. In 1966, thermo-
formed polystyrene foam trays accounted for
about 18 percent of the unit volume and were
expected to take up to one-third of this market
by 1968.
Despite often optimistic forecasts for plastic
foams in packaging, they have not been adapted
to packaging applications as rapidly as predicted.
The technology of forming is relatively well
developed. However, there has been a lack of
balance between foam supply, processing equip-
ment, and molding capacity. Also, peripheral
techniques such as printing and labeling have
only recently become available on the cost basis
needed for competitive purposes. In foam sheet
production, there must be a fairly high degree of
process integration because thermoforming pro-
duces considerable scrap. This scrap must be
recycled to minimize disposal costs and raw ma-
terials losses; this has discouraged manufacturers
from setting up in-plant packaging machinery;
conversely, foam sheet extruders have been reluc-
tant to get into consumer package fabrication.
In addition to these problems, the packaging in-
dustry has had no compelling reasons to utilize
foams extensively. And foam producers have not
gone directly to packaged product buyers to sell
the virtues of foam packing and packages.
One of the significant support areas has arisen
from a package specifying source within the gov-
ernment—where military packaging has been eval-
uated for performance and cost. In one case, for
example, the Packaging Development Division,
U.S. Naval Ammunition Depot, has specified
polystyrene foam for certain munitions packaging
after extensive testing and evaluation.
Foam packaging is commonly predicted to
double in volume in the next five years. This is not
at all unlikely since this advance would be from a
relatively small base. Furthermore, rapid accep-
tance in a few applications would add to the
volume significantly. For example, complete dom-
ination in meat and produce trays would require
nearly 200 million pounds of polystyrene foam a
year. Egg cartons and fresh produce shippers are
other products likely to be made of foam plastics
in the years ahead.
The price relationship among foams is likely to
remain much the same in the foreseeable future as
it is today; thus, polystyrene will continue to be
used in greatest volume while polyurethane, poly-
ethylene, and other foams will be used in specific
-------
82
PACKAGING
situations where their performance characteristics
are superior. With the basic foam technology well
developed, the next steps will be in the direction of
production sequence integration.
We did not attempt to distinguish volume usage
of foams within the formed and molded container
category. However, assuming that they will con-
tinue to have about the same share in the future,
foam consumption should reach between 150 and
200 million pounds in 1976.
Plastic Bottles
Plastic bottle production soared from 1.1 billion
units in 1960 to an estimated 3.1 billion units in
1966. This dramatic increase was accompanied by
rapid changes in bottle-making technology and in
end-use markets.
Polyethylene: High density polyethylene
(HOPE) is the dominant resin used for bottles
today (88 percent by weight in 1966). HOPE
reached significant volume when it was introduced
for household bleaches and liquid detergents in
1958. Since then, this material has also been used
to package various drugs, cosmetics, and toiletries,
and has gained a small foothold in milk and foods
packaging as well.
High density polyethylene has very good resis-
tance to impact, chemicals, alcohols, and water
vapor. It is limited in some applications because it
is permeable to oxygen and oils and is not available
in crystal-clear form. Although the price of PE
bottles has increased recently, HDPE remains the
lowest cost resin for blow-molded bottles. The
long-term historical trend to lower resin prices for
bottle grade HDPE has been from 44 cents per
pound in 1958 to a relatively stable 20 cents per
pound in 1967.
Machinery technology has kept pace with
resin technology, so that today many proprietary
PE formulations can be blow-molded on equip-
ment which is readily available. However, a good
deal of equipment is custom designed for specific
applications; and in fact, the development of
packaging "systems" has been an important
factor which has enabled resin producers and
packaging companies to successfully enter new
markets. Conversely, the need to develop new
in-plant filling equipment has slowed the growth
of PE bottles. One company recently reported,
for example, that the polyethylene milk bottle
market has grown slower than first anticipated.
Reason: It has been necessary to develop special
volumetric filling equipment to replace the filling
equipment already available in most dairies for
carton or milk bottle filling; PE bottles cannot be
filled without major change of existing systems.
Polyvinyl Chloride: The Cinderella resin for a
number of years, PVC now appears on the thresh-
old of a breakthrough into molded bottle
markets. In 1966, PVC consumption for bottles
rose to about 12 million pounds of resin from a
total of 5 million or less the previous year! Resin
consumption probably doubled again in 1967.
PVC is potentially the "ideal" material to
compete with glass. It can be made in rigid,
impact-resistant, crystal-clear form. It has good
chemical resistance to alcohols and oils, low per-
meability to water vapor and gases, and is opaque
to ultraviolet light. The basic resin is available
in large quantity because it ig widely used for a
variety of non-packaging products, ranging from
floor coverings to garden hoses and raincoats.
(More than 2 billion pounds of PVC were sold
in 1966 for non-packaging applications.) The cost
of unmodified PVC is about the same as that of
bottle grade HDPE (20 cents per pound). How-
ever, the modifiers required for PVC bring the
cost to about 30 to 33 cents per pound after
compounding.
PVC is blow-molded in its rigid (unplasticized)
form. For blow-molding, additives are needed,
otherwise the resin would decompose before it
would melt. The ideal formulation, to date, in-
corporates stabilizer chemicals that give clarity,
stiffness, strength, and meet Food and Drug
Administration requirements for food products.
Modifier chemicals which achieve one property
may cause deterioration of another. For example,
modifiers which give the high strength and im-
pact resistance desired may leave the finished
product somewhat cloudy or hazy; a crystal-clear
formulation may lack the strength or barrier
properties needed.
FDA approval has been given for a propylene-
modified PVC resin for foods. Dioctyl tin, how-
ever, is the modifier which producers hold out as
the compound able to give both the strength
and clarity desired. The major drawback of dioctyl
tin is that it influences the product taste; another
is that a heavy metal is potentially a toxicity
risk. Nonetheless, several compounds have been
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
83
submitted to FDA for approval for food products
and FDA approval for one company's dioctyl
tin modifiers was granted in very early 1968.
The most likely candidates for PVC packaging
in food are vegetable oils, vinegar, wine, salad
dressings, and seasoning products. Nonfood prod-
ucts include toiletries and cosmetics (hair lotions,
mouthwashes, shampoos, etc.) and chemicals
such as household cleaners.
Some packaging companies have a large stake
in PVC, and volume production is expected to
develop in both food and nonfood applications in
the next few years. A series of interrelating tech-
nologies will be combined to bring about accept-
ance of PVC. This includes the combination of
complex formulations, molding techniques, ma-
chinery design, and product/package performance
characteristics.
Since polyethylene has led the way in molded
plastic bottles, the existing blow-molding tech-
nology has aided other resins used for bottles,
for instance, polystyrene. Some resins, however,
cannot be formed on PE equipment; one of these
is PVC. Most of the PVC blow-molding capacity
is in the form of proprietary in-plant machinery
owned by major resin suppliers. Assuming that
PVC is accepted in food packaging applications
on a limited scale, exploitation of the potential
will have to await availability of machinery to
turn out the billions of units which might be
demanded. Thus, in the short run, lagging forming
technology may delay PVC acceptance on a wide
scale; but in the long run PVC should establish
itself as second only to polyethylene in the bottle
field.
Polystyrene and Polypropylene: Polystyrene has
recently been used for bottling analgesics and
bouillon cubes. This plastic is clear, rigid, and
has a high heat distortion temperature. It has
relatively poor barrier properties compared to
other plastics, however, but will likely find
increased use in products which do not require a
high degree of water, gas, and oil resistance.
Polypropylene is another promising material for
bottles, being potentially competitive with both
HOPE and PVC. It has high impact strength,
stiffness, durability, chemical resistance, good
barrier properties, and good clarity; but it is more
costly than high density polyethylene. Compara-
tive data for the various resins used in bottles
are given in Table 52.
Outlook: In general there will be continued
spectacular growth in the number of plastic
bottles used. From a materials standpoint there
will be a variety of proprietary resin formula-
tions available, designed for specific performance
requirements. In addition, long-term price trends
will favor plastics vis-a-vis other materials. For
example, long term supplies of ethylene, the basic
source of polyolefins, are usually obtained under
a negotiated contract and are based on long-term
raw materials supplies. The capacity of some new
plants being built is in the range of 500 million
pounds annually, and packagers are able to enter
raw material contracts or assure themselves of
captive capacity at relatively stable raw material
prices.
Bottle production technology will continue to
depend partly on proprietary machinery design
and packaging "systems" for specific product
applications. Resin suppliers and packaging com-
panies have supplied much of this technical
service to achieve entry into the specific markets.
While some machinery technology deficiencies will
develop as large volume markets open up to
plastics, they will not retard the overall expansion
of plastics in volume production.
In some cases, new marketing approaches will
be used by companies to introduce new products.
For example, one company is using a "pay as you
package" approach in marketing returnable
plastic milk bottles. In this plan, the bottle buyer
is not required to make the substantial capital
investment in equipment required to change over
from glass to plastic bottles. Instead, the bottle
supplier provides the entire packaging system and
charges the dairy a single fixed charge per unit
filled.
To determine the extent to which plastic
bottles would be used in 1976, we attempted to
establish the most probable volume by end use,
taking into consideration both the competitive
factors and technological advances likely to
take place during the 1966 to 1976 period. In
general, however, high density polyethylene resin
formulations will continue to dominate materials;
PVC is expected to gain substantial volume in
the next few years. By 1976, total resin consump-
tion for bottles should rise to 1.7 billion pounds
compared with 300 million pounds in 1966. Of
the 1976 production, high density polyethylene
will account for 1.1 billion pounds, PVC for 300
-------
84
PACKAGING
3
P
^
i
3
f,
|
5
^
n
\
i
•H
-i
•>
i
J
a
<
H
1
O
W
a
1
*J
J
Advantages
~«H
(S
9&
i
.2
&
a
1
W
a
'3
r?
PH
so S
fl O
•S 3
B -a
a o
» 2
"3 ft,
to" "a
JTfi .
O oo x
« a "c
^H "^ C
-a a <£
H^ * ^3
s £ B
g £ «
fflsS
2 2 'S
u ft" B
Q
^
B
a
B
V
so
>-,
X
O
O
>->
+1
13
a
u
S«j
•-
S o
CM
low water vapor
ion; good chemical
; FDA approval.
.*• 03 3>
X 00 f
I 1 a
-^ a a
3° 2 i
H°*-
. o
O -H
S3
cs o
v o
*C . N
S S3 &
ft o
u
oj
E
^ §
•5 J
11
•a!
s
"« .
• 3 a
_ Z 9 'S
•o 53 c «
!i rjisi
11 ill =
°-o fi * S -9 ^
S "d O bE_ a ^
^.-S - Ill 3 §
!§•! 'Silsr
151 J£§l|
B^;ja ^34>^tH
feoo o^jaaft.
fc ^
§ i «
22^ £
bo.a Q .s a
.S 1 "o £ ffi .2
lit! !!
1 I "2 3 B ft.
2 .5 S x ja p
5, .^ a « M u
00 on h W . 3 'C
5T .S S y- "a S g
.2 c 1 1 1 r.^
s.|Jll.fi"s
i 8 S 'S ft S o
S &i-2 B a J so
J 0
• .0' . .
q o o -j ooo
"5 ^ vo ^ "^ «j •*
^ ON CO ^H (N O CO
«* « «» «fe •*«»€»
^- <* k. k. J ** k. ^
•S g £..S .S g ^..tS .S
« ^L ^S O O ^-- M O U
Se^oaa e& o a a
ft, .. a Cl, OH .. M OH OH
^ 35 p^ rt rt cO OH W ^
y^rtoo (Dpsuu
, U y . O U .
N *g . N N "C . N N
O Q^ N O O p ( N O O
rH (M
V
-8
g 1
i> 4J r|
!i -:.
§ £ a U
I1 .b '? >
* g. ^>fe.
a £
.c"
_r 'C oT
— n M
'5 1 2
n .5 ""3
S .2 S x
g s ^ ^
s .2 o r, j
r. 1FH 3 QD ^~"
« 2 °° » rs
^ jj 0)
§ « 3 g 'a
* "a 25
.. 53 BBS
3 « "o =3 -3
S ^ ft, '3 S
5 2 . o v
S s C -o ft<
p2 Q
B B"
a v
ja ho
^ &•
2 S 2
o iT D
O DO
ft « g
rj 8 * S
TO --H _ .^H
K. +J O 00
il HJ
OH S 3 0 Q
a OH ^ 2 2
• a a j
^ S3 ft S o •§
CO PH
good barrier
; moderate clarity;
tant; FDA approval.
aghness; high heat
temperature; FDA
8 OD 0 B •
of .S -g <-> o "3
8 h S £'£ 1
J * Z X S I
f £ S3 S .2 &
g P^J W)"C aj
H tf
ON 10
i— i i— i
v
(3 ^
4) 5; q>
"& a §
ft x 2
2- fr
&& P,
r3 ° 2
CM CM
"a
B
S S
.2 ^
^ •.
v x
a .2 .
§" 5 IB
o B "o
a x
^ » .X
x O
^ "of
5 ^ £
T3 13 p
rS S 1
'o * °
o o
h PH
Tj
1
o
+•)
•t-»
o
^
T3
» cT
o u
.3 .a
C C
OH &*
-C »q
bC hO
S S
»hness; rigidity;
tance to oils and
'DA approval.
d grease and wrater
scellent impact
; FDA approval.
S .2 tfn o 55 o
0 g .„ o * §
^J V r< SO i^ H
.„ ^ s .^ w 2
>-^ *•£ bo t»-. 'C *
•S o >-..tJ c -g
'C p x C a g
a bo o a -Q LI
U U
IY1 t-
•* •*
C !
S
a ;
>-.
1 M
•s2 §
"b a «
I" J
>
i
a
1
u
&-,
=a
§
1
«
eg
J
O
^a
d
"x
ja
S
x
1
kd
>s
S «5
1 |
1 5
« -S
U b
g 2
9 S
!« 8
B'O S
ftg ^
ii a
« a
B 3 _£•
8& ^
ji 2
2 Sf a
cording quantity, prodi
design, with glass in la:
Source: Com
?ft
|l
'* iT
x-|
E§
£ M,
•g.a
&^
11
11
J*
l^f
&^
•a'S
h
s >
S s
s-g
£ 0.
Il
Sm
upq
a-g
si
71
•6i
1°
§1
« 2
aa=
£•3
* These are
to the type ar
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
85
million, and other resins such as polystyrene,
polypropylene, acrylics, ionomer, and phenoxy,
for another 300 million pounds (Table 53).
Specific end-use markets are discussed next.
Plastic bottle production for these markets is
shown in Table 52.
Chemicals: The overwhelming number of plastic
bottles used to package chemicals will continue
to be high density polyethylene; however, PVC
will show a significant volume increase in the
next decade for certain household chemicals such
as cleaners and wax.
The markets for plastic bottles for household
and industrial chemicals are maturing now and
are not expected to grow rapidly in the next
decade. The primary reason for this is that the
markets for plastic bottles in household bleaches
and liquid detergents are nearly saturated.
Automotive Packaging: In the automotive and
marine categories, substantial growth will take
place as high density polyethylene and poly-
propylene enter volume production for one quart
motor oil containers. We expect plastics to capture
40 percent of total units shipped by 1976. In this
area, plastics will displace a considerable portion
of paper composite cans; these have about 60
percent of the unit volume today; the balance
is held by steel. Even this optimistic estimate
for plastics in oil packaging could be somewhat
low if material costs come down more rapidly in
relation to steel and paper composites.
Although polypropylene is suitable for some
foods and nonfoods, perhaps its greatest promise
is in motor oil cans. So far, problems of cost and
can strength (rigidity) have kept plastics out of
oil packaging, except for premium products.
However, an extruded polypropylene can has
recently been developed. The can is stiff, and can
be produced rapidly.
Another factor which will favor plastics in oil is
that major petroleum companies have captive
resin capacity; some companies also operate
packaging divisions. As the cost differential
between plastics and composite and steel cans
narrows, these companies will be the first to make
the switch to plastics.
TABLE 53.—Shipments of blow-molded plastic bottles by end use and resin: 1960 to 1976
In millions of units and millions of pounds
Classification
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1970
1973
1976
Bottles by end use:
Household and industrial
chemicals
Bleach
Detergent, liquid
Dry cleaners, other...
Industrial chemicals and
specialties
Automotive and marine...
Medicinal and health
Food
Milk, liquid
Toiletries and cosmetics..
1, 351 1, 549 1, 659 1, 740 b 2, 360 b 2, 680 b 3, 000
(a) (») 513 504
(>) (-) 813 802
(') (>) 333 434
(•) (*) ('
( a^ fal (*
( &\ ( ft") (>
( &\ ( ft") ( B
(') (") ('
') 58
') 142
•) "22
') (')
') 416
69
26
143
"51
(•)
525
106
24
265
«91
(•)
579
151
25
288
d65
74
769
700
540
d700
1,400
1,480
1,000
810
d 4, 200
2,940
2,500
1,500
1,100
d 1, 770
6,140
3,430
Total units 1,100 1,700 2,100 1,989 2,364 2,723 3,112 7,180 11,130 16,940
Resin by type:
Polyethylene. . .
PVC
All other resins.
Total pounds.
65
C)
(•)
130
(')
C)
170
C)
C)
194
C)
(•)
223
(•)
C)
262
(•)
C)
289
12
3
550
125
55
800
210
140
1,100
300
300
65
130 170 195 227
270
304
730 1, 150 1,700
* Not available.
b Total household and industrial chemicals.
c Includes milk.
d Excludes milk.
Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Plastic
bottles. Current Industrial Reports, Series M30E (61-13)-M30F.(65-13).
Wfshingtrn, D.C., 1962-1966. Modern Packaging Encyclopedia. William C
Simms, ed. Vol. 39, No. 4A, New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc. December
1965. 863 p. Forecasts by Midwest Research Institute.
-------
86
PACKAGING
Medicinals: The number of plastic bottles used
for packaging medicinal and health products is
expected to quadruple by 1976, from 288 million
to 1.1 billion units. Plastics will displace glass in
many applications. The favored resins will be
PVC and high impact polystyrene. We expect
that plastics will capture about one-fourth of the
total 1976 unit volume for glass and plastics in
medicinal and health products.
Foods: The use of plastic containers for foods
and beverages has been modest to date (65 million
units in 1966). However, we expect that the recent
FDA approval for tin-modified PVC will open up
opportunities for PVC in food where polyethylene
and polystyrene have been unable to achieve
significant volume usage. And, while we do not
foresee widespread use of plastics for food prod-
ucts, food applications will account for nearly 1.8
billion units in 1976. PVC now appears to have
the greatest opportunity in packaging liquid
cooking oils, seasoning products, syrups, pickles,
and the like. New advances in resin technology
could bring other resins into volume use in food
packaging; among them are polyethylene, acrylic
multipolymer, polypropylene, ionomer, and other
compounds.
Milk: The success or failure of plastics in milk
packaging will influence future volume consump-
tion of resins for bottles in a significant way. In
1966, milk packaging was a 26.5 billion unit outlet
for all containers; of this, plastics held 74 million
units or less than three-tenths of 1 percent. By
1976, plastic will probably have captured about 20
percent of the total unit requirements in milk
packaging, mostly in 1 gallon and half gallon
containers. In addition, returnable plastic con-
tainers are likely to satisfy a substantial percent-
age of the remaining 5 billion milk fillings now
going to glass annually.
This forecast is made on the basis that tech-
nological advances will solve the container filling
problem soon. We also expect that special market-
ing strategies will be used by bottle makers to
make change-over for dairies financially attractive.
High density polyethylene will most likely be
the resin used for milk containers. If a significant
market for returnable plastic milk containers
develops, it is likely that polypropylene would also
find a place in milk packaging.
Toiletries and Cosmetics: The use of plastics for
toiletries and cosmetics is already well established.
In the 1966 to 1976 period, plastics units used in
this application category should quadruple (from
769 million to—3.4 billion units). PVC bottles are
expected to become much more important in
toiletries, although high density polyethylene and
other resins are likely to be used in substantial
volume also. The products most likely to be
packaged in plastics are hair oils, shampoos,
creams, and rinses.
The net result of our analysis indicates that
plastic bottles will be one of the more common
sights on retail shelves in 1976. Both the number
of units sold and the weight of plastics consumed
will be more than five times greater than com-
parable 1966 figures. Consumer acceptance of
plastic bottles is well established, especially in
nonfood items, and the increasing sophistication
of resin technology will enable packaging pro-
ducers to custom-design packages for each
product. In addition, many producers will have
the capability to design, install, and service mold-
ing equipment and filling equipment used with
their resins.
Our forecasts do not include more than negli-
gible plastics use in beer and soft drink containers.
Recently, there has been considerable excitement
over the fact that certain (unnamed) plastics are
being test marketed for both beer and soft drinks.
To compete successfully against glass and metal,
plastics have to perform a number of functions—•
hold pressure, not affect taste in any way, accept
decoration readily, handle rapidly, stack well, etc.
Plastics can meet these requirements today, but
not at a cost competitive with metals and glass.
Present plastics technology has not advanced far
enough to make plastic a threat to traditional
materials.
It has been noted in other sections of this report
that metal and glass technologies are advancing
significantly. Very rapid advances in technology
and machinery capabilities would be required to
make plastics attractive on the broad scale basis
that glass and metal containers now enjoy. Resin
costs would also have to decline further. However,
it should also be noted that beer and soft drink
companies are innovative packagers; should con-
sumer reaction favor plastics, even at a premium
price, rapid technological development is possible.
Our evidence indicates, however, that steel, alumi-
num, and glass will be the materials used for beer
and soft drink packages in the next decade.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
87
Plastic Closures
In 1966, 10.4 billion plastic closures were used
for all types of containers. Of these, 5.5 billion
were for glass; 2.7 billion for plastic; 1.0 billion for
metal containers; and 1.2 billion for metal tubes.
An estimated 85 million pounds of various resins
were used for closures in 1966, including such items
as plastic gaskets and cap liners. Of these, 34
percent were thermoset compounds (urea and
phenolics); and the balance, thermoplastics, such
as polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and
vinyls.
Closures are made by injection molding, and
there are relatively few configuration limitations
in making them compare with metals. Special dis-
pensing caps, safety caps, and other special styles
are likely to continue to proliferate and show rapid
growth. In addition, the rapid growth of plastic
bottles almost assures a similar growth of plastic
closures.
We have forecast a total plastic consumption of
210 million pounds for closures in 1976. The ther-
moplastics will take an increasingly larger share
and will most likely represent around 80 percent of
the total in 1976; the thermosets will thus decline
to about 20 percent of total plastic closures.
Although the great bulk of resin volume will go
into caps for glass, metal, and plastic containers,
about 10 percent of the resin by weight will end up
in cap liners and jar lids made of vinyls. The vinyl
cap liners and jar lids are rapidly displacing cork
and rubber and will continue to do so for the next
few years. The outlook for plastic closures, then,
is not unlike that for other plastic packaging
configurations—very favorable.
Plastic Tubes
Plastic tubes consumed an estimated 15 million
pounds of resin in 1966, compared with 3 million
pounds in 1963. In 1967, an estimated 20 million
pounds were used for tubes, accounting for 18
percent of the total unit volume in tubes. There-
fore, during recent years, plastics have taken away
much of the potential growth of metals, such as
aluminum, used for tubes.
Low density polyethylene accounts for over 80
percent of the resin consumption, but more expen-
sive resins such as polypropylene and ionomer are
used because they offer better cl arity and product
protection.
Plastic tubes are presently being used primarily
in toiletries and cosmetics (shampoo, hair creams).
However, the volume market in tubes is now in
dentifrices and potentially in pharmaceuticals.
The outlook for plastics in tubes is for con tinued
growth. Plastics will appear both as the single
material of which tubes are made and also as com-
ponents of composite tubes. Composites are now
beginning to appear. One material combination
already in service is a four-layer composite tooth-
paste tube (Vote) for polyethylene/paper/foil/poly-
ethylene. The tube is lower in cost than either
metals or plastics. It protects the product and is
tough and highly printable. Thus, for certain
products, at least, it appears to fulfill the com-
petitive criteria necessary to make it a significant
breakthrough in this type of container.
We have forecast a total consumption of 40
million pounds of plastics in tubes in 1976 (or
about 450 million units). This is a growth rate of
about 10 percent per year. Both metals and com-
posites (using plastics) are expected to be com-
petitive with plastics on a cost and performance
basis, and the most probable outlook is that none
of these will have a dominant position in collaps-
ible tubes. Low density polyethylene resin com-
pounds should account for the greatest volume in
plastic tubes, although the other types of plastics
such as polypropylene and ionomer are likely to be
used in increasing volumes.
WOOD
Wood is a traditional packaging material but
represents only a minor segment of all packaging
materials today. In 1965 wood products accounted
for 4.2 percent ($638 million) of all dollar ship-
ments of packaging materials and 8.6 percent (7.9
billion pounds) of the total weight of all packaging
materials.
Most wood containers are used for agricultural
and industrial packaging—fruits, vegetables, and
poultry; and plumbing, castings, auto parts,
machinery, chemicals, and so forth. A few wood
containers are used in consumer packaging—
cigar boxes, berry boxes, holiday gift boxes, and
the like.
Wood containers are used primarily because of
their relatively low cost and high strength. They
often go through several cycles of use before they
are discarded. For example, the boxes in which
fruit and vegetables are shipped from one part of
-------
88
PACKAGING
the country to another may be resold at the des-
tination to local truck farmers who will use them
for their produce.
Wood is usually used in its natural state—it is
seldom coated or chemically altered, and it is not
likely that wood containers will be modified in
such ways in the future.
There are four basic types of wooden containers:
(1) nailed wooden boxes, (2) wirebound boxes, (3)
slack and tight cooperage (barrels), and (4) wood
veneer. Table 54 and Figure 24 summarize our
forecast in each of these categories. Table 55
presents the same data in detail.
Nailed Wooden Boxes
Most of the wood which ends up in packaging
is used in nailed wooden boxes. In 1966 nailed
wooden boxes accounted for consumption of 6.6
billion pounds of wood.
TABLE 54.—Consumption of wood in packaging by end use:
1966 and 1976
End use
Nailed wooden boxes
Wirebound boxes
Slack cooperage
Tight cooperage
Veneer packages
Quantity (in millions
of pounds)
Actual —
1966
6,560
1 260
56
176
66
Forecast —
1976
7,320
1,260
25
205
35
10-year
rate of
change
(percent)
1.1
0
-7.7
1.5
-6.2
Total 8,118 8,845
.9
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
These containers come in many sizes and
strengths as indicated by the variety of purposes
for which they are commonly used: fruits and
vegetables, cigar boxes, secondary containers for
milk and beverage products, and industrial
products.
Military requirements have given rise to new
packaging techniques involving wooden boxes.
Recently, wood boxes have been combined with
internal cushionings of molded polystyrene foam.
There is a trend toward larger size, semi-bulk
containers. These containers will probably make
more use of plywood than of solid board; al-
though where rough handling is expected or
heavy protection is needed, solid board will still
be used.
New assembly techniques have been developed
which utilize metal braces instead of nails. The
container is shipped unassembled to the packager
who assembles it in his plant.
Plastic is the chief source of competition for
nailed wooden boxes. Wooden cigar boxes are
being replaced with plastic boxes. Polystyrene
beverage cases are being substituted for the far
heavier wooden cases, as is true with certain
agricultural field "tote boxes." However, there
is not yet a substantial movement away from
wood boxes to plastics because wood boxes have
a long life and plastics are relatively expensive-
For instance, it would be quite costly for a
beverage distributor to replace; his wooden bev-
erage carriers with plastic carriers all at once.
TABLE 55.—Shipments of wooden containers by type: 1958-1976
Type of container
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
Nailed wooden boxes (millions of board feet) . . .
Wirebound boxes (1,000 units) ....
Tight cooperage (1,000 units)
Veneer packages (millions of square feet)
3, 350
. . . 179, 677
2 240
1, 125
3,700
188, 000
2 400
1,045
3,330
185, 000
2,544
1,025
3,330
186, 600
2,442
1, 100
3,500
191, 080
2,205
1,089
3,610
190, 125
1,859
882
1964
1965
1966
1970
1973
1976
Nailed wooden boxes (millions of board feet) 3, 610 3, 710 3, 848 4, 030 4, 165 4, 305
Wirebound boxes (1,000 units) 196, 000 207, 000 210, 200 215, 000 220, 000 230, 000
Tight cooperage (1,000 units) 2, 156 2, 260 2, 340 2, 530 2, 670 2, 730
Veneer packages (millions of square feet) 767 650 570 435 350 300
Source: Modern Packaging Encyclopedia. William C. Simms, ed. Vol. 40, No. ISA. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., September 1967. 879 p. Ibid.,
Vol. 39, No. 4A, December 1965. 863 p. Ibid., Vol. 38, No. 3A, November 1964. 833 p.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
89
SI
•
II
II
Si
II;
If
i 1
£!;;•!: t-?:>:hiiIfp£if x*:
:|:':..:-:i:-;.::-: :•:•:•?:•.
:4 .: ..x x: ......... •
lljj
::::*:..::
11
li
m ::;
;|i:"''
I i i
:l
vO «
* aj
oo o
»n w
o
CL,
O
t—
ON
i-H
ot
6D
'I
-t
O
0)
J
p
o
SdNflOd HO SNOmiW
-------
90
PACKAGING
In some military packaging applications, poly-
styrene molded foam has entirely replaced wooden
boxes. The foam has high shock absorbing capa-
bilities, precision molding tolerances, a high
strength-to-weight ratio, and is relatively in-
expensive to produce. Although it is initially
expensive, polystyrene foam offers a considerable
savings in shipping costs because of reduced
weight. For example, if a wood package weighs
29 pounds, a polystyrene foam package of the
same capacity will weigh only 3 pounds. Foam
is quite likely to displace wood in situations
where individually packaged items must be
carefully protected.
In addition to plastics, nailed wooden boxes
have felt some competition from corrugated
containers and wirebound boxes.
Nailed wooden boxes will have a modest
growth rate in the 1966 to 1976 period because
of competition from other materials and forms
of packaging. The competition will be partly
offset by new assembly techniques, lighter weight
containers, and the development of a few new
markets, such as shipping heavy industrial
products. Future growth at a rate of 1.1 percent
a year is likely; consumption will increase from
3.8 billion board feet in 1966 to 4.3 billion board
feet in 1976. In terms of weight, this is an increase
from 6.6 billion pounds in 1966 to 7.3 billion
pounds in 1976.
Wirebound Boxes
Wirebound boxes are made from lumber, ply-
wood, or veneer, and are bound together by heavy
gauge wire held in place by steel staples. The
steel wire makes the boxes extremely strong.
There is currently a trend toward larger wire-
bound boxes for use in semi-bulk packaging. This
means that the average size of wirebound boxes
will increase and more product will be carried per
unit. For example, one company has designed a
200 cubic foot container that can hold 10,000
pounds of metal castings. Wirebound pallet con-
tainers that facilitate handling, stacking, and
shipping have been developed for industrial items.
Wirebound boxes are also being used more fre-
quently for products that have been shipped
unpackaged in the past—heavy duty machinery
and large parts.
In some applications, wirebound boxes have
been displaced by materials such as corrugated
and solid fiber. For example, the development of
hot-melt coatings has enabled the wet strength of
corrugated to be greatly increased. Coated cor-
rugated is now used for shipping ice-packed poul-
try and has taken away about 30 percent of that
market from wirebound boxes.
Even in cases where wirebound wooden boxes
are not completely displaced by some other type
of container, the wood in the boxes may be par-
tially displaced by a different material. For in-
stance, a wirebound box may be replaced by a
container that has a wood frame and sides, paper
lining, and corrugated ends.
In terms of total wood utilized in wirebound
boxes, the demand will be fairly stable. The dis-
placement of some of the wood by other materials
and the loss of some agricultural markets will be
balanced by new markets for industrial products
and the continued development of larger con-
tainers. In 1966, 1.3 billion pounds of wood were
used in wirebound boxes, ba&ed on an average
weight of 6 pounds per box. Approximately the
same amount of wood will be used in 1976, al-
though the tonnage will represent a greater
number of larger and lighter boxes than are in
use today.
Slack and Tight Cooperage
Cooperage includes all types of wooden barrels
and casks, either liquid-tight or not. The hoops
around the barrel may be of metal or wood.
Liquid-tight barrels are usually made of
white oak, red oak, gum, ash, or Douglas fir.
They range in size from 20 to 60 gallons. The
barrels are used almost exclusively for aging
whiskey prior to bottling and sale.
The use of barrels for aging whiskey is a long-
standing tradition and is unlikely to change in the
next decade. At the same time, there are no indica-
tions that liquid-tight cooperage will be used for
any other purpose in significant volume.
In recent years the total number of liquid-
tight barrels has fluctuated between 2.1 million
and 2.8 million units a year. The fluctuating de-
mand is tied directly to the annual production of
unaged whiskey.
Between 1966 and 1976, barrel production
should rise from 2.34 to 2.73 million units. This
increase represents a 1.5 percent annual growth
rate which will result in a product weight increase
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
91
from 176 million pounds to 205 million pounds
in the 1966-1976 period.
Slack cooperage has been used to ship non-
liquid products such as powdered milk and eggs,
chemicals, sugar, salt, nails, glass and pottery,
soaps, and various foods—meats, poultry, pota-
toes, apples, fish, and vegetables. The barrels
may be either unlined or lined with a substance
such as glue, paraffin, paper, or plastic film.
The cooperage industry is based on a long
tradition of craftsmanship and small local plants.
The industry has been unable to meet the chang-
ing demand presented by new merchandising and
packaging needs. As a result, competing contain-
ers such as steel drums, corrugated boxes, and
unitized package forms have taken away most of
the markets formerly held by slack cooperage.
Because slack cooperage can compete for only
a limited number of applications, it is apparent
that there will be further declines. The decline
will be at the fairly rapid pace of 7.7 percent a
year, from an estimated 56 million pounds in
1966 to 25 million pounds in 1976.
Wood Veneer
This category includes wood veneer and ply-
wood containers, such as pails, drums, tubs, fruit
and vegetable baskets, berry cups, and other
wood veneer forms. These containers are used
primarily for food products. The square footage
of wood used for this type of package has de-
clined substantially in the last few years. In 1966
it was nearly 50 percent lower than in 1962
(down 1.1 billion square feet to 570 million
square feet). This veneer category excludes ply-
wood and veneer included in the nailed wooden
box and wirebound box categories.
The small veneer package is rapidly giving
way to substitute materials and more efficient
configurations. Although the bushel basket and
the small berry basket still have a small share of
the market, plastic containers, plastic film, paper,
and paperboard will continue to displace them.
Weight of all such containers will have declined
from 66 million pounds in 1966 to 25 million
pounds in 1976.
TEXTILES
The use of textiles as a packaging material has
declined significantly in the past few years. In
1958, 918 million yards of textiles were used for
packaging; in 1966 the amount used had dropped
to 804 million yards. The decline would have
been even greater if sandbags for Vietnam had
been excluded from these figures.*
Most textile bags used for packaging are made
from either burlap or cotton; only a small amount
of synthetic fibers is used. The use of cotton has
declined while burlap has increased its share of the
textile market. In 1958 cotton accounted for 40
percent of the market and burlap for 58 percent; by
1963, cotton accounted for only 35 percent of the
market, and burlap had grown to 64 percent.
Burlap bags are strong and have good tear and
snag resistance characteristics. They are used for
products that need minimal protection—feeds,
seeds, fertilizers, potatoes, and the like—and that
can withstand rough handling during distribution.
Cotton sacks have a tighter weave than burlap
bags, and are usually used for products that might
sift through the looser weave of burlap. Flour and
rice are examples of products that are carried in
cotton sacks.
Textile bags are often collected, renovated, and
reused. Burlap bags may be reused commercially
10 or 12 times before disposal. Cotton sacks are
usually put to a secondary use such as yard goods
for items like dish towels.
Textile bags are receiving a great deal of com-
petition from throw-away bags—multi-wall paper
bags, plastic-lined paper bags, and plastic bags.
In general, the throw-away bags are displacing
the textile bags because they cost less, are strong,
and provide a vapor barrier. Semi-bulk containers
such as pallet bins are also competing with textile
bags for high-volume customers. Sandbags are
being displaced by woven polypropylene plastic
bags, which do not rot as rapidly as burlap, are
resistant to chemicals, and are lighter and stronger
than burlap. It is likely that polypropylene bags
will displace textile bags in other uses, and some
textile manufacturers are even adapting their
machinery to weave polypropylene.
Products that are traditionally packaged in
textile bags are moving in two directions, both of
which tend to reduce the use of textile bags: first,
many products are being packaged in smaller
consumer or "unit-of-use" sizes which favor
*Sandbags accounted for 9.9 percent of total shipments
of packaging textiles in 1966, compared with 5.7 percent
in 1965 and 0.5 percent in 1964.
-------
92
PACKAGING
plastic or paper packages. For example, 5 pounds
of potatoes in a plastic bag rather than 50 pounds
of potatoes in a burlap bag. Second, in commercial,
non-consumer uses, extremely large bulk pack-
aging and shipment are becoming more attractive.
For example, flour may now be shipped in a rail-
road tank car to a large commercial bakery.
Formerly, the same company may have received
its flour in 100-pound cloth sacks.
In spite of the loss of some of the market to
other materials, textile bags, especially the very
functional 50- and 100-pound sizes for feed, seed,
and some foods, will still be used in substantial
quantities for some time in the future. However,
it is unlikely that any new high volume markets for
textile bags will develop to offset the loss of tra-
ditional markets, nor are there any recent tech-
nological developments that could lead to new
packaging applications for textile bags. The com-
peting materials are simply more suited to modern
distribution technology, are better packages, and
are less expensive than textile bags.
We forecast a decline of about 5 percent a year
in the use of textiles—from 804 million yards in
1966 to 480 million yards in 1976. In terms of
millions of pounds of material used, this will be
300 million pounds in 1976 compared to 503
million pounds in 1966. This decline is consistent
with the general trend away from reusable pack-
aging materials. The forecast does not include
bags that may be produced and exported for
military uses. Table 56 presents an historical
picture of bag production in linear yards; Table
57 depicts textile bag end-use distribution in per-
centage for the years 1958 through 1966.
TABLE 56.—Shipments of textiles for packaging: 1958-1976
In millions of linear yards
Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964 .
1965
1966
1970
1973
1976
Total
Eihipments
918
945
881
847
870
860
805
740
804
655
560
480
Source: Modern Packaging Encyclopedia. William C. Simma, ed.
Vol 40, No. ISA. New York, McGraw-Hill, IDC., September 1967. 879 p.
Forecasts by Midwest Research Institute.
MISCELLANEOUS PACKAGING
MATERIALS
This section is reserved for the discussion of
those packaging materials that are not strictly
containers but are better classified as package
components of various kinds. Items included here
are (1) pallets and skids, (2) cushioning materials,
(3) connective components such as tapes and
twine, and (4) coatings or applied materials. Some
package components are treated elsewhere, among
them metal strapping, crowns and closures,
plastic cushioning foams, molded paper used for
cushioning, and corrugated dunnage. These latter
items appeared better suited for inclusion under
the base material discussion either because they
are made of a single material, because it was
TABLE 57.—Shipments of textile bags by end use: 1958-1966
Percent of shipment in yards
Endi
1958
1959
1960 1961
1962
1963
L964
1966
Feed
Potatoes
Flour
Meal
Fertilizer
Seeds
Rice
Beans, peas
Other (including sandbags)
38.
12.
16.
5.
4.
5.
3.
2.
11.
1
3
4
5
2
8
7
2
8
29.2
10.9
20.7
5.3
3.1
6.7
4.7
2.9
16.5
33.
12.
16.
6.
3.
5.
5.
2.
13.
6
6
7
5
8
9
0
8
1
31.3
12.3
18.7
7.0
3.6
6.0
3.4
2.9
14.8
30.0
12.1
16.0
5.5
3.9
5.9
5.4
3.1
18.1
27.4
12.4
14.0
6.7
5.3
6.4
5.2
3.7
18.9
515. 9
13.9
]4.9
6.0
5.7
6.0
5.7
4.4
17.5
23.3
15.4
11.1
6.4
5.2
5.8
6.4
3.5
22.9
22.8
15.0
10.9
3.6
6.4
5.3
4.8
4.3
26.9
Total textile bags 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration. Containers and Packaging, 20(2) :4, July 1967.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
93
difficult to separate quantities in a meaningful
manner, or because the technological discussion
was pertinent to such components and would have
had to be repeated if these components were
treated in a separate section.
In 1966, 11.5 billion pounds of miscellaneous
packaging materials were used. By 1976, the
volume should have risen to 17.1 billion pounds,
registering a growth rate in excess of 4 percent
annually in the period. Table 58 summarizes our
forecasts. Table 59 presents the same information
in considerably more detail.
TABLE 58.—Consumption of cushioning and component
material by type: 1966 and 1976
Quantity (in millions Ten-year
of pounds) rate of
change
Actual— Forecast— (percent)
1966 1976
Pallets and skids
Shredded paper for packing.
Excelsior and excelsior prod-
ucts
Tag stock
Tapes
Cordage and twine
Adhesives
Wax
Plastic coatings, polyethyl-
ene
Other plastic coatings
Inks
Total
8,200 12, 300
49
50
4.1
0.2
78
375
730
190
600
577
320
154
208
70
540
1,100
170
930
900
440
300
320
-1.1
3.7
4.2
— 1.1
4.5
4.5
3.2
6.9
4.4
11,481 17,120
4.1
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
Pallets and Skids
Distribution technology has contributed to the
rapid growth in the use of pallets and skids.
Many types of unfilled packages are palletized
for shipment to the filling point, among them
empty soft drink and beer containers. In addition,
palletizing of boxes, sacks, cases, barrels, etc.,
has also taken on added importance in recent
years. Pallets and skids have made their appear-
ance as an integral part of a package when they
are attached to bins or boxes.
Palletizing is used for carrying products from
the factory, transporting them to the warehouse,
and then to the point of use or sale. These units
can be handled, moved, stacked, and transported
efficiently. In addition, increasing attention is
being given to package handling equipment and
systems, including automatic depalletizing, pallet
loading and automated storage and stacking. The
emphasis is on "systems" which move a product
efficiently from factory to end user.
Most pallets and skids are made from low
grade lumber; however, metal, metal-reinforced
wood, and corrugated units are also in use today.
A typical wood pallet of 4 feet by 4 feet weighs
about 150 pounds. Thus, pallets and skids are
among the heaviest individual units used for
packaging service. They have a long service life,
but recycling is a function of cost more than of
useful physical life. For example, a unit which
cannot be economically returned to its source
will be disposed of or sold for local use.
The "systems" concept in distribution will
become a much more important factor in the
next ten years, spurring the use of pallets and
skids. These package components should grow at
a rate of 4.1 percent annually in the period, with
quantities increasing from 8.3 billion pounds in
1966 to 12.3 billion pounds in 1976. Most of this
tonnage will continue to be wood, although
paperboard constructions are beginning to make
an appearance in volume.
Cushioning Materials
A number of the packaging materials previously
discussed are used for cushioning, among them
are plastic foams, corrugated paperboard, cellulose
wadding, and honeycomb kraft paper. Only two
types of materials were singled out for treatment
here—shredded paper and excelsior. In contrast
with other cushioning materials, these are used
exclusively in interior packaging.
Shredded Paper for Packing
Shredded paper used to be a familiar packing
especially for breakables like dishes, glass, lamps,
and other products. However, it has not been used
in significant quantity for many years now.
Census data indicate that total consumption in
1963 was about 49 million pounds.
Shredded paper is difficult to handle, leaves fine
particles on the product, absorbs and holds
moisture, has poor fungus resistance, can have a
corrosive effect, and makes unpacking and
disposal a "messy" process. It is, of course, a
very low cost material and exhibits excellent
326- 388 O - 69 - 8
-------
94
PACKAGING
8
ON
1
CO
s
1*^
(0
!
c
BO
•S
'1?
§ •
a, "a
S -g
1 1
1 1
.2 S
S £
s*~
o>
a,
W5
t§
vj
1
l_
^v
UO
a
hJ
03
H
\O
J\
o
j\
3
a
8
rH
1/5
2
I
1-1
eo
S
1
^
i
PH
1
o\
IO
Cv
^
S
S
"2
S'"
"S
V
a
X
H
O O
m t-
o o
m t-
o o
m t-
§s
t?
3g
ON o
^J1 CO
33
38
ON CO
•* CO
3S
33
X
+-*
u
S
W)T3
.2 8
-K a.
I.S
L. £
shioning Materials:
Shredded paper fo
Excelsior and exce
3
0
o
IN
rH
S
rH
0
tN
rH
r-
IN
rH
03
IN
rH
co
CNJ
rH
ON
IN
rH
ON
IN
rH
O
CO
rH
«N
CO
rH
CO
CO
rH
IN
m
rH
1
£
§0 0
o t—
rH rH
T—T
O 0 O
ON ON C~-«
Tf ON rH
O O O
CO t- CO
•* CO rH
m o o
t- CO ON
CO t- i-H
VO 0 ON
CO t- i-l
t- O IN
ON in ON
IN VO rH
in t-- co
CO ON ON
IN in rH
VO 0 •*
CO in ON
(N in rH
ON p m
CO O ON
IN in rH
IN O VO
t— in ON
IN T}l rH
vo o r-
V£5 rH ON
IN Tf rH
CO rH CO
vo r- ON
IN CO rH
1
CS
V
01
a
"5.
*J
p,
V
CJ
X
V
.. to
V „
.« 'C
*J O
•S bo
a »
S *•
m a
u
S -a
S a;
00 -t-*
x y
t> v
.- |_
"8 *""
rj u
mponent materials:
Tag stock
Tapes, gummed ai
cloth backed) . .
Cordage and twin^
o
U
o
rH
CO
rH
O
in
VO
rH
1
rH
in
ON
CNI
rH
r-
m
IN
rH"
ON
CO
rH
i—T
m
r^
o
rH
O
s
T-^
<*
CO
ON
CO
rH
ON
CO
r-
co
IN
CO
CO
"a
1
o o o o o
CO O Tj> O M
ON ON •* CO CO
O O O O O
IN lO rH VO CO
CO t- •*? M CNI
o o o o o
IN co co rH in
r- vo co IM csi
O t- O •* CO
o f- c
"3
0.
Kr>
Total (excludin;
o
(N
rH
t~-"
rH
O
5
in"
rH
O
s
Tf
rH
i— |
3
r—T
rH
rH
rH
^0
o"
rH
P
Cl
ON
rH
t~
rH
co"
g
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
95
shock absorption qualities for product protection.
It has simply lost out to other forms of internal
packing which do not exhibit the drawbacks of
shredded paper. A variety of pads, honeycomb
papers, corrugated board, plastic foams, and other
special low cost constructions has made shredded
paper essentially obsolete. There is, of course,
some residual demand for the product and on this
basis we carry this category in the forecast at a
nominal 50 million pounds in 1976.
Excelsior
Data on excelsior are very limited. It is known,
however, that excelsior is being displaced as a
packaging material by other products. It has the
same limitations as shredded paper—it is difficult
to handle, "dusts," absorbs moisture, is affected
by fungus, etc. Excelsior, of course, is a very low
cost material and exhibits excellent shock absorp-
tion qualities. In packaging, it can be used in both
bulk form and as the interior stuffing for protective
pads. Our estimates are that about 78 million
pounds were used in packaging in 1966; we expect
1976 production to have dipped to 70 million
pounds.
Connective Component Materials
Tag Stock
This paper falls within the "special industrial
papers" category of paper. It is a relatively heavy
grade material (similar to office file folders) and is
used primarily for tags. It is thus a peripheral
packaging material. Tags are usually attached
directly to a package item—stapled to a box or
attached in some other manner to an unpackaged
product. Tags are of course usually printed. End-
use data were not available for this material.
Production of tag stock was 375 million pounds
in 1966. The growth rate for the 1958 to 1966
period was 4.5 percent per year. However, much of
this was accounted for by a one-year growth of 23
percent in 1965. In 1976, we have forecast pro-
duction of 540 million pounds based on a growth
rate of 3.7 percent per year.
Tapes
Tapes (gummed and pressure sensitive) are
used extensively in packaging for a variety of
applications—box, carton, and bag sealing and
bundling: for "stapling" a product to a card; for
carrying handles on cartons; and a variety of other
applications including mail packaging. Tape man-
ufactures have developed a number of tape types
in the last few years; and there is also a wide
variety of manual, semiautomatic, and automatic
equipment to dispense and apply tapes.
Pressure sensitive tapes in particular have
become quite sophisticated in recent years as ad-
hesive technology has advanced. Pressure sensitive
tapes may use a paper backing or be the film type
(cellophane, acetate, vinyl, polyester, and glass
reinforced). Standard gummed tapes usually are
kraft paper backed with a simple water activated
animal or vegetable glue.
Tape manufacturers have applied their advanc-
ing technology effectively and the use of tapes in
packaging is growing rapidly, competing with
stapling, steel strapping, and conventional carton
sealing as well as with shrink wrapping.
In the 1958- to 1963-period, the growth rate of
gummed pressure sensitive tapes was about 10
percent a year. We estimate that 730 million
pounds of tape material were used in 1966. Tape
use should generally parallel the growth of packag-
ing as a whole, and we foresee an annual growth
rate of 4.2 percent per year to 1976, resulting in
consumption of 1.1 billion pounds in 1976.
Cordage and Twine
Selected types of cordage and twine were
included as packaging components, primarily the
hard fiber twines and the soft fiber cordage and
twine. Rope, cable, fishing line, and some miscel-
laneous categories were omitted. Cordage and
twine are made primarily of jute, paper and cotton,
or manmade fibers such as nylon. They are, of
course, used for a variety of applications from
wrapping packages for mailing to baling of agri-
cultural products. A number of automatic tying
and wrapping machines are available, but in
general cordage and twine are associated with
agricultural uses, and simple hand and semiauto-
matic tying applications.
The quantity of cordage and twine declined
from 198 million pounds to 193 million pounds in
the 1958 to 1963 period. The soft fiber types (pri-
marily paper, cotton, and artificial fiber) increased
by 25 million pounds (from 80 to 105 million
pounds), but hard fiber twines declined by 30
million pounds. Hard fiber twine declined from
59 percent of the total in 1958 to 45 percent in
1963. We have estimated cordage and twine con-
-------
96
PACKAGING
sumption at 170 million pounds in 1976 repre-
senting a decline of 1.1 percent per year for the
ten-year period.
Coatings and Other Applied Materials
The materials grouped in this category are used
in a variety of ways on a variety of package types.
Included here are adhesives, wax, plastic coatings,
and inks. These materials are used primarily on
paper and plastic, but they may be applied to any-
packaging materials—certain types of cans, for
instance, are now seamed with adhesives.
Since these materials are applied as coatings,
they may alter the performance characteristics or
appearance of particular package configurations.
However, their effect on the package from a dis-
posal standpoint is often minor, and in terms of
analytic criteria used, the significant implication
of these materials is that they may discourage
salvage; plastic coated papers, for instance, are
virtually unusable with present repulping tech-
niques; inks and adhesives are more readily
processed.
Adhesives
A variety of adhesives is used in packaging, '
ranging from common vegetable adhesives to
resins. Most of the adhesive consumption goes
into paper and paperboard packaging—for con-
struction of corrugated board, bag making, carton
sealing, etc. Adhesives are also used widely for
applying labels and laminating films and foils.
There is a constant demand for new adhesives,
particularly in flexible packaging, where new
materials and materials combinations are used.
The trends in technology are toward adhesives
that (1) achieve bonds by heat or by chemical
reaction and dry instantly; (2) form barriers to
gases and water; and (3) form stronger bonds with
less material. The outlook is for a steady growth
in consumption and continued development of
new types of adhesives in the next decade, not
only for paperboard and flexible packaging appli-
cations, but also for metal can seams, labels of all
types, and a multitude of other sealing uses.
About 600 million pounds of adhesives (solids
basis) were used in packaging in 1966. The use
of adhesives will grow somewhat more rapidly
than packaging materials as a whole, primarily
because containerboard will enjoy high growth
rates and because structured films, laminates, and
other adhesive using materials will expand rapidly.
A rate of 4.5 percent per year was used in our
forecast, putting consumption at 930 million
pounds per year in 1976.
Wax
Petroleum wax is used either as a coating or
impregnation material for paper and paperboard.
It is used as 100 percent paraffin wax, modified
refined wax (90 percent wax, 10 percent modifiers)
or as "hot-melt" blends in which the modifiers
exceed 10 percent by weight. Wax and wax blends
impart moisture resistance and heat seal prop-
erties, add gloss, and preserve the surface.
Petroleum wax has gone through a period of
rapid change in recent years. Its traditional uses
have been as a coating for milk cartons, wrapping
papers, and paperboard containers. However, in
1961 polyethylene coatings began to displace
wax for milk carton coating and by 1963 the
volume of wax used for milk cartons had dropped
by two-thirds. Since that time, new formulations
using wax have been developed—in particular
the hot-melt formulation for coatings and ad-
hesives for paper, foil, films,, and paperboard
packages. In this new role, wax is a highly refined
component ingredient. Meanwhile, the 100 per-
cent paraffin coating is rapidly becoming a relic
of the past.
From a volume standpoint, wax is now in a
turn-around period. After a rapid decline, wax
use in packaging should grow in the 1966 to 1976
period at a rate of about 4 percent or more.
By 1976, a volume of 900 million pounds of wax
in various forms is likely, up from 577 million
pounds in 1966.
Polyethylene Coatings
Polyethylene made its most significant entry
into packaging in 1961 when it was first used
commercially on a widespread basis for coating
paperboard milk carton blanks. As noted in the
discussion of wax, it was accepted immediately
and volume grew rapidly. Its entry was based on
a rapidly developing extrusion coating technology,
improved resin formulations, and a declining
price trend which made it economical for use on
high volume commodity type packages.
Polyethylene is used as a coating to alter the
characteristics of the substrate. It imparts barrier
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
97
properties to the substrate, particularly moisture
resistance. Polyethylene is also used for its heat
sealing properties, visual appeal (gloss, shine,
clarity), and durability.
Virtually all polyethylene used for coatings in
packaging is low density ployethylene applied by
extrusion coating techniques. Paperboard ac-
counted for about 58 percent of total polyethylene
extrusion coatings or 179 million pounds in 1966
(Table 60). Other substrates—paper, film, and
foil—are becoming more important.
The use of polyethylene coating resins expanded
spectacularly from 1958 to 1965—from 38 million
pounds to 300 million pounds. In 1966 it increased
only another 20 million pounds, almost all of
which was for coating paper, plastic films, and
foil substrates. This sudden change in volume
growth may be signaling a maturing market.
TABLE 60.—Consumption of polyethylene extrusion coatings:
1962, 1964, and 1966
In millions of pounds
Substrate
1962 1964 1966
Plastic films and other plastics are competing
for end uses served by polyethylene coated ma-
terials; thus, polyethylene as a coating competes
against itself. Paperboard, the prime user of PE
coatings, is no longer the growth market it was in
recent years. For example, all-plastic milk bottles
are beginning to be a factor in milk packaging,
and with wax coatings virtually displaced, this is
a mature market for polyethylene. Polyethylene
also finds itself in competition with hot-melt
waxes, polyvinylidine chloride (Saran), and coat-
ing materials for other types of paperboard pack-
aging, e.g., frozen foods.
Coating technology is well established. While
constant improvements are being made, the great-
est advances in these techniques were probably
made in the early 1960's. (Today the greatest
advances in plastics technology are coming in
film extrusion.) The resin formulations are also
well developed.
On the basis of the above, we expect lower
growth rates for PE coatings than were experi-
enced in the early 1960's. Our volume forecast is
based upon a declining percentage of polyethylene
for coating paperboard but increasing use of paper,
FaPer: film, and foil. In 1976, the quantity of polyethy-
Multiwall bags 12.5 12.0 20.7 . . . ., , ..„ .„. /
^ £ , 17n ,, „ .„ , lene coatings should reach 440 million pounds corn-
Wraps, pouches, other 17.9 31.0 49. 1 b r. „. . .
pared with 320 million pounds in 1966. This is a
Total paper 30.4 43. 0 69. 8 growth rate of 3.2 percent per year for the ten-year
== period.
Paperboard:
Milk cartons 77.7 127.5 148.0 Other Plastic Coatings
Other—dairy, bakery, frozen A variety of plastic coatings Other than poly-
foods, cups, etc 8.8 26. 7 31.2 ethylene is also used for coating paper, paper-
Total paperboard 86.5 154.2 179.2 board, film, foil, glass, and metal. These materials
— accounted for 154 million pounds, or one third, of
Films: Meats, cheese, boil-in bags, total plastic coatings used for packaging. The
dried fruits, nonfood, and mis- types and quantities of each material used are
cellaneous 21'8 36-9 37'9 shown in Table 61.
Foil: Although growth of the combined group has
Food 3.7 6.0 15.0 been impressive, only ethylene vinyl acetate
Nonfood 10.2 10.0 14.6 ana poly vinyl acetate have been increasing in
volume in the last two years. Some materials,
Total foil 13.9 16.0 29.6 ... „ , . , . ,., ,, -A ar
_____________ like cellulose nitrate and vmyhdene chloride, are
Other: 0.8 5.2 3.5 caught up in a declining substrate market (cello-
= phane). Most of the rest are showing little change
Grand total 153.4 255.3 320.0 in volume from year to year.
=====^^====== We did not attempt to evaluate the "other
Source: Modern Packaging Encyclopedia. William C. Si rums, ed. Vol. 40, „!„,,*.•,. «^>oti'n
-------
98
PACKAGING
TABLE 61.—Plastic coatings consumed in packaging by type
of plastic: 1965, 1966, and 1976
In millions of pounds
Plastic type
1965 1966 1976
Polyethylene, low and high density,
extruded 300 320 440
Ethylene-vinyl acetate 18 22
Vinyl chloride resin (for interior
coatings of containers) 15 13
Alkyd, polyester, acrylic, epoxy,
etc. (for exterior can coatings).... 14 17
Other resins for interior coating of
containers (phenolic, epoxy, buta-
diene, etc.) 6
Vinyl chloride resin on paper, film,
and foil 4
Other vinyl chloride coatings (in-
cluding on glass bottles) 3
Polyvinyl acetate (dry Ib) 15
Cellulose nitrate, saran, vinyl
chloride, etc., used for coating
cellophane, etc 40 38
Miscellaneous (including polyvinyl
alcohol, acrylics, low-molecular-
weight PE, saran and PE emul-
sions, styrene-butadiene, etc.) ... 20 25
7
4
3
25
Other plastics, total 135 154 300
Total 435 474
740
Source: Modern Plastics, 45(5):93, Jan. 1968. Midwest Research
Institute.
in the vinyl acetate formulations which are used
in hot-melts and modest growth in the other types.
Production of these plastics should reach 300
million pounds in 1976, up from 154 million
pounds in 1966.
Inks
Inks are one of the important groups of ma-
terials used in packaging. Printing usually appears
somewhere on nearly every package. It may be
used simply to label the contents or to sell the
product by multicolor printing.
A multitude of advances have been made in ink
formulations and printing techniques in recent
years. In general, developments have resulted in
lower printing costs, improved color and resolu-
tion, higher printing speeds, and faster drying
inks. There has been a noticeable increase in the
quantity and quality of printing in recent years,
particularly for consumer packaging. An example
is the corrugated box which was once relegated to
backroom storage but today very often appears
on the sales floor and is color printed for attractive
display.
Between 1958 and 1963 the quantity of inks
reported as "container and label inks" in Bureau
of Census reports increased at tbe rate of 7 percent
per year—rising from 122 million pounds in 1958
to 171 million pounds in 1963. Letterpress is
relatively less important today than in 1958;
lithographic, offset, gravure, and flexographic
processes are all becoming much more important
for packaging. Another process which has had
considerable promise but has not yet reached com-
merical success is electrostatic; printing. In this
technique, ink is deposited on the substrate surface
by being drawn from a charged plate.
Package printing will continue to be an area of
concentrated technological development. The
continued development of improved inks and
printing processes will be the key to more wide-
spread printing applications in packaging. Because
this is a highly active field, we have forecast a
higher growth rate for inks than for packaging
materials in general. Ink consumption for pack-
aging and labels is estimated to reach 320 million
pounds in 1976, up from 208 million pounds in
1966, a growth rate of 4.4 percent per year.
TABLE 62.— Total packaging consumption by type of
material: 1966-1976
Packaging material
description
Metals
Plastics
Wood
Textiles . .
Total
Source: Midwest Research In
Quantity «
In millions of pounds
Actual —
1966
50, 316
. . 14, 304
16, 463
2, 1<>9
8, 118
. . 503
... 91, 903
11, 431
103, 384
stitute.
Forecast —
1976
73, 850
16, 830
23, 800
6,260
8,845
300
129, 885
17, 120
147, 005
^en-year
rate of
change
(percent)
3.9
1.6
3.8
11.0
.9
-5.0
3.5
4.1
3.6
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
99
SUMMARY
Overall, packaging materials, on a tonnage
basis, will increase at a rate of 3.6 percent an-
nually in the 1966 to 1976 period. The quantity
of all materials consumed will increase from 103.4
billion pounds in 1966 to 147.0 billion pounds
ten years later. Table 62 and Figure 25 summarize
the forecast for the years 1966 and 1976. Table
63 shows historical and forecast quantities, by
major categories, for the period 1958 to 1976.
Table 64 presents these data in detail.
The ranking of the major materials on the
basis of the weight they contribute to solid waste
will not change significantly in the forecast period.
Paper, glass, metals, wood, plastics, and textiles—
in that order—will be the major materials in both
1966 and 1976. However, the relative dominance
of the materials will undergo changes. Paper,
glass, and plastics will have a larger share of the
tonnage produced; metals, wood, and textiles will
decline in percent of total (Table 65).
Per capita use of packaging materials will in-
crease from 525 pounds in 1966 to 661 pounds in
1976. Use of these materials, in 1958, stood at 404
pounds (Table 66, Figure 26).
The impact of packaging materials on solid
waste in terms of disposability is taken up in
Part II of this report which follows.
-------
100
PACKAGING
TTT
TT
i—3—r
', \
\ I
I
1
1
I
1
I
i
M
I 1
M
II
I
\
\
,i
ti
^
i i
11
i i i \i
I I
i
s
So
w
do sNomia
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
101
o
3s
*H
1
a
*
•H
QJ
1
£>
V)
I
*
3 of pounds
* C
!
2 "
[•
•)
i
3
a
1
>O
Ov
eo
r-
o
t-
i— i
m
*
s
Ov
3
O\
s
o\
o
o\
s
o«
a
CN
CO
s
3
n
S
0
n
o o o o m o
i/l CO O 'O T? O
CO CO CO (N CO CO
CO ^O fO O CO
l> -—I
VO CO ON O ^O CO
LO 10 O *tf CO
>O i-H sM
to 2 o o o
r- o e\] o\ r— i
O O \O ro rp
CO 1/5 ON CO CO
1/5 rH "— '
\0 T? CO ON CO CO
r— 1 O ^ ON i~* O
CO CO ^ '~~t i^ LO
O -^ ^O (N CO
1/5 i-H "H
co tM LO o LO eo
TP CO O CO lO \O
O\ 1/3 !> CO CO Tj
\o ON rf i/i to
r-t d CO rH t—
•^ 1— 1 1— I
CO CO M IN r— 1 T?
ON CO CO CO ^O Tf
CO -O fO (N ^ 10
O eo eo rH o
Tfi i— 1 rH
o m co o irt ON
m vo ON T? 00 (M
O (M CO i— I F-H LO
S?S2~ ^
»• O CO CO O i-H
O C^ CO CO O if}
\O CO CO ON r— I 1/5
\c" CO CO LO
\o" eo" N" t-"
CO i— 1 -— 1
CO ON \O \O ON Tf
O CO ^O CO ON o
i— t i/5 CO I> i— ( 1/5
CO" ci r-T t^-"
CO f— < i— I
"g : • ; • •
§:::::
"I • • • : :
8, : • : : :
Sk
TJ : : : : :
e • . . . •
W • . aj .x
yjijl
PH S 0 E ^ H
in
CO
CO
OS
IM
rH
m
r-
o
VO
^H
rH
O
CO
OS
Tf
O
I-H
«J
O
o\
rH
OS
«5
CO
to
M5
CO
IN
S
f— 1
CO
s
o
S
S
r-
£
«
f-
m
«
t-
Os
IO
rH
rH
t-
(N~
l>
t~
VO
O
S"
"3
1
o
-------
102
PACKAGING
»
t^
Ov
2
s
v\
r»H
^
?!
*j
^
i1
1
fe
^ 'O
g C
i?!
*"* O
SP »
1 I
O .3
8 -a
a. 'E
"S>£
>•)
1
M
a.
S
^
TP
NO
Cd
J
m
^3
H
r-
^
«
f-
2
0
2
S
&
1/5
a.
1
i-<
CO
§
i
s
«
g
1-1
1
s
"^
V
0
C
u
en
"a
1
a
E
1
o
m
co
co"
t--
1
in"
NO
T?
TP
co"
in
NO
rH
CO
o"
in
1
NO"
TP
£
0
TP"
TP
r-
CO
CO
rH
TP
I
T?
g
O
co"
CO
r-
t—
NO
NO"
co
r-
m
CO
NO"
CO
CO
0
rH
83"
d paperboard
e
a
b
&
09
PH
e
c
IT
CC
IT
§
cr
pr
u-
s
r"
If
Tf
r-
cr
p—
cc
cr
r-
c
CS
if
cr
Tf
g
Cs
cr
Tf
1
F™
cr
S
cc
o
CN
N£
C
C
cc
CN
CN
O
t-
N£
c-
f-
If
0
NC
CN
t-
t-
c
Ti
CN
«
!•
-
P
1
'
"
"
"
\
"
:>
s
r
i
*
i
3
i
-i
«
3
3
!•
^
§0000
CO TP NO ON
in rH ON CNl
O" ON" NO" i-<
T"P
30 o o o
P CNl rH IN
O O CO O (N
IO CO m rH rH
CO
O 0 O 0 O
co r- rH m m
IN O NO O rH
O" CO" TP" rH" rH
CO
in ON ON O =2
rH IN 0 (N LO
ON IN r; — i o
TP" r-" co" -H" rH
c~ TP ON in *N
CO CO CO 0 ^>
\o" m" c^ rH1
rH
in IN ON CN] ON
NO co co in NO
;$ pi co -H NO
NO" m"
T
O
c-
c\
Cf
t^
1
+
•
•
I
":
b
"
1
"
"
\
"
4
"
S
'
>
"
3
j
5
1
«
x
u
3
j
H
o o o o o
IN TP O O IN
in IN o m m
rn~ IN" m" IN"
o o o o o
CO NO rH t- ON
TP rH TP TP TP
rH CNl TP IN
O O O O O
in co — i TP o
CO O ON TP TP
i-T CNl" CO" CNl"
TP TP CO TP TP
TP co m IN £2
CNl ON CO TP TP
rH" i—T CO IN
co co co co 53
rH TP TP O 2
IN ON IN TP TP
rH rH CO IN
IN TP IN co ej
O CNl NO ON ON
IN ON ON IN CO
rH~ rH^ M" Cq"
TP IN IN NO g
TP 0 in ON JO
rH ON t~- CNJ ^
p—T rn" IN" CNl"
NO IN IN TP
"3
1
cn
0 O 0 O
TP CO O O
rH TP TP NO
rH" rH"
O O O O
O -H IN r-
o co TP in
rH" rH"
O O O O
t- 0 TP (0
co IN TP in
I-H"
IN NO CNl rH
CO NO t- CO
r- o TP TP
rH
co TP in in
NO CO t> TP
NO ON TP TP
(N CO IN O
TP ON NO rH
S CO TP TP
TP TP IN rH
ON r- r- co
m co TP co
ON CO rH O
r- o r- co
in co TP co
TP rH ON C<1
CO TP NO CO
in o TP cq
O- ON O O
rH CO CO IO
in o TP cNi
§in CN] IN
in ON rH
m t- TP IN
tl-- O t-
CN] ^p CO
NO TP rH
ON CO
IN ON
| |
rH 00 >-H
CNl t- CO
3 2 S
IN CNl TP
NO NO NO
IN IN IN
1 rH
§11 1
§ 1 4 1
"° o « a
a 5 *j S
a f o -H -a
SB J, u a « e
.3 8 S«s «
a | C _? I 8 "8
'§,._:-§ ill ll
-s .S 1 1 U 1 * B.
g£S-g§il<£
§>ogoS.2-3
U ffl H OH
O
CO
cc
NO"
rH
O
in"
rH
R
0
in"
rH
S
CO
Irf
rH
CNl
CO
m
co"
rH
NO
CNl
C-)
co"
rH
CNl
t—
IN"
rH
CO
co
NO
co"
rH
LO
NO
IN
co"
0
t—
CO
CNl"
rH
TP
CO
rH
co"
rH
i
ci
P— i
'oj
+•>
V
M-H
rS
OC tOOu^OOOOO
CMC (MuO^O^OONlMCMCO
^Tj —iTfvnON'-tCOeO
i—T r— r i— r
rH
OOOOOOOOOO
ONC'COfOOONCO*NOON
O>O rHTflOON'-HCOCO
o" ^" I-H"
p-H
OC'OOOOOOOO
OC'COrHinrHt—CNlCOO
NOt— rHCONOOOrHINTP
o" <-*
rH
OOONINCONONOOOCOIN
TPINCOCONOTPOCNlNOrH
CO CO (NNOCOrHINTp
o" I-H"
rH
TPirSininrHCNlTPCOTPTP
cor-cocoinrHto) INNOt-rHCNITP
ON" rH
TpocoocoNOTpcocom
C-INCOCOCOONCNIOTPO
TPC-J (NNO^-rHINTP
ON~ rH"
TPOOCN1CONOONOO\I~-
inr-TPt-rHCO(~-rHcOON
rHrH (NNONOrHCNJCO
oC rn"
ONOCONOCNllNNOTPONO
TPt— CONOOCOCOCNICOTP
CO IN NO NO rH (N CO
O" rH"
rH
COU'iCOt-OOTPCOTPNO
(NNJDCOIOONCNJONOCOCO
O rH NO in rH IN CO
O" rH"
CN1OCOTPTPCN1OCNJNOCNI
OLOINint—COINrHCNlCNl
NO rH NO NO rH CNJ CO
oC i—T
co NOcoiONOoiNTpin
ON c-qTpcOTpONincom
CO rH in NO rH CN! CO
ON" ^H"
CNl TPNOt-INOCOcOf-
C^ C-]COinNOO(NINCO
lO rH TP t~- rH (N CO
OC rH"
CO
CNl (N CO rH rH t—
o o co co I in
O
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
103
o
o
CO
co"
CM
O
o
ON
o"
CM
0
o
ON
rH
CO
NO
•*
NO"
rH
m
o
t~
in
rH
CM
m
r~
•*•"
CO
§
co"
rH
CO
CO
CO
co"
CO
ON
CO
CO"
CO
CO
CO
CM"
rH
CO
c^
CM"
NO
NO
CO
rH
O
CM
CM
CO
m
to
O
NO
CM
NO"
in
S
•?•"
o
CM
NO
CO"
ON
ON
CM"
o
§
I— 1
O
rH
^O
1-4"
LO
o
^
rH
(N
CO
IN
r- 1
^O
Tf
rH
rH
CO
1?
•*
NO
CO
NO
CO
t~
CO
o
o
in
m
co"
m
•*
CO
CM"
0
CO
NO
I-1"
s
CO
l>
CM
r-
•*
CO
m
NO
in
T*-
CO
o
•<*
CO
CO
r~
o
CM
t-
CM
2
~a
3
PTj
[So
'E
OJ
X
"d
z
:d
3
'£b
p2
o o o o
O T? O -H
r- T?
csi co
r- co co o
CM CO 0
(N CM
LO CO CO LO
ON rH >O
rH (N
LO • Hp! t— LO
rH ^H I—I
LO O CO
CM • ^ LO
rH . rH
LO O CM
O • CM CM
. rH
CM • co CM
co • t~- CM
CO • i-H CM
CM • NO CM
"* Tf T? •
ON ON ON -
r— t— r-
o o o
CO CO CO
.' : 1J
2
! "o
g •
-8 '.
a
• a
' —i &
a . ^ OJ
w on « b
SrS g |
&&£$
<
«
c
«
L
C
C
c
c
t-
CN
C-
li
-
M
C
C
-
c
T
c
T
r
c
0
c
0
N4
I-
r
t-
c»
r
c
c
i
5
H
7N
M"
2
n
n
M"
i
JN
H
H
0
H
•:
o
H
H"
3
^]
3
H
r\
f
^
f
0
o
s]
0
5
^
5
:
5
;
H
O O O
CM CO NO
co o m
CM"
0 O O
Tf rH O
CO NO •*
rH"
O O O
NO CO O
CO CM CO
rH
m o CM
ON CO ON
CO t^ rH
in m co
O rH CO
•rf NO rH
O O NO
rH O rH
Tt> in rH
in o •*
o •* o
••* -rp rH
o o •*•
rH CO CO
•* CO
co o m
CM •*? NO
Tf CO
ON O f~
co co in
•* CM
NO r- •*
co -^ m
Tj< CM
co in CM
o r- m
•* rH
rH ^ LO
Tf CO CO
CM CM CM
•*? -*t T?
CM CM CM
: a a
<£ *•£
s S '•£
§ T.JS
-= — CH
III
« O «
O PH O
in
•*
CO
co"
o
NO
co"
o
ON
CO
CO"
CO
rH
co"
m
m
CO
o"
CM
CM
NO
r-"
•*
CO
in
t--"
rH
NO
Tj<
!>•"
in
CO
rH
t— "
§
i — 1
t— "
NO
CO
CO
t-"
2
t— "
T3
O
o o in m m
CM NO CM O CO
CO CM CM
I—" rH"
O O O O O
CO NO CO O •*
O CM CM
t— " rH"
O O O O O
m NO •* ON in
CO CM rH
NO" rH"
O O NO O NO
NO NO in r~ NO
in CM rH
NO" rH"
r- CM rH o m
o •* NO t~ r-
CO CM rH
NO" r-T
f- NO CO O -H
CO t- NO NO CO
rH rH rH
NO" I-H"
r- o m ON co
CO -^t C— CO ON
rH rH rH
NO" rH"
o NO T? m NO
in •* CO NO rH
ON rH rH rH
in" rn"
rH NO CO ON NO
NO rH ON ON rH
NO ^H rH rH
IO" rH"
rH O CO t- ON
NO rH O O O
NO ^H rH CM rH
m" r+
O CO Tf ^* o
ON CM rH ON rH
CM rH rH rH rH
NO" r-f
m co f~ o ON
ON t- CN] CO — H
NO O rH rH rH
in" I-H"
CM CO
rH in
O O ON O
rH CM in in co
•* •* T* rf Tfl
•* •* Tf Tf Tfl
CM CM CM CM CM
(J • . - ,
X
° CC •
•* « u 0 ?
fl g & M g,
111
f 3 § O SU
rH 0 0 0 t,
3 1 -a I, I
^-Isj
1 o
0
CO
o
m
CO
o
rH
•*
§
in
CO
NO
Tf
CO
o
in
CO
CO
in
3
LO
ON
CM
LO
r-H
LO
LO
i-H
ON
LO
S
LO
o
s
CO
CM
S)
n
—
—
'*j
o
CM
rH
!>"
i — 1
1
in"
rH
O
ON
O
•*"
rH
CO
•*
rH
m
r-
m
o"
CO
o
CM
ON"
rH
r^
-H
CO"
O
CO
CM
f-"
NO
ON
•HI
NO"
NO
m
r~-
m"
in
f-
rH
in"
r-
in
NO
•*"
cc
S
1
«
J2
— ,2
&
0
CM
rH
0
CM
rH
O
CM
rH
t-
CM
rH
CO
CM
rH
CO
CM
rH
§i
rH
ON
CM
0
CO
i — i
CM
CO
rH
CO
CO
rH
(N
CO
rH
CM
^
CO rH
NO CO
UO O
ON ON
"* CM
"O Tf
CM CM
x
u : !g
0, . u,
a • S
P* • n
•d IM g
I la a
1 8 S
_a x o
En W OH
e
rS
0
rH
CO
rH
O
m
NO
rn"
1
i—T
in
ON
CM
FH
r~
m
CM
rH
ON
CO
rH
rH
in
t—
o
1-1
0
§
Tf
CO
ON
CO
rH
ON
CO
l>
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
- Tfl
CM rH
CO 1
in co
ON rH CO
•^ T? ON
NO vo CM
CM CM CM
• X
. CB
. u
CS
• • g a
• C
: • *£ ^
P. ^
^J -rH
' • ft .
^O f-H
• a *
j^ . « M
o . o -a
0 • Sj C
x 01 rt rt
D rH
6D B. S SS,
cs ca o £F
H H U .S
«
cS
o
ON
CO
CM"
o
CM
in
CM"
i
rH
CM"
ON
LO
00
1 — 1
£
t-
~
1
rH"
CO
CO
in
~
ON
in
m
in
•*
m
rH
ON
t~-*
Tf
^"
in
in
•*
rn"
0
5
rH
s ***
rH in
rH i — 1
ON rH
CO ON '
CM CM
'
tr>
'S .i
III
r^4
f> —H
H3 2
ja as
w S
4)
?
CLi
in
§
§
m
t~
o
NO"
rH
rH
O
S
•*"
0
rH
1
rH"
ON
CO
CO
CO
~
NO
CO
CM
ON
r-
co
-*
in
o
co"
t~
NO
m
t-
NO"
(--.
CO
t-
in
co"
r-
ON
in
rH
rH"
r-
co
0
CM"
i—
r-
§
NO"
NO
00
y
Q
U
n
-2
in
o
o
r-"
•*
in
NO
in
rH
CO
rH
0
CM
0
ON"
rH
•*
CO
CO
s
rH
CO
m
ON
NO"
ON
m
NO
O
rH
ON
in
CM
CNI
NO"
CO
NO
CO
o
•*"
CO
i
o"
CO
m
rH
ON
NO"
r-
co
CO
CM
t-"
t~
Tf
f-
g"
CO
cfl
rH
V
4^
n
S
--
«
1
1
^3
4->
O
^
-d
e
cs
O
S
3
D
a
;
i
i
^
I
!
i
)
j
I
i
-------
104
PACKAGING
S
0
«- <
CO
s
r-H
1
•*
^
materials
eight
ackaging
ercent by w
> A
'%
—Consum
s
a
r!
pa
H
vo
s
fi
r-
c\
rH
S
CN
£
Cv
*
o\
§
2
2
2
S
o\
*
^
s
c\
1
i
V
ft
X
O O CO CO CO C<1 (N rH LO
T? irt co cvi c?\
IO 1— 1 rH
O\ C<1 O O fC vo
CO vo CO N ON
Irt — 4 rH
f- efl CO CO t~- l>
CO vo t- i-J ON
in -H rH
vo CO i^ t-^ t"- f-
IN r-i r-1 1-1 o\ '
IO — H rH
t— O
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 105
TABLE 66.—Per capita consumption of packaging materials by kind: 1958—1976
In pounds per capita
Type of material
Paper and paperboard . . .
Glass
Plastics
Wood
Total
1958
. 189.3
. 72.0
67.8
. . 4.2
41.2
3.3
377.8
26 6
404 4
1959
207.2
73.8
71.9
4.9
44.1
3.3
405.2
29 1
434.3
I960
203.0
71.2
71.3
5.4
39.8
3.0
393.7
31 9
425 6
1961
207.0
72.2
72.9
6.2
39. 1
2.9
400.3
35.3
435.6
1962
216.4
73.3
71.7
6.9
40.0
2.9
411.2
39.0
450 2
1963
228.4
69.3
75.9
7.7
41.3
2.9
425.5
44.6
470. 1
1964
229.4
68.8
76.8
8.4
39.7
2.6
425.7
48.3
474.0
1965
241.2
69.5
80. 7
9.7
40.4
2.4
443.9
54 3
498 2
1966
255.5
72.6
83.6
11.2
41.2
2.6
466.7
58.3
525.0
1970»
283.6
73. 1
92.2
17.6
40.7
2.0
509.2
68 4
577 6
1973 »
307.0
74.3
97.8
22.0
40.3
1.6
543.0
72.5
615.5
1976 »
332.1
75. 7
107 0
28.2
39.8
1.3
584. 1
77.0
661. 1
a Series C population projection used for 1970, 1973, and 1976.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports. Series P-25, No. 372 and No. 359. Washington, D.C.,
1967. Midwest Research Institute.
-------
106
PACKAGING
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
w
8 80
Qd
B.
0
I
d 70
03
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
—
—
—
TOTAL 70.7
6.6%
= 0.8%=
10.2%
1 U%
16.8%
17.8%
46.8%
TOTAL 97 0
10 9%
8 1%
1 9%
16.2%
14.0%
48.4%
TOTAL 119.0
11 8%
7.1%
3.0%
16.0%
12 7%
49.1%
TOTAL 147.0
11.7%
6 0%
4.3%
16.2%
H.4%
50.2%
MISCELLANEOUS
TEXTILES
WOOD
PLASTICS
GL^SS
ME:TALS
PAPER & PAPERBOARD
1958 1965 1970 1976
YEAR
ource: Midwest Research Institute.
FIGURE 26.—Consumption of packaging materials by weight: 1958-1976 (billions of pounds)
-------
PART II
The Disposability of Packaging Materials
-------
-------
The Disposability of Packaging Materials
INTRODUCTION
The objective of the second part of the research
effort was to evaluate projected qualitative and
quantitative changes in packaging materials from
the waste disposal point of view. Our findings are
presented in this section of the report.
Disposability is an aspect of packaging materi-
als which has received virtually no attention.*
Packaging materials can be measured and de-
scribed in hundreds of ways to define their charac-
teristics and functions. But their disposability has
not been measured. Consequently, the best judg-
ments as to their performance in various disposal
processes are fundamentally descriptive and sub-
jective.
The reasons for this situation are not difficult to
discover. The packaging industry has never viewed
disposability as a criterion of design. On the con-
trary, the industry's aim has been to create pack-
ages that would not crush, break, dissolve, bend,
fade, collapse, burn, etc. To cite another reason,
the serious nature of environmental pollution by
solid waste has not become crucial enough to
deserve notice until recent years. Solid waste dis-
posal has been and continues to be, characterized
by low technological sophistication. One conse-
quence of this has been that disposal system oper-
ators have not demanded—and have not had the
financial support to develop—information which
would clearly define the disposability character-
istics of materials in particular processes in a
quantitative manner.
Today, a trend away from this state of affairs
is discernible. This is a result of growing aware-
ness of solid waste handling problems resulting
from burgeoning populations and government in-
terest in this aspect of environmental pollution.
*A distinction must be made between "discardable" and
"disposable" containers. In packaging and in popular
speech, a "disposable" container is one which may be
thrown away or discarded after use. In fact disposal of
the container or package may not be easy after it is dis-
carded. Nevertheless discardable packages may be re-
warded in the marketplace.
This interest has sparked a reaction on the part of
the packaging industries; they are concerned about
their vulnerability to possible legislation aimed at
remedying the situation. A number of industries,
either through in-house efforts or through their
associations, have appointed senior officials to
look into the disposability aspects of the materials
manufactured by their particular industry. As a
consequence, it appears that the first steps have
been taken toward expanding package design
criteria beyond strictly functional considerations.
To the traditional missions of the packaging ma-
terials manufacturer, another may be added: to
create a package which is relatively easy to dispose
of.
The analysis of packaging material disposability
has not been an easy one. A paucity of information
and an almost complete absence of precedents and
guidelines were the starting points. We were cast
into the role of those who must make the first
halting efforts toward creating concepts which can
then be refined and modified by others.
Three aspects of disposability are discussed in
this report: (1) quantities of various materials to
be disposed of; (2) collection problems associated
with these materials; and (3) the resistance of the
materials to processing by present disposal tech-
niques.
DISCUSSION OF DISPOSABILITY
Disposability may have several different mean-
ings depending on the point of view of the
observer.
—For the housewife, a package is disposable if
she can discard it. It is not disposable if she
must return it to the store.
—For the trash collector all packages are dis-
posable but some configurations are easier to
handle than others. Cans and paper bags
can be placed into a dump truck or a com-
pactor truck without trouble. Large steel
drums pose special handling problems. And
wrappers, bottles, and cans strewn along
109
336-388 0-69-9
-------
110
PACKAGING
highways present special and costly pickup
problems.
—For the operator of a waste processing facility,
disposability of materials will depend on the
nature of the process used. Certain noncom-
bustible packages, for example, are undesir-
able in incinerators but may be entirely
acceptable in sanitary landfills.
Given these varied points of view from which
disposability can be regarded, together with the
large numbers of different materials and configu-
rations of which packaging wastes are composed,
it is difficult to express measures of disposability
in terms of a single value system. If reliable
nationwide cost data on waste disposal in all its
aspects—collection, handling and transfer, and
disposal or recycle—were available in sufficient
detail to permit calculation of costs associated
with discrete waste components, it might be
possible to express disposability in a single cost
figure: so many dollars per ton today, so many
dollars per ton tomorrow. Such data, however,
are just beginning to be developed and are not
expected to be available for some years to come.
The absence of cost information which could
be used for determining the relative disposability
of packaging materials for the nation as a whole
has required an approach involving three separate
analyses:
(1) Analysis of the quantity of packaging ma-
terials to be disposed of in 1966 and 1976 and
the significance of the changes that are
anticipated;
(2) Analysis of the collection problems asso-
ciated with the various materials; and
(3) Analysis of the resistance to disposal of the
materials in different waste handling processes.
Before examining these analyses, it would be
helpful to understand the complexity of the dis-
posal "system" by which the nation's solid wastes
are handled. An overview of the system is pre-
sented in Figures 27 and 28. These flow charts
omit much detail but they do suggest that there
are many alternate routes by which a material
can move from the user to ultimate disposal or
reuse.
The overall disposal system may be viewed as
a complicated "pipeline" with processing facilities
at its end. The operator of pipeline and plant is
concerned with two basic elements of the "prod-
uct" he must move and handle: its volume, which
determines the capacity of the system . . . and
the nature of the product itself which determines
the technical design of the facilities; fresh milk,
by way of analogy, could not be conveyed in
the same system as crude oil.
In this sense, the quantity of waste to be
handled represents an overall load on the system
irrespective of the routes that may be used or
the facilities to which the waste is channeled.
The technical parameters are the composition
of the materials; shape, size, and configuration
of the packages; and the characteristics and
behavior of the waste as a whole in a variety of
processes and collection systems.
Associated with each element is cost—cost of
land, of physical facilities, and operating costs.
Ideally, disposability should be gauged in terms
of total cost for handling a given material in
the system; this is not possible at the present time
because even the most rudimentary of surveys—
of total waste generation; of types, numbers, and
locations of facilities; of total expenditures—are
only now beginning to be made, and at present
only a small number of states have advanced
far enough to have a clear picture of their own
disposal systems.
In the absence of cost data it is necessary to
make qualitative judgments of the disposability
of packaging (or other) materials by measuring
quantity and by comparing the relative technical
difficulty of processing various materials through
present waste disposal facilities.
ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE CHANGES
Packaging Waste in Perspective
According to our best estimates 350 million
tons of solid waste are generated by residential,
commercial, and industrial sources in the United
States every year. Of this total, residential waste
accounts for approximately 160 million tons,
and industrial and commercial wastes for about
190 million by weight. Looking at residential and
industrial wastes separately, packaging materials
accounted for 19.9 percent of residential wastes
and 7.7 percent of commercial and industrial
wastes. In addition to these tonnages, agricultural
and mining wastes, scrapped automobiles, and
building rubble must also be disposed of, but these
wastes seldom enter normal disposal channels.
Of the 51.7 million tons of packaging mate-
rials generated in 1966, only about 10 percent did
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
111
*
1 •
SORT
r
Source. Midwe..
* t *
MON"M"Tir . fc DIRECT TO INTERMEDIATE
NON^L\ABLE »• DBpoSAL SITE CONSOLIDATION
* t
SEGREGATE AT RESHIP TO
CONSOLIDATION DISPOSAL SITE
1
1 4
r
SORT & SELL
t Research Institute
FIGURE 27.—Solid waste flow from consumer to disposal site or recycle
-------
112
PACKAGING
KJ
H
0
w
o
w
J
CQ
Q
S
O
_]
S
3
z
£
o
5
S
•
M
_J
^
o
2
W
3
cd
2
w
O
P
*
^
2
Q w
OH,
Q
J
H
O
S
few
i ra z
w ^ I
M g M
*o|
u
S
is
f-i E-<
sil
* 0 o
tt, W Z
*
o
H
;?
w
1 ,
pa
c^
g
5
S
2
a
Q
C
0
P
i
P
D
1
Q
W
rrt
J
3
cj
r
J
J
q
J
5
i
1
_
L^
<
§™
a
0
J
<
S3
Q
S
2
O
S-
CS
CS
a
£
O
[I]
rt
8
Q
ag
•^ b]
HO
w ^
!§
i
EL
a
<
>
<
u
2
1 '
w Q
co 2
S §
£
i
T
*"
w
CO
3
g
Q
i ,
O
CO
CO
(M
P
o
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
113
not eater the solid waste stream. The remaining
90 percent (46.5 million tons) accounted for 13.3
percent of the Nation's total volume of solid
wastes. Residential sources of packaging materials
accounted for 31.8 million tons of the total, or
9.1 percent; industrial and commercial sources
for 14.7 million tons, or 4.2 percent.
The 5.2 million tons of packaging material that
did not enter the solid waste stream in 1966 were
recycled materials, consisting primarily of paper.
The paper component of this total amounted to
4.8 million tons—3.2 million tons of container-
board and 1.6 million tons of other packaging
paper. Other materials—metals, glass, plastics—
constituted the remaining 0.4 million tons.
While recycling directly reduces the quantities
of packaging materials requiring ultimate dis-
posal, there is another factor that affects the
disposal of packaging materials that are consumed
in any one month or year. Some materials are
delayed from entering or are diverted entirely
from entering the solid waste stream. This factor
introduces the time element and recognizes that
not all packaging material becomes waste in the
year it is consumed. For instance, some packaging
is reused in its original configuration or is put to
secondary uses or is permanently retained for
some reason. Examples of some of these items are
steel drums and pails, fiber drums, returnable
bottles, wood boxes, textile bags, gas cylinders,
pallets and skids, paperboard boxes and special-
ized glass containers.
Also, at any time, a consumer or business
might have a diverse inventory of boxes, plastic
and glass containers, wrapping paper, sacks, cans
and the like in some secondary use. However,
these items are not usually accumulated in large
numbers and are rapidly discarded or replaced.
(An example would be a housewife who saves
sturdy corrugated containers for use as mailing
containers or uses glass jars for food storage.)
Nonetheless, these materials are discarded at
about the same rate as they are accumulated with
only a minute number permanently diverted in one
year.
TheTefore, all practical purposes we found no
basis on which to differentiate this latter group
because of its insignificant impact on the total
quantity of materials. Thus, with the exception
of recycled materials all packaging is considered
to enter the solid waste stream in the same quan-
tity it is produced in any one year.
The costs of collection and disposal of solid
wastes were estimated at $3.2 billion in 1966, an
average of about $9 per ton across the nation.
Costs fluctuate widely from location to location
and may reach $25 per ton in certain areas.
On the basis of $9 per ton for collection and
disposal, the 1966 packaging materials volume
cost the nation $149 million to process from the
user to ultimate disposal (including recycling).
By 1976, residential waste tonnage is expected
to reach 215 million tons. Packaging wastes
weighing 45.2 million tons will be a part of this
tonnage, representing 21 percent of the total.
We have no forecasts of industrial waste genera-
tion in 1976. Packaging wastes from industrial
and commercial sources, however, including
salvaged materials, will have increased from 14.7
million tons in 1966 to about 21 millions tons in
1976.
Disposal costs for packaging materials will rise
from $419 million to $595 million, assuming no
increase in the costs of collection and disposal,
which is unlikely. In fact, the unit costs of
handling packaging wastes will exceed the $9 a
ton mark for three reasons: labor costs are ex-
pected to increase; the waste will be less dense;
and more sophisticated processing facilities will
be used (incineration and sanitary landfill in
place of opening dumping).
Absolute and Relative Increases
Packaging materials volume will rise from 51.7
million tons in 1966 to 73.5 million tons in 1976,
an increase of 21.8 million tons. About a third
of the increase, 6.9 million tons, will be accounted
for by population expansion; about two-thirds of
the increase, 14.9 million tons, will be generated
by changing consumer habits which increase
consumption per capita (Figure 29).
Actual per capita consumption in 1966 was
575 pounds. This is expected to increase to 661
pounds by 1976 (Figure 30). This means that, on
an average, each man, woman, and child in 1976
will use 136 more pounds of packaging material
than he used in 1966.
This projected increase in per capita consump-
tion of packaging materials is actually quite
conservative when viewed in historical per-
-------
114
PACKAGING
70
60
50
CO
2
O
H
0 40
CO
2
s
1— 1
2
30
20
10
o
TUTAL li.S
—
TOTAL 51.7
—
_—
—
—
>$$$$$g
xVvvS/Vv
xVVS?VVv
>88888o<
8888888
'/////////////
////////////
'/////////////
ATTRIBUTABLE TO
INCREASED CONSUMPTION
14.9 MILLION TONS
—
ATTRIBUTABLE TO
POPULATION INCREASE
6 . 9 MILLION TONS;
—
.^
—
—
1966 1976
YEAR
Source: Midwest Research Institute
FIGURE 29.—Consumption of packaging materials: 1966 and 1976 (millions of tons)
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
115
700
600
500
400
$
s.
S
-------
116
PACKAGING
spective, as shown below (Table 67) in comparison
with the recent past.
TABLE 67.—Average annual increase in per capita consump-
tion of packaging materials: 1958 to 1976
Average annual
increase
1958 to 1966 2.7 percent
1960 to 1966 2.9 percent
1966 to 1976 2.3 percent
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
Turning to individual packaging materials, the
most significant per capita percentage gains will
be made by plastics, paper, glass, and metals in
that order. Wood and textiles will decline. Per
capita increases of these materials in the period
1966 to 1976, expressed both in pounds and as a
percentage of 1966 volume, are shown in Table 68.
TABLE 68.—Increase in per capita consumption of pack-
aging materials; 1966 to 1976
Material
Per capita Increase as a
increase in percent of 1966
pounds 1966 to consumption
1976
Plastics
Paper
G-lass
Metals
17. 0
76. 6
23.4
3. 1
152
30
28
4
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
It should be noted that in these and other
forecasts, population projections of the C series
published by the U.S. Department of Commerce
have been used. The Series C projections are
next to the lowest of the four projections made
by the Bureau of Census. We believe it to be the
most reasonable. If population growth exceeds
that projected in the Series C tables, per capita
consumption would remain relatively unchanged;
but total packaging volume would trend higher
than projected in this analysis.
Significance of Findings
The significance of these findings for the opera-
tor of a waste disposal facility may be summed
up as follows: packaging waste generation will
continue to grow at a rate substantially exceeding
normal population growth, requiring the addition
of waste collection and disposal plant capacity
for packaging materials at a rate of 2.3 percent
annually in the 1966 to 1976 period just to
accommodate industrial and consumer purchasing
habits.
Also implied in the quantitative analysis are
other factors which will be discussed at greater
length below. Among these: (1) wastes will be
more costly to collect per pound because they will
be lower density; (2) the proportion of difficult-to-
handle materials, especially plastics, will increase;
(3) the amount of land necessary to store and/or
process these materials for ultimate disposal will
nearly double; and (4) the volume of salvagable
materials in the waste will increase substantially.
ANALYSIS OF COLLECTIBILITY
Collection in Perspective
Collection of wastes is by far the most costly
aspect of waste disposal. Nearly 90 percent of all
expenditures on waste processing are attributable
to pickup and transportation of wastes. The total
spent on collection by the nation has been esti-
mated at approximately $2.8 billion.1* Of this
total, packaging materials accounted for $373
million.
Another way to illustrate the size and com-
plexity of the collection function in the United
States is to look at total vehicles used. In 1966
approximately 150,000 trucks were operated
exclusively for trash and garbage pickup, about
one-third by municipalities, the balance by private
contractors.2 The overwhelming majority of these
vehicles were closed-body compactor trucks
capable of carrying three times the load haulable
by noncompactor types. In addition, another
85,000 vehicles (sedans, pick u;p trucks, construc-
tion vehicles, etc.) were also operated by solid
waste agencies and contractors in their collection
and/or disposal operations.
Some Basic Distinctions
In order to make a judgment about the relative
collectibility of packaging materials in 1976 as
compared with 1966, some basic distinctions con-
cerning collection problems must be pointed out.
One fundamental difficulty connected with col-
lection falls outside the effective control of the
package manufacturer and the disposal agency
*Reference citations are listed at the end of the report.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
117
and arises exclusively from sociological factors;
that is, the cooperation of the public in the actual
disposal of its wastes.
This can be illustrated by considering the vast
difference in difficulty and cost between collecting
one ton of cigarette wrappers discarded in trash
containers and one ton of wrappers casually
thrown from the windows of cars along highways
and streets. In the first instance, we are faced
with a simple collection task. In the second, we
are faced with littering. Thus, the same material
or package may have a radically different degree
of collectibility depending on whether it is dis-
carded under controlled or uncontrolled
circumstances.
A second area of distinction is between volume
and the technical characteristics of the waste.
Assuming, for instance, that packaging wastes
do not change in composition between 1966 and
1976, the total volume would be more difficult to
collect a few years hence because there would be
much more of it. Assuming that the volume
remains the same, collectibility of a ton of waste
may become more difficult nevertheless, because
of compositional and configurational changes.
Our analysis of collectibility recognizes these
distinctions and each area singled out above is
separately discussed.
Litter
Packaging materials apparently constitute a
large part of the total litter to be found in the
United States. Two well-known litter surveys—
one in Kansas and another in Vermont—would
seem to establish that fact beyond any reasonable
doubt.
The Kansas survey listed 3,086 items (Table
69) found along a one-mile stretch of a two-lane
highway. Of these, 2,036 (65 percent) were dis-
carded packages; if the 770 paper cups found are
also listed as packaging materials, the percentage
jumps to 88 percent.
Table 69 shows that the bulk of items discarded
(2,540 items or 82 percent) as used to convey or
to dispense beverages and cigarettes, with bever-
ages making up the lion's share of the total.
Vermont's State Litter Commission, whose
survey (conducted in the mid-1950's) was con-
siderably more extensive and included all litter
accumulations across the State, also placed paper
and metal packaging materials high in overall
TABLE 69.—Survey of litter found along a one-mile stretch
of two-lane highway in the State of Kansas
770 paper cups
730 empty cigarette
packages
590 beer cans
130 pop bottles
120 beer bottles
110 whiskey bottles
90 beer cartons
90 oil cans
50 paper livestock feed bags
30 paper cartons
26 magazines
20 highway maps
16 empty coffee cans
10 shirts
10 tires
10 burlap bags
4 bumpers
4 shoes—no pairs
2 undershirts
2 comic books
2 bed springs
270 miscellaneous
items
Source: John E. Evans. The beer man's guide to lessening litter.
New York, Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, undated, p. 5.
volume. Glass containers ranked lowest, probably
because of a four-year ban (1953 to 1957) on
the sale of nonreturnable glass beverage containers
in Vermont.3
Analysis of these survey findings in light of
expected future trends in packaging would suggest
that litter volume may rise rather sharply during
the next 10 years, unless some kind of national
conscience can be developed to inhibit such
carelessness.
The basis for this judgment is that consumption
of beverage containers per capita will increase
dramatically in the future as nonreturnable con-
tainers capture larger shares of the beer and soft
drink markets. The increases in consumption
may be shown most tellingly by a look at per
capita consumption of beverage containers (Table
70).
This growth in the consumption of beverage
containers—which constitute a large proportion
of the packaging litter—will be accompanied by
a rise in the car population from 35 cars per 100
TABLE 70.—Per capita consumption of beverage containers:
1966 and 1976
Type of container
Consumption per
capita in units
1966
1976
Percent
increase
Wine and liquor 12.9 13.8 7.0
Beer 28.5 40.8 43.2
Soft drinks 19.8 66.1 233.8
Total beverages 61. 2 120. 7
97.2
Source: Compiled by Midwest Research Institute.
-------
118
PACKAGING
people in 1966 to 44 cars per 100 people in 1976.
This is significant because littering and motoring
are related activities.
Volume
The problem of volume faced by waste collec-
tors as a result of packaging material consump-
tion changes in the 1966 to 1976 period may be
summed up briefly. Collection systems operators
will have to haul about 19.6 million tons more of
these materials in 1976 than in 1966 (90 percent
of the 21.8 million increase).
Assuming an average capacity of four tons per
truck, the national increase in packaging ma-
terials volume will necessitate nearly 4.75 million
more collection trips in 1976 than were required
in 1966. Assuming a work year of 250 days and
two trips per truck to a disposal site, 9,500 new
compactor trucks will have to be added to the
collection vehicle population by 1976 to convey
just the increase in packaging materials expected
by then. If additional trucks need to be pur-
chased, investment costs necessary to obtain the
required carrying capacity by 1976 would
amount to between $135 and $190 million at
present prices.
Other Factors Affecting Collectibility
Two closely related characteristics of pack-
aging material waste are of particular importance
from a collection point of view: density and
compactibility.
A material which takes up fewer cubic yards
per ton is more collectible than one which takes
up more space. This is because the space capacity
of the collection vehicle—nearly always the
limiting factor—is better utilized with denser
materials. Fewer trips have to be made to haul a
given tonnage, and costs are consequently lower.
Where materials have the same natural density,
configurations which are compressible are favored
over those which resist compaction.
These collection criteria permit another ap-
proach to the evaluation of collectibility on the
basis of density and compactibility. Compacti-
bility may be included in a general evaluation of
collection since the overwhelming majority of
collection vehicles in use are compactor types.
Packaging material waste, viewed as a whole,
is a heterogeneous mixture of paper, metal, glass,
plastic, wood, and textile packages in thousands
of configurations. A ton of representative material
on the basis of 1966 and 1976 distributions is
shown in Table 71.
TABLE 71.—Composition of a ton of packaging materials:
1966 and 1976
In Pounds
Type of material
Paper board
Metals
Glass
Wood
Plastic films
1966
650
416
312
358
176
28
20
10
1976
734
404
260
366
136
44
52
4
Percent
change
over
1966
12 9
9 4
16.7
2.2
— 22.7
57.1
160.0
— 60 0
Total 2,000 2,000
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
The change in composition of this representative
ton of packaging materials between 1966 and 1976
is significant in that a decline in average density
will take place. Assuming that the materials are
compressed to their natural density—a fully
densified state with all air space eliminated—the
1966 ton would take up 29.9 cubic feet (1.1 cubic
yards); but the 1976 ton would take up 31.2 cubic
feet (1.2 cubic yards), an increase of 4 percent.
Another -way to put it: in 19(56, a cubic yard of
packaging materials compressed to natural den-
sity would weigh 1,782 pounds; in 1976, a cubic
yard would weigh 1,728 pounds or 54 pounds less.
Unfortunately, complete demiification cannot be
achieved by compaction, so our analysis must be
tailored to the actual capabilities of present day
compaction equipment. Household refuse in the
garbage can usually weighs around 175 to 225
pounds per cubic yard. At 100 pounds per square
inch (psi) pressure, the density of this refuse
exceeds 1,400 pounds per cubic yard under labora-
tory conditions. Compactor truck mechanisms can
exert maximum pressures ranging up to 27 psi,
which would result in a density of about 800
pounds per cubic yard for compacted household
refuse; in most cases, however, densities of around
400 pounds per cubic yard are more usual.
Discarded packaging materials are classified as
rubbish, and rubbish is generally of lower density
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
119
than mixed household refuse which may include
ashes and garbage. Uncompacted rubbish densities
may vary from 60 to 600 pounds per cubic yard
depending upon its material composition, water
content, and the degree to which it is compressed
in the rubbish container by the householder.
The difficulty of determining the uncompacted
density of packaging materials may be illustrated
by a look at metal cans. A cubic yard of steel and
aluminum cans (mixed in proportion to their
present market shares), would weigh slightly more
than 300 pounds uncompacted if the cans were
carefully and tightly stacked (see Table 72 for
basic data used in calculation). In such a case,
nearly 98 percent of the space would be taken up
by air within and between the empty cans. A
cubic yard of such a mixture of steel and aluminum
cans compressed to natural density (complete
solidity) would weigh more than 12,700 pounds
or over 6 tons! It is easy to see that a housewife
who flattens her tin cans before throwing them
away can materially reduce the volume of her
trash, and thereby contribute significantly to the
relief of waste collection and disposal problems.
TABLE 72.—Shipments of metal cans by end-use markets:
1965
End-use market
Percent of Representative
shipments * capacity in
fluid ounces
Fruit, vegetables, soups, juice. . .
Evaporated, condensed milk ....
Other dairy products
Meat, including poultry . .
Fish, seafood ....
Coffee . ....
Lard, shortening. . . .
Soft drinks
Beer
Pet food
Oil cans
AH other food
All other nonfood
Total
* Base boxes of metal.
29.2
3.2
.4
2.9
2.5
3. 7
1.6
6.4
18.9
4.2
2.6
11.7
12.7
100.0
10
4
4
10
4
32
32
12
12
15
32
15
16
Source: Can Manufacturers Institute, Annual Report—Metal Can
Shipments—1966. Washington, D.C. 1967, Midwest Research Institute.
Although many factors in the shifting mix of
packaging material subcategories are expected to
influence compactibility, most of the increase in
difficulty can be traced to a few basic changes:
—Paperboard, which is more difficult to com-
pact than other types of paper packaging,
will represent a higher percentage of total
paper and paperboard tonnage, 79.2 percent
in 1976 versus 75.8 percent in 1966.*
—Easily compactible metal cans will decline in
share of the market from 11.6 percent by
weight of packaging materials in 1966 to 9.9
percent in 1976.
—The decline in metals will not be made up by
the increase in glass, also a readily compact-
ible material. Glass will increase from 17.9
percent to 18.3 percent.
—Plastic film, whose compactibility is poor
because of its resilient nature, will increase
its share from 1.4 percent to 2.2 percent:
total plastics will increase from 2.4 percent
of total in 1966 to 4.8 percent in 1976.
Significance of Findings in Collection
For the manager of a municipal collection
system or for his counterpart in private business,
the significance of these findings may be summed
up as follows:
Expected quantitative and qualitative changes
in packaging materials consumption in the 1966
to 1976 period will:
(1) Intensify the litter problem primarily by
providing greater quantities of nonreturnable
beverage containers;
(2) Call for the addition of new equipment to
handle a 19-million ton increase in packaging
refuse alone; and
(3) Render collection more difficult because the
waste will be less dense and more difficult to
compact.
ANALYSIS OF RESISTANCE TO
DISPOSAL
Disposal Methods in Perspective
Waste materials must sooner or later be dis-
posed of by one or two routes—by deposition on
the soil or by conversion into gases which become
part of the atmosphere. Of these, only the first
route can serve as a complete ultimate disposal
method. Even when wastes are incinerated, ash
residues are left over which must be deposited on
the soil. Fly ash and dust which escape to the
*Concerning compaction see the discussion and qualifi-
cations on page 124.
-------
120
PACKAGING
atmosphere must eventually also settle out on
land or surface water.
Ignoring ocean disposal, disposal on the soil,
or ultimate disposal, can take two forms. The
waste can simply be dumped on the land with
little or no attempt to modify its appearance by
compaction or burial. However, dumping on land
may also be practiced under controlled circum-
stances, whereby the wastes are first dumped,
then compacted, finally covered with an inert fill
material. This technique is called sanitary
landfilling.
Wastes may be incinerated as a step to reduce
their bulk and weight. Excluding open burning—
which is practiced at some dumps—incineration
is practiced by three sectors of the economy:
cities, which employ municipal incinerators;
commercial and industrial firms which practice
on-site incineration; and the public itself, which
burns wastes in outdoor burners or apartment
house incinerators where such disposal is
permitted.
Additionally, wastes may be reduced in a
composting plant where most of the material is
converted to a useful soil conditioner, another
portion is salvaged, and the remainder is disposed
of by dumping or incineration; if incineration is
used, residues must once more be disposed of.
Finally, salvage operations can also be used to
reduce the amount of waste which must reach
ultimate disposal. Salvage may take place at
various points in the disposal chain: (1) at the
point of storage, collection, or transfer; (2) at the
dump or landfill site; (3) hi conjunction with
incineration—before and after burning; (4) in
conjunction with composting; and (5) as an
independent disposal activity. Salvage, by its
very nature, implies that large quantities of
useless materials will be left over which must be
handled by some other means.
Of these reduction and disposal processes, by
far the most common is open dumping. It ac-
counts for nearly 80 percent of all waste disposed
of. Strictly speaking, open dumping is not a
disposal technique so much as a form of controlled,
and in many cases, uncontrolled storage. Wastes
are simply deposited in an area. The foremost
"technical" considerations in open dumping are
locational: the site should be located close enough
to the collection area to be accessible, far enough
away from residential or business districts so as
not to generate too many complaints, located in
such a manner as to be hidden from sight, and
located downwind from inhabited areas to prevent
the drift of smoke and/or odors into built-up
areas.
It is readily apparent that the costs associated
with this method are quite low in comparison
with techniques where considerably more pro-
cessing of the material is required.
Open dumping is cheap but it is also undesirable.
We foresee the progressive elimination of open
dumps in coming decades in continuation of an
established trend. This trend alone will have the
greatest single impact on waste processing in the
next 10 years: a growing tonnage of waste will
be handled by processes which are substantially
more costly than dumping.
A comparison of the relative dominance of
disposal methods in 1966 and 1976 is shown in
Table 73. Here the percentages shown refer to
waste tonnage handled by each technique. All
incinerated waste tonnages are combined in a
single figure, regardless of the sector in which
they were disposed of (cities, industry, public).
In 1966, approximately 6 percent of total waste
was incinerated in municipal, commercial, in-
dustrial, and apartment house incinerators; about
8 percent was disposed of in backyard, household,
and burners.
The percentages shown in the table are based
on all residential, institutional, commercial, and
TABLE 73.—Relative dominance of disposal methods: 1966
and 1976
Disposal method
Percent of solid
waste tonnage
handled
1966
1976
Incineration " 14.0 18. 0
Sanitary landfill b 5.0 13.0
Open dumping c 77. 5 64. 0
Composting .5 1.0
Salvaged 3.0 4.0
Total 100.0
100.0
a Includes all disposal by burning—municipal, commercial, industrial,
apartment house, and backyard household burners—except burning
operations at open dumps or on seagoing barge*.
b Strictly defined; waste is covered daily
c Includes open dumping, ocean dumping, and casual dumping (litter);
burning of waste may be practiced in conjunction with open dumping.
d Includes all operations where salvage is practiced, including salvage
operations in conjunction with composting, incineration, landulling,
collection, etc.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
121
conical industrial wastes. Demolition wastes, aban-
doned automobiles, agricultural wastes, and
mining wastes, are excluded.
Discussion of Processes and Materials
The purpose of this section is to discuss in detail
the roles played by various materials in the dif-
ferent processes, and to present quantitative in-
formation on which the ranking system presented
in the next section, was based. A brief discussion
of each process is presented, together with an
evaluation of the suitability of the various ma-
terials for disposal by that process.
Incineration
Refuse incineration is the best technique for
reducing the volume and weight of waste ma-
terials. Volume reduction for all wastes ranges
from 70 to 80 percent, while weight reduction of
between 60 and 80 percent can be achieved.
The single most important characteristic a
material can possess for suitability in this process
is combustibility.
With the exception of glass and metal contain-
ers, all packaging materials will burn, albeit at
different rates. Paper, textiles, wood, and plastics
are all combustible (especially when dry), although
plastics generally have lower burning rates than
the other materials. Most incineration problems
are associated with the fact that metals and glass
are unsuitable for the process and with the fact
that the refuse incinerated varies widely in com-
position. Consequently, different burning rates of
refuse components can have an adverse effect on
the incinerator's performance. A truckload of
plastic containers, for instance, can cause a good
deal of trouble whereas occasional plastic con-
tainers representing a small portion of a total
load cause no difficulty whatever.
A second major material characteristic govern-
ing its suitability for incineration is the inert
residue it leaves. A ton of packaging materials,
containing representative proportions of all mate-
rials, will leave a residue of approximately 705
pounds after incineration. Of this total, 637
pounds (or 90 percent) are accounted for by
metal and glass containers. Since paper is expected
to increase its proportion of the total by 1976,
the inert residue of a representative ton of mate-
rials should decline to 672 pounds. Metals and
glass will account for an estimated 598 pounds,
about 89 percent of the residue (Table 74).
Clearly, removal of glass and metal containers
from packaging wastes to be incinerated would
virtually eliminate the secondary disposal prob-
lem associated with the incineration of packaging
wastes.
A number of other parameters for judging
packaging materials in incineration were also used
in this evaluation: Btu content of the materials,
sulfur content, and potential damage to equipment.
Btu content (Table 75) is significant in in-
cinerator operations if waste heat from burning
is recovered for use. Waste heat recovery is not
TABLE 74.—-Inert residue of a ton of packaging materials by material: 1966 and 1976 '
Material
Paperboard b
All other paper ....
Metals ...
Glass ...
Wood . .
Plastic films
All other plastics
Textiles ...
Total
Perc
ine
regie
3
7
90
99
2
6
19
3
1966
rt Share of total packaging
lue waste
1
57
65
49
02
89
72
72 °
17
n percent
32.5
22.3
15.6
17.9
8.8
1.4
1.0
.5
100.0
In pounds
650
446
312
358
176
28
20
10
2,000
Residue in
pounds
23.2
34.1
282.3
354.5
5.1
1.9
3.9
.3
705.3
Percen
residue
tribute*
total
3.
4.
40.
50.
100.
1976
t of Share of total packaging
con- waste
1
29
84
03
26
72
27
55
04
00
In percent
36.7
20.2
13.0
18.3
6.8
2.2
2.6
.2
100.0
In pounds
734
404
260
366
136
44
52
4
2,000
Percent of
Residue in residue con-
pounds tributed to
total
26.2
30.9
235.3
362.4
3.9
3.0
10.3
.1
672.1
3.90
4.60
35.00
53.92
.58
.45
1.53
.02
100. 00
a Based on 1966 and 1976 material tonnage shares. See Table 71.
b Containerboard, special foodboard, and set up boxboard only.
c In test batch, this category included rubber, feather, plastics heavier
than films, and shoes; as a consequence the residue percentage may not
be accurate as to heavy plastics alone.
Source: Elmer R. Kaiser. Composition and combustion of refuse.
In Proceedings, MECAR Symposium, Incineration Committee, ASME
Process Industries Division. New York, 1967, p. 4. Midwest Re-
search Institute.
-------
122
PACKAGING
TABLE 75.—Heating values of packaging materials: 1966
In Btu per pound
TABLE 76.—Sulfur content of a ton of representative
packaging materials: 1966 and 1976 a
Material
As received
basis
Dry basis
Paperboard
All other paper
Metals •
Glass •
Wood
Plastic films
All other plastics b
Textiles
6, 389
5, 390
683
79
6, 850
11, 138
6, 778
5,876
7,841
7,793
742
84
8,236
13, 846
9,049
8,036
* Btu in labels, coatings, and remains of contents.
b Test batch included rubber, leather, plastics heavier than films, and
shoes.
Source: Elmer R. Kaiser. "Composition and combustion of refuse.
In Proceedings of MECAR Symposium, Incineration Committee, ASME
Process Industries Division. New York, 1967. p. 4.
commonly practiced in conjunction with U.S.
incineration; but in Europe waste heat is generally
recovered. Since it seems probable that this
practice will also be adopted more frequently in
the U.S. in the future, Btu content of materials
was made one criterion for the evaluation of
materials.
The most accurate measures of air pollutants
generated by the incineration of packaging mate-
rials would be actual analysis of off-gases obtained
under all conditions of moisture content and
operating temperatures from the combustion of
material batches composed of representative
proportions of materials.
Such data are not available. However, in an
attempt to measure the air pollution potential
associated with packaging materials, we have
used sulfur content as a rough measure. Packaging
materials are generally low in sulfur content: a
ton of representative material contains just under
2 pounds of this substance. By 1976, the total
will increase slightly (Table 76). However, far
more significant, from an air pollution control
point of view, is the pollutant load emitted to
the atmosphere as a result of the incomplete
combustion of refuse in normal incinerator opera-
tions—carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons-
toxic nitrogenous compounds, participates, etc.
Almost any material can cause damage to
incineration equipment or interfere with smooth
operations if the incinerator is not operated
properly. Some materials can cause difficulty
merely by appearing in higher concentrations than
anticipated in the incinerator fuel and operating
specifications.
Material
Cardboard
All other paper
Metals
Glass .
Wood
Plastic films
All other plastics
Textiles
Total
Sulfur
content
percent by
weight,
dry basis
0. 14
12
.01
.00
. 11
.07
.55
.20
Sulfur
content,
in pounds.
1966
tonnage
share basis
0.91
54
.03
.19
.02
.11
(c)
1.80
Sulfur
content,
in pounds,
1976
tonnage
sbare basis
1 03
49
03
. 15
03
.29
(O
2.02
a Based on 1966 and 1976 material tonnage shares.
b Test batch, included rubber, leather, plastics heavier than film, and
shoes.
0 Insignificant.
Source: Elmer R, Kaiser. "Composition and Combustion of Refuse.
In Proceedings, MECAR Symposium, Incineration Committee, ASME
Process Industries Division. New York, 1967. p. 4.
Among packaging materials, glass can present
an incineration problem regardless of package
size or shape in well-run municipal or industrial
incinerators. Glass may liquefy and then deposit
on the incinerator wall and floor surfaces, forming
a bond with the firebrick which is greater than
the adhesion of the brick itself. When these
surfaces are cleaned, they are unavoidably eroded.
This problem appears to be most common in in-
cinerator operations where the combustion takes
place at temperatures of 1300°F air temperature
and above. It may be noted that few incinerators
are operated at design temperatures; consequently,
in practice, glass usually appears as inert residue
rather than as a deposit on the; refractory lining.
Plastics tend to create problems at low-tempera-
ture points in an incinerator. They melt, flow
down to the grates, and coming in contact with
cool air entering the burner, they solidify again,
clogging the grates. Such problems are typically
associated with heavier rigid and flexible plastics
such as bottles and tubs. Ligbt plastics—films,
coatings, sacks, etc.—do not cause the same
difficulties.
Steel containers are not reported to cause
damage or difficulties unless they are over-size.
There is some indication, on the other hand, that
the presence of steel cans (and open-end glass
jars) can have a beneficial effect by creating
hollows in the refuse, thus aiding air movements
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
123
and combustion. Aluminum cans are reported to
behave like the heavier plastics.
Sanitary Landfilling
In sanitary landfilling, the basic objective is to
store—trouble-free—as much refuse as possible on
a given piece of land. Obviously, a material which
has a high density when compacted is desirable.
Similarly, given two materials with the same den-
sity, the one which is more easily compacted and
retains its compacted shape is more suitable for
landfilling than one which requires greater force
for compaction and/or tends to spring back when
pressure is released.
The solid density of packaging materials varies
considerably—from 480 pounds per cubic foot for
steel to 37 pounds for wood. To put it another way,
more than 13 tons of solid steel can be placed with-
in the space required for a ton of solid wood (Table
77, Figure 31).
TABLE 77.—Density of solid packaging materials
Material
Steel
Glass .
Paper .
Cardboard
Wood
All plastics
Polyethylene ....
ABS
Acrylic .
Polypropylene . . .
Polystyrene
PVC .
PVDC
Specific
gravity
2.70
7. 70
2. 50
0. 7 to 1. 15
.69
.60
N.A.
.94
1. 03
1. 18
.90
1. 05
1.25
1. 65
Density Cubic feet
(Ib/cu ft) per ton of
material
168
480
156
44 to 72 45. '
43
37
71
59
64
64
56
65
78
103
11.9
4.1
12.8
1 to 27. 7
46.5
54.0
28.1
33.8
31.2
27.0
35.7
30.7
25.6
19.4
Source: Compiled by Midwest Research Institute.
60
50
H 40
OS
w
Cu
w
0 30
CQ
a
0
20
10
—
«
—
—
54.0
46.5
\AVERAGE —
45 4-27.7
35 7-19.4
WOOD PAPERBOARD PAPER PLASTICS
Source: Midwest Research Institute
—1
I
/
I
33.8
POLYETHYLENE
12.8
GLASS
11.9
-
—
~~
| 4.1 |
ALUMINUM STEEL
FIGURE 31.—Volume of one ton of various packaging materials compressed to solid density
-------
124
PACKAGING
Viewed overall, the increases in market shares
of paper and plastics—two lightweight materials—
are sufficient to reduce the average weight of pack-
aging materials significantly between 1966 and
1976. Since the lighter materials are generally less
easily compactible (owing to much greater bulk
and increased spring-back), packaging materials
on an average will become increasingly resistant
to sanitary landfilling during that period.
Judgments measuring relative compactibility
of packaging materials were largely subjective.
The only objective method of determining com-
pactibility appears to be actual empirical deter-
mination of the bulk modulus of specific package
configurations. Such a task appears excessively
tedious and impractical since, in the reality of
landfill operations, materials are not neatly seg-
regated. Materials arrive at the landfill site in a
heterogeneous mass: bottles and cans are mixed
liberally with paper, yard clippings, rubble, ashes,
plastics, and food wastes. Containers are not
separately handled and may well be bridged over
or otherwise protected from compaction pressure
by other objects in the waste. Thus, it is entirely
possible that glass which would crush, cans which
would flatten, and plastic boxes which would
break under known pressures in the laboratory
would retain their uncompacted form under even
greater pressures in an actual landfill situation.
Plastic films, plastic bottles, and paper which
would exhibit considerable spring-back under lab-
oratory conditions would not be permitted to
regain their natural dimensions in a landfill owing
to the weight of other refuse on top.
For many such reasons, the compaction ratings
assigned to packaging materials and presented
below—generally on the basis of configurations
and composition—should be viewed with caution.
Degradability is another basic characteristic of
materials well suited for sanitary landfilling. The
reason for this is the fact that many landfills are
destined to become sites for future construction or
recreation activity. It is desirable that the "soil"
of such a site be as homogeneous as possible and
that tell-tale "dump" traces should not show up
objectively when construction begins.
Two types of "degradability" were used in our
evaluation: biodegradability and chemical oxida-
tion. This twofold categorization was made in
order to acknowledge the fact that containers and
packaging materials will decompose in soil by
rusting in time, thereby slowly losing their charac -
teristic configurational shapes. Biodegradability
pertains mainly to organic packaging materials
which can be attacked and reduced by bacterial
life in the soil.
On the whole, packaging materials are not very
degradable, and this includes all materials, not
merely those which resist every kind of bacterial
or chemical action. Paper, the most degradable of
the major-category materials, has been reported
to persist unchanged in landfills for 60 years or
longer. Not all the paper in such cases remains,
but recognizable portions can still be found after
long periods of time. Composting, operators report
that paper is the last material attacked by bac-
teria in the composting process. Bacteria prefer
organic wastes such as garbage. Most other pack-
aging materials resist the action of the soil even
more effectively than paper.
Open Dumping
The very nature of the analysis undertaken
here—an attempt to measure the resistance of
materials to processing—has prevented the assign-
ment of values to open dumping in that no direct
technical resistance of materials can be associated
with a "process" wherein no processing takes
place in any conventional sense. Several facts,
however, should be noted in connection with open
dumping.
The true costs of this disposal technique tend to
be hidden—they are more likely to take the form
of indirect costs than direct expenditures on ma-
terials handling and processing. Such costs would
include values associated with aesthetic enjoyment
of the environment, damages caused by air pollu-
tion, potential fire damage from burning which
goes out of control, reduction of visibility in the
surroundings, nuisance caused by objectionable
odors, health hazards brought about by insect and
rodent breeding, groundwater and run off pollu-
tion, property value losses, and other similar
considerations.
If it were possible to assign dollar values to
these deprivations, hazards, damages, and nui-
sances, open dumping might well emerge as the
most costly of the disposal processes. Since these
costs are not directly measurable, they must be
paid by the public in an indirect fashion.
The undesirability of open dumping is less
attributable to the wastes involved than to the
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
125
nature of the technique which is just not suitable
from the standpoint of environmental health.
Since packaging materials are generally clean, in
and of themselves, they would not be expected to
contribute to the health hazards of open dumping.
Nevertheless a function of packaging materials is
to contain or hold products, and their residual
contents can cause problems, e.g., where food
products are involved. In addition discarded pack-
aging may retain or hold moisture and can harbor
insects.
Composting
Probably the greatest drawback today of the
composting process is that it has been viewed as a
potential money-maker: wastes enter at one end
and a valuable product comes out at the other
end; and as the product is sold, a profit is made.
Markets for compost have not materialized. Con-
sequently, many facilities built with overly opti-
mistic profit expectations have closed down, and
it has often been concluded that the composting
process is unsuitable to U.S. practice.
In actuality, of course, it costs about the same
to perform composting as it does to incinerate. If
incinerator operators were expected to sell heat,
salvaged materials, and ash residue at sufficiently
high prices to cover incineration costs, incinera-
tion would be no more economical than compost-
ing. For this reason, it is well to present compost-
ing as its wiser proponents now see it, i.e., in a
neutral light—as a disposal process rather than as
a waste industry which has failed to live up to its
earlier promotional promises.
The composting process is best suited to the
disposal of organic matter. Waste materials are
converted by biodegradation into inert organic
materials useful for soil conditioning. The first
consideration to be applied to a material slated
for processing by the composting route is whether
or not it degrades by bacterial action; second, an
indication of whether it can be handled in the
process, either as a desirable or undesirable
component.
Some mention has already been made about
degradability earlier in the discussion of sanitary
landfill. When evaluating sanitary landfill, we
considered chemical oxidation as a form of
degradation, particularly the rusting of steel cans.
In composting, this kind of degradation is not
considered; and, consequently, only three of the
six major packaging materials categories can be
said to be compostable: paper, wood, and textiles.
No meaningful distinctions were discovered be-
tween the overall degradability characteristics of
these major categories, although some differences
between various subcategories were noted. For
example, greater resistance was assigned to
relatively thick materials and to paper or paper-
board which is coated by nondegradable materials.
Their greater resistance traces to the need to
reduce such materials to small bits which are
accessible to bacterial action.
Glass, metals, and plastics will not degrade in
composting operations because they cannot be
attacked and decomposed by bacteria. Glass
usually presents no difficulty because it can be
pulverized and left in the compost like sand or
gravel; but it is not viewed with favor by Euro-
pean compost users who have long-term experi-
ence with such a product. Neither metals nor
plastics are tolerable as components of compost,
so they must always be removed.
Certain types of packaging materials, which
are undesirable as compost components, can be
removed with ease from the process stream.
Others stay in the stream obstinately and call
for a great deal of removal effort. Because these
differences in ease of removability actually affect
operating costs in composting, we made appro-
priate allowances in assessing the resistance of
various materials which do not actually find
their way into compost as an end product.
On this basis, plastics have relatively high
resistance to composting. In the words of W. A. C.
Weststrate, Managing Director of V. A. M.,
the Dutch Composting Corporation: "This
substance cannot be pulverized and cannot (or
only partly) be removed by means of ballistic
separation. As a result of this, part of the plastic
remains in the compost, which is a serious draw-
back. It spoils the outward appearance and
sometimes causes trouble . . . with the finer
tillage work."4
In comparison with plastics, metals can be
removed with relative ease thanks to their mag-
netic properties or, in case of aluminum con-
tainers, because they are heavy enough to respond
well to ballistic separation methods. Aluminum
foils resist separation because they can neither
be removed magnetically nor thrown out ballis-
tically.
326-388 O - 69 - 10
-------
126
PACKAGING
Viewed overall, packaging materials will be
both more and less suitable for composting by
1976. There will be much more paper in a ton of
packaging materials, thus increasing the degrad-
able proportion of total waste. On the other hand,
there will be much more plastic film, the material
which is least suitable to the composting process—
both in terms of biochemical resistance and also
physical configuration. Moreover, an increasing
volume of paper packaging will be coated with
plastic materials which are relatively undegradable.
Salvage, Reuse, and Conversion
Any discussion of the salvage, reuse, and con-
version of packaging materials should be prefaced
with the statement that only an extremely small
percentage of packaging materials are ever sal-
vaged, reused, or converted after they enter the
residential waste stream. Salvage is not an ac-
cepted and practical disposal route; at best it
is a minor adjunct to other waste disposal
operations.
The salvage industry in the United States is a
large and active one. It has gross sales exceeding
$3 billion annually and at least 2,300 major
participating companies. But this industry is
based not on municipal waste operations but
upon commercial and industrial wastes which are
collected in relatively clean and well-segregated
form. Packaging wastes from residential trash
barrels are poor candidates for salvage because of
their mixed contents.
The major cost of salvage lies in collection and
separation of the materials. This is why the salvage
industry favors sources of supply where wastes
are available in clean and homogeneous batches,
and it explains why the heterogeneous mass of
soiled municipal wastes is unattractive to the
salvage industry.
Salvage of municipal wastes is carried out on
a very minor scale at landfills, incinerators, and
in some composting plants. All of the salvage
plants which were operated in the U.S. during
and following World War II have been closed
down.
A salvage operation typically consists of a
system of moving belts which receives the waste
materials and conveys them to various stations
which employ mechanical means or labor to
separate the items according to composition,
color, magnetic properties, etc. The separated
materials are then bundled or packaged. Material
which continues to the end of the conveyor is
disposed of by incineration, composting, or
landfilling.
The fundamental movement in the salvage
industry is toward materials of greater "purity."
All sources consulted in this investigation were
emphatic on this subject. The buyer of secondary
materials is becoming more and more concerned
with the quality and uniformity of the materials
he is buying. Producers of steel, paper, and glass
are all using less scrap per ton of product than
heretofore. This is partly because of changes in
processing, but also because reclaimed materials
offer little or no price advantage—and often
involve serious processing difficulties—compared
with virgin materials.
Reclaim and re-use of packaging materials are
made still more difficult by the multiplication of
packaging types, the increasing variety of com-
binations of dissimilar packaging materials (plas-
tics and paper, metals and paper, metals and
plastics, etc.) in extremely difficult-to-segregate
laminations, the development of many new kinds
of material coatings and inks, and the prolifera-
tion of new families of materials with unique
performance characteristics.
The trend of growing complexity is in direct
conflict with the trend of greater user insistence
upon purity because separation is becoming more
costly and the chances of "contaminating" one
waste category with materials from some other
category are increasing. The higher handling costs
associated with the present packaging material
mix and the depressed condition of waste markets
due to declining consumption of waste per unit
of new production are combining to inhibit salvage
as a practical disposal method,,
Steel salvage: Of the 6.79 million tons of steel
which appear in packaging every year, virtually
nothing is recovered. In 1962, for example,
salvage operations accounted for the return of
850,000 tons of tin-coated metal to the steel
industry. The overwhelming bulk of this salvaged
material came from detinneries, which rely for
their materials on clean clippings from can pro-
duction plants. Very little of the total came from
the recovery of used steel cans.
The basic reason for the small place packaging
metal wastes have in scrap markets is because
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
127
of the tin coating on cans which represent the
bulk of the metal in packaging wastes. The tin
coating itself is a minor part of the can repre-
senting only about one-half of one percent of
the total weight of a typical can. This amount
of tin, however, suffices "to make a tin can the
lowest form of metallurgical life except perhaps
a window sash weight" in the words of a long-
time observer of salvage markets. 5
Tin is an unacceptable component in steel. It
enters steel as a residual alloy and forms hard
spots and creates difficulties in the rolling process.
Minute quantities of tin impurities are tolerable;
but the volume of tin represented by tin cans is
too high. Consequently, scrap iron containing tin
cans is typically rejected by the steel industry.
It is not an exaggeration to say that gcrap bundles
containing tin cans (No. 3 bundles and incinerator
bundles) represent commodities on the periphery
of the scrap market. Prices for these grades of
scrap are not quoted as a rule in the industry's
weekly trade publication, the Waste Trade
Journal.
With no markets in the steel industry, scrap
tin cans are salable only to manufacturers of
cheap metallic goods such as window sash weights
and other ballast. Tin cans are not normally
routed to detinneries. The situation is summed up
by William S. Story of the Institute of Scrap
Iron and Steel as follows:
"There are detinning operations around the
country, and successful ones, but these work
solely with new tins and tin can clips from
tin can producers. They do not operate on
tin can waste because of the economics of
cleaning the material." 6
Detinning of used tin cans was practiced during
World War II when homemakers were encouraged
to clean and flatten the cans. Processing plants,
obviously, relied on the cooperation of the con-
sumer to accomplish the costly cleaning process.
Another outlet for tin cans is in copper manu-
facturing where tin-coated iron can be used to
precipitate copper. "Precipitation iron," as this
material is called, must be clean, burned, and
shredded. Markets for precipitation iron are
generally in the Southwest. High freight charges
associated with the light density shredded metal
effectively prohibit the transport of such a mate-
rial over long distances from population centers
located to the east and north.
We can conclude that tin cans are recoverable
and reusable only at a cost which generally
eliminates them from consideration in the scrap
market. In order to make steel cans more eligible
for reuse as scrap, the basic material composi-
tion must be changed to eliminate the tin coat-
ing and the lead solder. Without these contami-
nants, steel cans could be recycled with relative
ease. The switch to a tin free steel has now begun
and is forecast to progress significantly in the
next few years.
Aluminum Salvage: In spite of considerable
public interest—and publicity—surrounding
various programs to salvage and recycle aluminum
packaging materials the conclusion of our study
is not hopeful in this regard. It may be stated
simply:
(1) Markets do exist for scrap aluminum
packaging materials, but
(2) The prices paid for aluminum scrap are too
low to maintain economically self-sustaining
salvage programs.
In other words, apparently successful programs
currently being conducted depend upon some
form of public subsidy, usually in the form of
free collection labor. Youth groups such as the
Boy Scouts often participate in these programs.
Aluminum scrap today sells between 12.5 and
13 cents per pound. Processors cannot afford to
separate waste aluminum cans at this price, so
this chore must be accomplished by obtaining
the voluntary cooperation of housewives. By
the most optimistic estimates of one aluminum
producer, such voluntary effort could result
in the recovery of 5 percent of the aluminum
packaging waste, which would mean that by
1976 total packaging waste would be reduced by
50,000 tons—less than 0.001 percent. This highly
optimistic estimate is not shared by the MRI
research team.
Aluminum packaging salvage is not expected
to reduce seriously the load on waste disposal
agencies—or to save much of this vital national
resource—until the price of scrap aluminum rises
sufficiently to permit profitable commercial opera-
tions.
Before aluminum packaging waste is regarded
as a good source of supply by the secondary
aluminum industry, it will have to be collected
in much larger quantities. U.S. Reduction Com-
pany, which sells more than $5 million worth
-------
128
PACKAGING
of secondary aluminum, a year, estimates that
a city would have to supply between 100,000 and
1 million pounds of aluminum every month before
it would be considered a good source of supply.
Contrast this with the 4,000 plus pounds of
aluminum packaging materials collected every
month during the first three months of a recent
collection campaign in Miami—a campaign ac-
companied by a good deal of publicity and a
relatively high price paid for the waste material
(one cent for two cans).
By 1976, the situation should be slightly
better for two reasons: first, the amount of
aluminum in the refuse will have increased,
thereby increasing the salvage output per ton
of unseparated waste; and second, the magnesium
content of aluminum packaging materials is
expected to decrease. Aluminum containing low
magnesium is more valuable to the secondary
aluminum processor.
At the present time, however, aluminum salvage
programs are not economically self-sustaining.
They are heavily subsidized, either by the public
or the corporations involved.
Paper Salvage: In 1966, more than 21 percent of
the fiber used in paper and paperboard produc-
tion (10.2 million of 47.7 million tons) came from
waste paper. Paper packaging materials, in the
form of old corrugated boxes, represented 2.5
million tons of the total. With the exception of
old corrugated boxes, paper packaging materials
were not recovered.
Waste paper has been declining in importance
in papermaking since World War II. In 1946,
waste paper supplied 35 percent of the fiber
requirements for paper and board; in 1956,
slightly over 26 percent; in 1966, 21 percent;
and if the past trend continues, one observer
places the recovery rate in 1980 at 17.5 percent.7
The decline in these percentage figures should
not be construed to mean that the tonnage of
reused waste paper has also been decreasing.
Actually, it has increased from 7.3 million tons
in 1946 to 8.8 million tons in 1956 and to 10.2
million tons in 1966. The declining percentage
simply means that the re-use of waste paper
is not growing as rapidly as the use of other fibers
such as wood pulp, rags, cane fiber and straw
(Table 78).
Reasons for this decline include (1) "con-
tamination" of paper by plastics, clay coatings,
inks, laminants, and adhesives; (2) increased costs
of waste paper collection as a result of suburban
sprawl; (3) technological advances in wood pulp-
ing, computer control of the process, etc.—which
result in higher fiber yields from virgin materials;
and (4) integration and expansion moves within
the paper and paperboard industries which have
resulted in additions of virgin pulping capacity.
Within the context of this overall situation, the
outlook for the salvage of paper -based packaging
material wastes is not encouraging. As noted
earlier, three-fourths of the waste paper recycled
to the paper industry is derived from waste
sources other than packaging wastes. Virtually
none of this recycled paper—-with the exception of
old newspapers—comes from residential sources,
even though these sources generate a large pro-
portion of packaging wastes as a whole.
The only paper packaging material which plays
a significant role in the paper salvage trade is old
corrugated boxes. An estimated 2.5 million tons
of such boxes were collected and reused in 1966,
amounting to 20 percent of the 12.5 million tons
of container board produced that year.
The other paper packaging materials are ignored
by salvage operators because waste paper dealers
(usually called "paperstock" dealers) can prof-
itably pack and grade only those materials which
have been separated at the source and labeled as
to contaminants. The prices paid for waste paper
are too low to cover the cost of sorting hetero-
geneous masses and decontaminating the paper
portions.
Old corrugated boxes are often profitably col-
lected from retail stores because the volume is
substantial and the boxes are clean and easily
separated for salvage and reuse. Old newspapers
are sometimes collected under the auspices of not-
for-profit or charitable organizations (schools, Boy
Scouts, churches, etc.). No. 1 Mixed Paper, one
of two paper bale categories in which paper
packaging wastes could conceivably be graded,*
is derived almost exclusively from the waste paper
baskets of large administrative centers (office
buildings, schools, etc.). No. 1 Mixed Paper is a
*The other grade is No. 2 Mixed, a grade in which all
papers are acceptable; since No. 1 Mixed is presently in a
depressed stage due to oversupply, with the price per ton
at 81 in some markets, no prices are quoted in the trade for
No. 2 Mixed, which is worthless.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
129
TABLE 78.—Consumption of fibrous materials in paper and board mills
In tons
Year
Wood pulp
Paper stock
Rags
Other
Total
1904 2,018,764 588,543
1909 2,826,591 983,882
1914 3, 490,123 1, 509, 981
1919 4, 019, 696 1, 854, 386
1929 6,289, 318 3, 841,942
1935 6, 442,178 3, 587, 390
1939 8, 650, 423 4, 366, 357
1940 9, 781, 739 4, 667, 502
1941 11, 363, 600 6, 075, 129
1942 11, 038, 020 4, 494, 959
1943 10, 635, 320 6, 367, 854
1944 10, 502, 204 6, 859, 332
1945 10, 825,412 6, 799, 683
1946 12, 092, 093 7,278, 097
1947 13, 252, 924 8, 009, 052
1948 14, 374, 586 7, 584, 501
1949 13, 635, 957 6, 599, 606
1950 16, 508, 905 7, 956, 036
1951 17, 736, 970 9, 070, 554
1952 17, 286, 030 7, 881,193
1953 18, 683, 543 8, 530, 662
1954 18, 989, 159 7, 856, 637
1955 21, 453, 766 9, 040, 768
1956 22, 998, 380 8, 836, 449
1957 22, 459, 420 8, 493,109
1958 22, 483,118 8, 670, 824
1959 25,155,362 9,414,153
1960 25, 700, 031 9, 031, 614
1961 26, 682, 863 9, 017, 749
1962 28, 598, 333 9, 074, 815
1963 30, 220, 000 9, 613, 000
1964 32, 088, 000 9, 843, 000
1965 33, 790, 000 10,297, 000
1966 36,444,000 10,159,000
294, 552
357, 470
361, 667
277, 849
739, 422
501, 589
468,287
402, 600
529, 967
480, 614
425,910
427, 837
414, 083
402, 506
462, 388
415, 668
381, 915
441, 894
387, 843
324, 560
325,154
316, 737
340,353
298, 259
411, 614
420,217
429, 009
470, 393
704, 063
467, 360
692,315
640, 967
887, 581
844, 337
770, 358
957, 389
929, 453
979, 755
1, 063,161
1, 036, 044
833,174
997, 444
1, 069,159
886, 556
929, 461
882, 955
1,000, 060
1, 253, 070
1, 015, 475
1, 003, 335
979,940
970,940
894, 257
962, 918
1, 285, 000
928, 000
878,000
1, 054, 000
3, 313, 473
4, 588,160
5, 790, 780
6, 622, 324
11, 574, 745
10, 998, 517
14,177, 282
15, 492, 808
18,856, 286
17, 857, 930
18,199, 442
18, 746, 762
18, 968, 631
20, 752, 451
22, 787, 525
23, 410, 799
21,450, 652
25, 904, 279
28,264, 526
26, 378, 339
28, 468, 820
28, 045, 488
31, 834, 947
33, 386, 158
32, 058, 004
32,157, 277
35, 548,972
35, 702, 585
36, 594, 869
38, 636, 066
41,118, 000
42, 859, 000
44,965, 000
47, 657, 000
Source: American Paper and Pulp Association. Statistics of Paper, 1961. August 1964 p. 21. Paperboard Packaging, 52(8): 36, Aug. 1967.
sorted product, with the paperstock dealer per-
forming the sorting operation.
These three categories of paperstock—cor-
rugated, newspaper, and No. 1 Mixed—account
for 85 percent of all recovered paper. The remain-
ing 15 percent is made up of highly uniform wastes
from commercial operations (converters, printers,
paper mills, etc.). Thus with the exception of old
corrugated boxes, paper packaging materials do
not play a role in the paper stock industry.
No. 1 Mixed Paper has been declining in price
recently because of oversupply, and also because
of rising degrees of contamination associated with
office building wastes. Such waste contains a large
amount of excellent fiber which is desirable in
paper stock, but it is becoming increasingly
diluted by plastic cups, photocopy paper, lunch
scraps, typewriter ribbons, carbon paper, and
claycoated papers, thus making it much more
costly to sort. If it is not properly sorted, it brings
much lower prices.
Recent prices paid by dealers for No. 1 Mixed
Paper and Old Corrugated Boxes are shown in
Table 79. Prices paid for two other waste paper
categories, both subdivisions of New Double
Kraft Lined Corrugated Clippings, are also shown.
New Corrugated Clippings are derived from box
manufacturing wastes. It is instructive to note
that in this instance, the highly uniform clipping
wastes, low in contaminants, command a con-
-------
130
PACKAGING
TABLE 79.—Selected paperstock price ranges: 1966 to 1967'
In dollars per ton
Month and year
October 1966
November 1966
December 1966 . .
February 1967 ...
March 1967
April 1967
May 1967
June 1967
July 1967
August 1967
September 1967
No. l
mixed
paper
10/12
10
4/10
4/6
4/6
3/6
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
New
Old
corrugated
boxes
23/25
20/21
19/20
14/18
14/18
15/18
15/18 ..
15
15
15
15
15
York City
Semichem
0.009 medium
double
lined kraft
corrugated
clippings
35/45
30/35
25/30
25/30
25/30
25/30
22.50/30
22.50/30
25/30
Mixed 0.009
medium
double
lined kraft
corrugated
clippings
30/40
25/30
20/25
20/25
20/25
20/25
17.50/25
17.50/25
20/25
No. 1
mixed
paper
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
c
Old
corrugated
boxes
24/26
18/22
16/20
16/18
12/18
12/18 .
12/16 .
12/16
12/16
12/16
12/16
12/16
hicafto
Semichem
0.009 medium
double
lined kraft
corrugated
clippings
35/45
33/35
25/30
25/30
25/30
25/30
25/30
25/30
25/30
Mixed 0.009
medium
double
lined kraft
corrugated
clippings
30/40
25/30
20/25
20/25
20/25
20/25
20/25
20/25
20/25
a Mill prices F.O.B. cars or trucks, in bales—500 Ib. minimum.
Source: Paperboard Packaging, 51(11), November 1966 through 52(10), October 1967.
siderably higher price than even the relatively
uncontaminated corrugated box and mixed paper
grades.
It is the consensus of knowledgeable observers
in this field that effective salvage operations
necessarily call for the separation of the paper
wastes into suitable grades at the generation
source, with the possible exception of newspapers
and corrugated boxes, which are sometimes
separated following waste collections at the
disposal plant. Once paper materials have entered
a compactor truck, they are literally worthless by
reason of contamination with garbage, moisture,
and other organic materials. Certain types of
paper material, especially plastic coated items
such as milk cartons, would not be acceptable
for recycling even if segregated at the source.
The costs of processing waste paper are, on
the whole, considerably higher than disposal
costs. To sort and bale No. 1 Mixed Paper
involves an estimated minimum cost of $3 to $4
per ton. The cost of separating paper from the
mix of other residential and commercial/industrial
refuse is estimated to be considerably higher.
No. 1 Mixed Paper, as delivered to the sorting
concern, is already a relatively homogeneous
material.
To be economically viable, a salvage operation
as practiced by the operator of a disposal facility
must at least break even. This would imply
that disposing of a ton of paper by the salvage
route would have to cost no more than disposal
by some other means. Disposal costs range any-
where from $1 to more than $ LO per ton of waste
depending on the process used. It is evident that
salvage of paper in conjunction with dumping
operations (the least costly) would not be eco-
nomically feasible, whereas it may prove attractive
on a limited basis in proces&es where the unit
costs of disposal are considerably higher (come
posting and incineration). However, in view of
the extremely low prices paid for the less desirabl -
paper stock grades, only corrugated boxes among
packaging materials appear to offer an econom-
ically desirable salvage opportunity.
Since only a portion of paper wastes is presently
salvaged, the fact that the proportion of waste
paper to virgin fibres is expecte:d to decline further
in papermaking, and the fact that much more,
rather than less, contamination of the waste
paper appears to be the trend, it is our conclusion
that salvaging will be an even less attractive
method of disposing of paper-based packaging
wastes in 1976 than in 1966—unless salvaging
can somehow be made more economically attrac-
tive to its participants.
Glass Salvage: Glass salvage must be viewed
from two separate vantage points. Returnable
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
131
bottles are eminently salvable, and the collection
and recycle systems for handling this type of
package are well developed and operative. On
the other hand, the theoretically salvable non-
returnable glass containers do not appear to play
a very significant role in glass making.
Returnable glass containers (beer, soft drink,
and milk) represent a small percentage of total
glass packaging production. On a unit basis, in
1966, 9.1 percent or 2.7 billion units of a total of
29.4 billion units were of the returnable type.
The rise of one-way beer and soft drink containers
will result in an absolute and relative decline in
the number of units of this type to be produced
by 1976. In that year, 1.7 billion units of a total
glass container production of 45.7 billion units
will be returnable, or 3.8 percent of total units.
Unfortunately, the most salvable of all glass
containers will actually diminish in importance
between now and 1976.
Clean, sorted, crushed glass known to the
trade as "cullet"—is a recognized waste-glass
commodity which is used in glass making to
speed up the melting of virgin silica. Cullet may
be obtained from two sources: scrap dealers who
specialize in collecting, sorting, and cleaning glass
wastes, and from glass plant wastes. Cullet repre-
sents between 15 and 30 percent of the input
materials used in glass making.
Fairly accurate data on glass salvage, particu-
larly cullet usage in glass manufacturing, should be
emerging soon from a study presently under way
under the auspices of the Glass Container Manu-
facturers Institute. At this time, little in the way
of applicable survey data is available, but certain
facts appear to be clear.
The major portion of the cullet used in glass
making at present is derived from in-house process
waste. Scrap dealers who sell cullet to glass
manufacturing plants obtain their supplies from
various commercial or industrial operations where
relatively uncontaminated and homogeneous ma-
terial is available in quantity—bottling plants,
dairies, breweries, etc. Glass is segregated at very
few waste processing facilities.
One reason why glass is not salvaged at dumps,
landfills, incinerators, or at various waste transfer
stations is that the costs of separating and clean-
ing cullet have increased substantially. This is
reflected in cullet prices, which have risen from
18 to $9 per ton in 1959 to $15 per ton in 1967.
In some localities, for example in the Chicago
area, scarcity of low-cost labor has effectively
priced cullet out of a market. A 1967 private
study of glass salvage in the Chicago area con-
cluded that cullet could not be profitably processed
there even at a price of $30 per ton.
Sorting and cleaning costs may be placed in
focus by considering that about 3,600 bottles will
yield a ton of cullet (Table 80). Many times this
number of units would have to be handled to
obtain a ton of cullet of a particular grade (flint
cullet, amber cullet, etc.). Once the bottles are
sorted, they must be crushed. The crushed
material, in turn, must be washed, dried, and
packaged. Transportation costs have to be added
to the selling price to obtain true cost to the
manufacturer.
In glass, as in virtually all other material
groupings, impurities in and accompanying the
base material are increasing. One instance is the
twist-off cap which leaves a slender ring of metal
around the neck of a bottle. Since the metal is
aluminum, this impurity cannot be removed from
crushed cullet by magnetic means; nor will it
wash out. Consequently, bottles with twist-off
caps must either be eliminated from cullet stock
at the outset, or expensive hand removal of the
aluminum from the crushed material must be
accomplished.
TABLE 80.—Number of glass containers required to make one
ton of cullet
Type of conta
1966 avg. Weight/
weight/ unit
gross (Ib) (Ib)
Unit/
ton ft
Soft drink returnable 141. 2 0. 981 2,039
Soft drink nonreturnable 88. 6 .615 3, 252
Beer returnable 85. 5 .594 3, 367
Beer nonreturnable 68.1 .473 4,228
Liquor 125.5 .872 2,294
Wine 155.0 1.076 1,859
General line narrow neck
(food, drug, chemical,
toiletry) 68.4 .475 4,210
General line wide mouth
(food, drug, chemical,
toiletry) 63.2 .439 4,556
Average—all glass containers.. 79.8 .554 3,610
a The fewer units per ton represent lower handling requirements for
salvage purposes.
Source: Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc., unpublished
data. Midwest Research Institute.
-------
132
PACKAGING
Label stock is relatively easy to remove by
sufficient soaking and washing of the cullet.
However, cullet dealers, understandably enough,
prefer to process glass wastes which do not carry
labels; in that way, the processing time is
shortened.
The number of colors which can be obtained in
glass making is growing as a result of advances in
glass technology. Competitive forces at work in
the marketplace favor recognition of product by
introducing novel color-shape combinations. The
effect of color multiplication on salvage is to render
more and more of the waste glass unsuitable for
use in grades other than brown bottles—primarily
beer containers, medicinal bottles and jars, and
chemicals—which represent a low percentage
(under 20 percent) of total glass.
Plastics Salvage: The salvage of plastics from
residential-commercial refuse is not practiced at
present. Plastics wastes are collected by scrap
dealers from extruders, converters, and molders
and fabricators. Among these suppliers, extruders
rank highest in the eyes of the scrap dealer because
the material obtained is uniform and clean.
Molders and fabricators supply the smallest per-
centage of plastics that enter reuse channels
owing to the relatively high degree of contamina-
tion of the materials. Converters are not con-
sidered a good source since the waste materials
are frequently contaminated by printing inks.
There appears to be no practical way in which
plastics can be separated from refuse, sorted by
grade, cleaned, and processed at a price that
would even remotely approach prices currently
commanded by plastic trim and process wastes.
Most prices range from $25/ton for mixed vinyl
to $180/ton for single color cellulose acetate. In
late 1967, polyethylene, which accounts for the
bulk of packaging plastics, was virtually worth-
less as scrap. Earlier in 1967, polyethylene wastes
from printing plants, free of ink, sold for a low
of $25/ton and a high of $40/ton.
Some idea of the complexity of activities in-
volved in reclaiming and reprocessing of plastics
wastes is given in Charles Lipsett's book, Indus-
trial Wastes and Salvage. Summarizing Mr.
Lipsett's account, six steps are required to process
a nonfilm plastic waste material (obtained from
an industrial source) into a salable product.
(1) Scrap is sorted—by type of material and
by color; impurities are removed by hand.
(2) Scrap is reduced to small pieces by guillo-
tine or saw.
(3) Pieces are ground; ferrous metals are
removed by magnetic means; special techniques
are used to eliminate nonferrous metals.
(4) The resulting powder is blended for colors.
Depending on the operation, pigments and
plasticizers may be added.
(5) Blended powder is heated to between 400
and 500 F to set the color; cooling and pelletizing
follows.
(6) The colored plastic is pelletized and
packaged.8
The relatively small percentage of plastics in
packaging waste, the high vulnerability of plastic
materials to contamination, and the virtually
indissoluble unions in which they often appear
(as coatings, laminations)—all of these factors
indicate that the salvaging of plastic packaging
material wastes will be physically and economi-
cally impracticable between now and 1976 unless
normally operating market forces are modified in
some manner.
Other Salvage: The two remaining packaging
material categories, wood and textiles, are used
predominantly in industrial packaging applica-
tions. Wooden pallets and boxes, tight and slack
cooperage and textile bags are reusable. Wooden
containers are far more repairable than other
package types which make their continued use
possible, with some inputs of labor, even after
they are damaged. These packages, however,
enter the waste stream in approximately the same
volume as annual production; they are discarded
once it is no longer practical to repair them.
Textile sacks can be sold to scrap dealers once
they have outlived their usefulness; they enter
secondary fiber reuse channels.
Summary: With the exception of corrugated
containers, packaging materials are not econom-
ically salvable because of contamination problems
and the high costs of separation and sorting. Most
scrap industries have evolved, through the years,
around industrial and commercial waste sources
from which relatively high purity materials can
be obtained in quantity. We have found no
indications of technological or market develop-
ments which might be expected to change this
situation significantly before 1976.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
133
ANALYSIS OF RESISTANCE TO
PROCESSING*
Approach to the Analysis
Any given tonnage of discarded packaging
materials is likely to pass through at least five
broadly defined disposal processes. Given 100
pounds of steel cans, for instance, 14 pounds
would pass through an incinerator, five would end
up in a landfill, 77.5 pounds would be dumped,
three salvaged, and half a pound would pass
through a compost plant.
It follows from this that the disposability of a
tin can has to be evaluated from at least five
points of view: from those of the incinerator plant,
open dump, landfill, compost plant, and salvage
plant operators. Depending on the suitability
criteria associated with each process, a metal can
looks very good or very bad. Furthermore, if the
can has an excellent suitability rating in a process
which handles a bulk of the waste, its overall
suitability would be greater than in a case where
it shows low suitabib'ty in the dominant process.
Our aim in this analysis was to create a measure
or index value which would establish the relative
disposability of a material in each process in such
a manner that the values would be comparable.
This clearly called for a numerical system. We
selected a scale extending from 100 to 500, whereby
100 stands for excellent, 500 for unsatisfactory.
In actual practice, each material was rated for
each disposal process on this scale. Each material,
consequently, received five different values, be-
tween 100 and 500. How values were actually
assigned is explained below.
In the course of developing this rating tech-
nique, our aim was to arrive at numerical values
that would express relative measures of technical
resistance of materials to processing. Once the
values were established for individual packaging
materials, they could be applied in proportion to
their 1966 consumption quantities to develop an
index of resistance for packaging materials as a
whole. Then, by recalculating the index for the
packaging materials mix expected in 1976 and
adjusting it for expected shifts in future emphasis
among the different disposal processes, one may
obtain a fairly accurate indication of how much
total resistance to disposal will increase or de-
crease by 1976.
How Resistance Values Were Assigned
Analysis of the technical characteristics of each
disposal process (discussed earlier) disclosed those
physical and chemical properties of waste which
were most suitable for each disposal method.
These are summarized in Table 81. The process
analysis also revealed the relative importance of
each property. This relative importance was then
expressed numerically as portions of unity (1.00)
for each process.
TABLE 81.—Suitable material characteristics
In this
process—
These material characteristics
are the most suitable
These char-
acteristics
have the
following
relative
importance
Sanitary High natural density
landfill Compactibility of the
material
Degradability of the
material
Incineration Combustibility of the
material
Low inert solids residue. .
High BTU value
Low sulfur content
Little or no potential to
cause damage to the
incineration equipment.. .
Composting Degradability
Suitability
Salvage, reuse, Easily separable
conversion Existence of market for the
commodity
0.05
.80
.15
.75
.15
.04
.01
.05
.80
. 20
.25
.75
*To simplify analysis, miscellaneous packaging cate-
gories are not included in this section.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
A discussion of sanitary landfilling will illustrate
the nature of this analysis. In this process,
materials are deposited in natural hollows or
depressions or in manmade excavations; they are
compacted by heavy machinery; and they are
covered daily by inert fill materials. Compaction
serves to reduce the voids between wastes, thus
preventing or minimizing the formation of hollows
where rodents and insects might breed. Com-
paction also serves to maximize the quantity of
refuse which can be deposited at a given landfill
site and thus extend its capacity and period of
usefullness. Covering of the fill on a daily basis
ensures sanitary conditions, eliminates odors and
-------
134
PACKAGING
unsightliness, and prevents infestation of the
waste by rodents and insects from the surface.
One of the more significant aspects of land-
filling is that it is frequently a land reclamation
process. Useless gullies and depressions are filled
up—not with expensive fill material but with
waste. Therein lies the attractiveness of the proc-
ess and the justification for operating landfills
near residential and industrial areas.
Suitable landfill sites are rarely available near
population centers. And as sites are progressively
located farther from cities, hauling costs increase
substantially. For this reason, maximum exploita-
tion of good sites becomes economically desirable,
and there is growing need to compact the fill
materials as densely as possible.
Needless to say, materials with a high natural
density and good compactibility offer less dis-
posability resistance than lightweight materials
with a good deal of elasticity and spring-back.
Package density, however, is relative to configu-
ration—whereby an uncrushed metal can may
take up far more space due to its shape than an
equal weight of paper. For this reason, compacti-
bility of the waste material is the most important
single criterion in landfill operations: the best
possible material is one which is made of a heavy
material, can be compacted with ease, and will
retain its compacted shape when pressure is
released.
Degradability is desirable for another reason:
most landfills are ultimately destined to become
sites for urban redevelopment—parks, residential
areas, golf courses, industrial sites, etc. When
redevelopment work begins, it is desirable that
excavators find as few of the remains of disposal
operations and as homogeneous a soil as possible.
For such purposes, landfill sites which received
readily degradable organic wastes would be the
most ideal. If inorganic packaging wastes must
also be stored, a site which received packages that
would lose their characteristic shape over time
would be more suitable for redevelopment than a
site which received large quantities of packaging
that retain their shape for decades. Since, however,
ultimate use of the site is usually a secondary
consideration, degradability is not given as high
a value in our system as compactibility.
Much the same reasoning was used to determine
the relative suitability of packaging material
characteristics for disposal by other processes.
It will be noted that Table 81 does not show
open dumping as a disposal technique, and this
omission calls for some comment.
It is impossible to determine how much packag-
ing waste is dumped in clearly authorized dumps
and how much is simply discarded by people
along streets, highways, lakes, rivers, parks, etc.
Large numbers of bottles and cans are thrown
into water bodies where they eventually sink out
of sight—and out of mind. Containers, wrappers,
and other materials tossed from car windows
remain in view. Many trash materials are dis-
carded in unauthorized dumps which seem to
invite further dumping. As a consequence, much
of the waste tonnage assigned to open dumping
actually ends up in other than authorized
locations.
This situation has dictated our approach to the
assignment of resistance values to materials in
open dumping. Not being, strictly speaking, a
disposal process so much as a manner of storing
wastes in a more or less controlled manner, ma-
terials which are disposed of in open dumps are
not processed. Consequently, they do not exhibit
resistance to processing as such. Since the ratings
as used here are based on resistance to processing,
all materials thought to end up in dumps are given
the lowest index of resistance available. No
attempt to evaluate the characteristics of this dis-
posal mode was made, with tbe result that open
dumping does not show up in Table 81. The low
resistance ranking of materials which are dumped
should in no case be construed as an endorsement
of this disposal technique.
Having established the suitability of various
material characteristics in each process and having
assigned each a relative numerical value, the
actual material ratings could be developed. The
scale of numerical values ranged from 100 to 500
as follows:
100—Excellent
200—Good
300—Fair
400—Poor
500—Unsatisfactory
Each individual packaging material was as-
signed one of these five numbers. In order to
apply the rating system consistently, careful
definitions were developed for each material char-
acteristic in each process. These definitions are
shown as Tables 82 through 85.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
TABLE 82. — Rating definitions of incineration
135
Rating
Rating
code
Burning
rate
Inert solids residue
after incineration
weight in percent
BTU value
1,000 BTLTs
per pound
Sulfur content
weight and
percent
Potential damage
to equipment from
the material
Excellent ...... (100) Very high .... 2 to 5 .......... 12 and above . . . 0.01 to 0.05 ..... None.
Good .......... (200) High ......... 5 to 10 ........ 10 to 12 ........ 0.06 to 0.10 ..... None when incinerator
is operated properly.
Fair .......... (300) Slow ......... 10 to 20 ........ 8 to 10 ......... 0.11 to 0.15 ..... Can sometimes disturb
system operations.
Poor ......... (400) Self- 20 to 50 ........ 6 to 8 .......... 0.16 to 0.20 ..... Seriously disturbs
extinguishing. system operations.
Unsatisfactory. . (500) Nil ........... 50 and above. . . Below 6 ........ 0.20 and above. . Damage can be
considerable.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
TABLE 83. — Rating definitions of sanitary landfill
Rating
Rating Natural density of the
code material (pounds/cubic
foot)
Compactibility
Degradability
Item will eventually degrade
and disintegrade in soil by
bacterial action.
Excellent ........... (100) 100 and above. . . . Deforms or crushes easily under
pressure and retains com-
pacted form after pressure is
released.
Good ............... (200) 71 to 100 ......... Deforms easily but springs back Item is partially degradable.
when pressure is released.
Fair ................. (300) 51 to 70 .......... Deforms with difficulty
Poor
(400) 31 to 50
Unsatisfactory ....... (500) 30 or less
Defo-rus but requires ppe ial
handling in landfill operations.
Not effectively compactible
in conventional landfill
operations.
Item will decompose by
chemical action.
High'y resistant to both
bacterial and chemical action
in the soil.
Virtually indestructible; will
not degrade.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
TABLE 84. — Rating definitions of composting
Rating
Rating
code
Degradability
Handling suitability
Excellent ............ (100) Degrades quickly ..................... Suitable.
Good .............. (200) Degrades slowly ...................... Suitable, but requires pulverization or
special equipment for reduction.
Fair ................ (300) Degrades partially ................... Unsuitable, but can be removed without
difficulty by mechanical means.
Poor .............. (400) Does not degrade but may be left in the Unsuitable but can be removed by manual
compost. means.
Unsatisfactory ........ (500) Does not degrade and is an undesirable Unsuitable and difficult to remove by any
component of compost. means.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
-------
136
PACKAGING
TABLE 85.—Rating definitions of salvage, reuse, and conversion
Rating
Rating
code
Separability
Market for commodity
Excellent.
(100) Separation is possible by mechanical
means.
Good (200) Mechanical separation is possible but
must be supplemented by hand sorting.
Fair (300) Separation is possible only by manual
means; minimum sorting required.
Poor (400) Separation is possible only by manual
means; considerable sorting is re-
quired.
Unsatisfactory (500) Not practically separable
Market for the commodity exists and may
be supplied with little or no preprocessing
of the commodity.
Market exists for the commodity, but
seller must sort commodity into grades or
types before it is salab'e.
Market exists, but seller must process the
commodity by shredding, cleaning, reno-
vating, etc.
Market does not exist for the commodity
but may be a possibility via chemical
conversion or extensive processing.
Market does not exist for the commodity
and is unlikely to develop.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
Basically, these definitions were used as a
guide for classifying packaging materials on the
basis of either a numerically measurable or clearly
spelled out characteristic.* Thus, for instance,
under compactibility, a steel can is considered
"excellent" because it deforms easily and perma-
nently, and it has relatively high density after
compaction; containerboard is considered "good"
because, although it deforms easily, it has rela-
tively low density after compaction; plastic
bleach bottles are "fair" because they spring back
resiliently after compaction; bulky items like
steel drums are "poor" because, although com-
pactible, they need special handling; metal cyl-
inders are not effectively compactible, so they are
rated "unsatisfactory."
How the Index Was Calculated
In this analysis, 40 separate material subcat-
egories were rated: 15 paper items, 10 metal,
five glass container types, five wood categories,
four plastic, and one textile. These were rated in
12 areas: two for sanitary landfill, five for in-
cineration, two for composting, and two for sal-
vage (Table 81). Altogether, then, 480 separate
rating judgments were made. How these separate
ratings were used to determine a single average
value for all packaging materials in all processes
will now be outlined. Metals will be used to
illustrate the procedure.
*Some of the limitations of the definitions used are
pointed out elsewhere; see pages 124 and 139.
Step 1: Rating
Materials were first rated in accordance with the
criteria laid down in the rating definitions. The
rating work sheet for metals is shown as Table 86.
Note the weight (relative importance) factors
assigned to each subcategory under each process.
Step 2: Consolidation
Using the values shown in Table 86 and the
weighting factors assigned to each subcategory,
a single composite value was calculated for each
material under each process. These composite
values were then entered on Taible 87.
Steel cans, in sanitary landfilling for example,
are rated 100 for density, 100 For compactibility,
and 300 for degradability. Weighting these by
the relative importance, factors assigned to each
of these process subcate'jjories yields the following:
100X0.05= 5
100X0.80= 80
300X0.15= 45
Total =130
Thus, the resistance of steel cans in sanitary
landfilling is 130, falling between excellent and
good. This value is inserted in the "Value"
column under Landfill on Table 87. Identical op-
erations were performed for each material and
for each process.
Step 3: Weighting by Market Share Within Categories
Steel cans are an important part, but by no
means the only part, of metals in packaging. On a
tonnage basis, steel cans in 1966 represented 72.3
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
137
•S °K
w
g
lls
II0'
1°
•sg
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
«C 6 JS 3
3 •£
be
i < O M
*"§
4-i
M
V
O
U
3
s
s
c
1
s
^
_x
1
T3
03
9
T!
— •
4)
en
hb
C
1
ft
IH
4J
X
"3
v
s
X
is
a
C
"1
%_, ^
"3S
S s «
0§S
-------
138
PACKAGING
percent of total metals. In consequence of this,
in order to arrive at an overall resistance value for
all metal packaging materials in sanitary landfill-
ing, for example, only a portion of the steel can
resistance value can be counted or 130 X 0.723,
which equals 94.0. Thus, steel cans in sanitary
landfilling contribute 94.0 points toward some final
value between 100 and 500 for all metals in sani-
tary landfilling.
Table 87 also shows how index numbers for all
metal products in all processes were obtained.
This operation was performed for all material
groupings. The results are summarized in Table 88.
Step 4: Calculation of the Index
In 1966, paper and paperboard represented
54.75 percent of total packaging materials ton-
nage. Incineration of all kinds accounted for 14
percent of all waste disposed. Paper had a resist-
ance value of 150 in incineration in that year.
Consequently, in order to arrive at an overall
resistance value for all packaging materials in all
processes, only a portion of paper's resistance
value in incineration can be counted toward the
total for all materials. The portion is determined
by multiplying paper's resistance value in inciner-
ation (150) times paper's share of total tonnage
(54.75 percent) times incineration's share of total
waste tonnage (14 percent). This results in the
following calculation: 150X (0.5475X0.14) = 11.5.
In other words, that portion of paper which passed
through incineration contributed 11.5 points
toward a final figure, between 100 and 500, for
packaging materials as a whole.
The same weighted adjustment technique was
used for each material grouping in each process to
establish a final index value for packaging mate-
TABLE 87.—Disposability resistance calculation: Metals, 1966
Product
Steel cans . .
Aluminum cans and ends
Collapsible tubes
Rigid aluminum foil containers .
Steel drums and pails
Metal strapping
Total
Share of
totals a
0.723
. .023
.002
. .006
.019
.115
.057
. .008
018
.029
. 1.000
Open
Value t>
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
dump
Index °
72.3
2.3
.2
.6
1.9
11.5
5.6
.8
1.8
2.9
99.9
Landfill
Value b
130.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
290.0
370.0
450.0
130.0
130.0
Index °
94.0
3.3
.3
.9
2.8
33.4
20.7
3.6
2.3
3.8
165.1
Incineration
Value t>
476.0
476.0
476.0
476.0
476.0
486.0
486.0
496.0
476.0
476.0
Index «
344.1
10.9
1.0
2.9
9.0
55.9
27.2
4.0
8.6
463.6
Composting
Value !>
460.0
460.0
460.0
480.0
480.0
480.0
480.0
480.0
460.0
460.0
Index °
332.6
10.6
.9
2.9
9.1
55.2
26.9
3.8
8.3
13.3
463. 6
Salvage, reuse,
and conversion
Value !>
250.0
250.0
500.0
250.0
400.0
100.0
100.0
400.0
500.0
500.0
Index °
180.8
5.8
1.0
1.5
7.6
11.5
5.6
3.2
9.0
14.5
240.5
» On the basis of tonnage share.
b Values from Table 86 comprising the weighted average of the cate-
gories; open dumping carries the value of 100 throughout.
c Index is derived by multiplying share of total market by value number.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
TABLE 88.—Disposability resistance values of major material groupings by disposal process: 1966
Material
Paper and paperboard
Metals .
Glass
Wood
Plastics
Textiles
Incinera-
tion
150
460
490
210
300
190
Sanitary
landfilling
160
170
160
270
270
120
Dumping
100
100
100
100
100
100
Composting
230
460
360
180
480
180
Salvage
•
210
240
240
450
330
250
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
139
rials in 1966. The calculations are summarized
in Table 89. They show that the Resistance Index
for all packaging materials in all processes in 1966
stood at 132.5.
The procedure outlined above was repeated for
1976 on the basis of forecast 1976 packaging
material and disposal process shares. Tables,
rating work sheets, and calculations for both 1966
and 1976 are included in the Appendix.
Limitations and Future Opportunities
Although the methodology developed for this
analysis has been found generally satisfactory for
a good over-view type evaluation of the disposa-
bility of packaging materials, we want to acknowl-
edge and discuss certain limitations in the hope of
suggesting opportunities for improvement.
Under the present scheme, materials are placed
in one of five categories (excellent, good, etc.)
corresponding to numerical values (100, 200, etc.).
This is a very broad categorization which cannot
be used to distinguish adequately between two
materials of the same rank. For instance, glassine
paper and containerboard are both ranked
"good" in compactibility: both exhibit good
deforming characteristics and considerable spring-
back. However, there are considerable differences
between the physical properties of these materials,
especially when wet; and these are not recog-
nized by ranking both at 200. Similar differences
may be noted, for instance, between wirebound
boxes and tight cooperage: both rate fair in com-
pactibility, but tight cooperage is far more
difficult to handle due to its construction than a
wirebound box. The rating scheme used, however,
does not permit ranking of these items one against
the other.
The refinement limitation is dictated by two
factors: first, insufficient empirical data are
available to permit making fine distinctions in all
cases—although, of course, distinctions can be
made in some instances. Second, the extremely
large number of configurations (especially in paper,
glass, and plastics) would necessitate an unjusti-
fiably great survey effort in identifying the in-
dividual configurations and would require thou-
sands of analytical judgments to be made to de-
termine values for such small subcategories as
reinforced pressure sensitive tape or pressed pulp
egg cartons.
It is also impracticable to attempt to reflect
expected 1966-1976 changes in the disposability
of materials themselves (e.g., stronger bottles,
more coatings on paper, etc.). Improvements and
deteriorations identified in our study will not be
great enough to cause a change in the valuations
assigned to materials under the present rating
definitions.
Another limitation is in the area of disposal
processes. For instance, for the sake of simplicity,
it was assumed that all materials burned in 1966
were burned in well-operated special purpose
incinerators of the municipal type (operating at
temperatures of 1300 F and above). This, in
fact, was not the case and consequently the rating
mechanism is unrealistic insofar as it applies to
waste tonnage which passed through primitive
residential backyard burners. In this case also,
lack of detailed information (about the number of
backyard, household, and conical burners and
their characteristics) was a limiting factor.
Our work to date suggests that systematic.
evaluation of all waste materials—from packaging,
and also other sources—could be established on a
process-by-process basis by undertaking refine-
ment of the broad-gauge ranking system outlined
here. Such an evaluation would involve the gather-
ing of comprehensive field data on processes and
on the behavior of various major waste materials
in the dominant processes together with labora-
tory testing to establish new information where
historical data are not available. On the basis of
such investigations, a refined system of rating
definitions could be established and made the
foundation of a much more comprehensive
evaluation system.
Analysis of Findings, 1966—1976
Summary: To state our findings very briefly,
packaging materials—on an average—will be
more difficult to process as waste in 1976 than in
1966. The difference will be due primarily to
changes in processing methods used. Difficulties
associated with changes in packaging materials
themselves will cause only a very minor increase
in the Resistance Index.
The Resistance Index as calculated for 1966 is
132. The 1976 Index will be 148, representing an
increase of 16 points. Of this increase, 15 points
(94 percent) will be due to changes in processing—
more incineration and landfilling, less open dump-
-------
140
PACKAGING
2
i
^
H
i
3
s
S
i
ft
8
?>
»
5
3
i
!•
3
S>
•»
2
S
s
i
A
<
H
1
«
d
V
bG
nj
J»
"fl
cn
i
d
-C
d
S
1
y
w
t-
0
Dumping G
irt
0
0
s
1
JS
s-,
«
'3
en
**•
d
Incineration
5
d
5
H
tf
M
V
'u
V
r2
"«
•J
K
H
U
a
3
d
£
•«
V
_3
"B
«
k
1
V
_s
13
>•
19
H
V
"O
V
.3
"3
>
i
1
5
H
1
•
a
f
VO VO rH IN CO rH
co c-\ rH o f~ m
CO CO IN <"A ^ VO
IN •* O\ rH CO
VO IN IN rH
C\ fH O CO t— rH
^ IN CTN ON CO ^J*
^1 rH CO rH CO O
CO rH rH rH
O O O O O O
rH Tj< ^? m co m
CO CO CO •* CO CO
O 00 CO Cv t- in
co in co t- in o
VO CO CO O O O
o
CO -^ CO rH ^1 rH
O t- O CO Cvl VO
co vo oo ^Ji m co
•* o oo co co ^J1
CO CO CO VO rH
T? rH rH
§OOOOO
O O O O O
O CO CO IN CO CO
CO !N CO Ov CO CO
CO CO ^ rH CO O
Tf» rH rH rH
SO O O O O
t> VO f- t^ CO
l-H rH rH CO CO rH
t— t— VO VO •*? VO
O\
Ililll
fcSo,*SH
ON
rH
m
CO
CO
rH
O
CO
CO
t^
rH
m
•*
rH
1
r-
t>
CO
co
vo
co
r-
m
m
t~-
co
rH
•«
O
H
lare times value index.
«
g
ft
1 «
II
3 ^
I -3
« s
s *
« M
s s
i! *
S s
a •*
3 S
S i;
1 i
M C/l
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
141
ing. The remaining point (6 percent of the total
increase) will be attributable to changes in
materials: more paper, more plastics, less metal
per average ton of packaging materials, and such
changes within single categories as more non-
returnable bottles and fewer returnable bottles.
It is clear that, viewed as a whole, packaging
materials as such will only be slightly more resist-
ant in 1976 than in 1966 if disposal processes
remain unchanged. Disposal process distributions
are expected to change substantially, and the
direct technical resistance of materials measured
by our index will increase markedly. Since the
technical resistance is related indirectly to costs,
overall costs will also be trending up.
Ranking of Materials and Processes
Which packaging materials are least resistant to
processing? And which process can handle the
average mix of packaging materials of 1966 and
1976 with least difficulty? This section attempts
to answer these questions on the basis of 1966
and 1976 Resistance Index Calculations (see
Appendix).
The relative influence of processing on ma-
terials is shown in Table 90; the influence of
materials on processing in Table 91. In these two
tables, resistance values are shown in terms of
either materials or of processes. It is interesting
to note that processing changes will result in
increases in disposal resistance ranging from 5.9
percent to 21.4 percent depending on the material.
Changes in materials, on the other hand, will
result in decreases in processing difficulty of 2.5
percent in salvage/reclaiming and increases of 2.9
percent in sanitary landfilling.
TABLE 90.—Effect of disposal process on disposability
resistance index by material: 1966 and 1976 "
TABLE 91.—Effect of packaging materials on disposability
resistance index by disposal process: 1966 and 1976a
Material
Paper and paperboard
Metals
Glass
Wood
Plastics
Textiles
1966
114
160
163
135
. . . 145
119
Percent
1976 increase
over 1966
123
185
187
157
176
126
7.9
15.6
14.7
16.3
21.4
5.9
Process
Open dumping
1966
268
174
100
290
. . . 244
1976
267
179
100
292
238
Percent
change
over
1966
-0.04
2.9
0
.7
-2.5
• Based on 1966 and 1976 weighted disposal processes.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
* Based on 1966 and 1976 packaging material distribution.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
The index values shown in these two tables
illustrate the relative resistance associated with
materials and processes. For instance, paper and
paperboard is the most easily disposable packag-
ing material category both in 1966 and 1967.
Glass is the least in both years.
The relative ranking of each major material
category in the years 1966 and 1976 remains
unchanged:
1. Paper and paperboard.
2. Textiles.
3. Wood.
4. Plastics.
5. Metals.
6. Glass.
Turning to processes, the "best" process (in the
sense that materials offer least resistance when put
through it) is open dumping. Sanitary landfilling
comes next. Materials resist composting most.
Processes are ranked as follows on the basis of our
calculations in both years:
1. Open dumping.
2. Sanitary landfill.
3. Salvage and reclaim.
4. Incineration.
5. Composting.
Here, once more, the relative changes in the period
1966 and 1976 are not uniform: incineration and
salvage values actually decline; the sanitary
landfill value increases (nearly 3 percent) along
with the compost value (0.7 percent), and open
dumping remains the same. It should be noted
that the third-place rank of salvage and reclaim
is probably unrealistic. Since the index measures
technical resistance, not economics, salvage re-
ceives a fairly good rank; closer analysis of this
process indicates, however, that market accept-
326-388 O - 69 - 11
-------
142
PACKAGING
ance of salvaged materials is poor, owing to the
low costs of virgin materials.
Another method of ranking materials is pre-
sented in Table 92. Here, the relative dominance
of material groupings (in tons) is compared to the
the contribution of these materials to the Resist-
ance Index values in two years, 1966 and 1976.
Only two materials, paper and textiles, contribute
proportionately more to total tonnage than to
difficulty. The table also shows that while the
resistance of paper and textiles is decreasing,
those of all the other materials are increasing.
Table 93 expresses these same relationships in
terms of disposal processes.
It should be kept in mind, in viewing these
rankings, that they are based on packaging mate-
rials and their resistance only and do not purport
to pass judgment on the overall efficiency or
acceptability (from a health standpoint) of proc-
esses nor on the overall disposability of all waste
materials.
Comparative Resistance Values of Nine Disposal
Process Cases
Up to this point, the analysis has been based
entirely on forecasts of changes between 1966
and 1976 which we judge to be the most probable.
For the sake of interest, however, additional
analyses are presented below which are based on
possible but less probable developments.
The most significant expected change in proc-
essing, in our view, will be the progressive
elimination of open dumping across the nation.
For this reason, all cases trace the effect on the
Resistance Index of the virtual elimination of
dumping. The open dumping burden must be
absorbed by other processes, and our analysis
shows what may be expected, as incineration and
sanitary landfilling are called upon to accom-
modate wastes which were formerly dumped.
Table 94 shows the percentages assigned to the
processes under the assumptions and, in the last
TABLE 92.—Comparison of packaging materials and their contribution to volume and resistance: 1966 and 1976
Material
Glass
Wood
Plastics
Textiles
Total
Contribution
tonnage
(percent)
54.75
15.56
17. 91
8. 83
2. 39
.55
100. 0
1966
Contribution
to 1966
resistance
index (percent)
47.08
18.79
22.04
8.98
2.62
.49
100. 0 . .
Ratio
resistance
1. 16
.83
.81
.98
.91
1.12
Contribution
tonnage
(percent)
56.86
12.96
18.32
6.81
4.82
.23
100.0
1976
Contribution
to 1976
resistance
index (percent)
47.47
16.75
23.73
7.22
5.72
.20
100.0
Ratio
resistance
1.20
77
.77
.94
.84
1.15
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
TABLE 93.—Disposability processes and their contribution to materials handled and resistance; 1966 and 1976
Process
Incineration
Sanitary landfilling . .
Dumping
Composting
Salvage
Total
Proportion
of total
waste
handled
(percent)
14. 0
5.0
77. 5
.5
3. 0
100. 0
1966
Contribution
to 1966
resistance
index
(percent)
28.34
6.55
58.48
1. 10
5.53
100. 0
Ratio total
waste to
resistance
0.49
.76
1.33
.45
.54
Proportion
of total
waste
handled
(percent)
18.0
13.0
64.0
1.0
4.0
100.0
1976
Contribution
to 1976
resistance
index
(percent)
32.51
15.78
43.30
1.98
6.43
100.0
Ratio total
waste to
resistance
0.55
.82
1.48
.50
.62
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
143
TABLE 94.—Influence of disposal process share on the disposability resistance index: 1976
Process share in percent
Process
Incineration . . .
Sanitary landfilling ....
Open dumping . . . .
Composting
Salvage ... ...
Total
Index . . ...
Actual Increasing use of
forecast incineration
18
13
64
1
4
100
. . 148
38
13
44
1
4
100
181
58
13
24
1
4
100
215
78
13
4
1
4
100
248
Increasing use of
sanitary landfill
18
33
44
1
4
100
164
18
53
24
1
4
100
180
18
73
4
1
4
100
195
Increasing use of
incineration and
sanitary landfill
28
23
44
1
4
100
170
38
33
24
1
4
100
197
48
43
4
1
4
100
222
Source: Midweet Research Institute.
line, the index values calculated for each assump-
tion.
The resistances associated with increase in-
cineration are higher than those associated with
increased landfilling. Consequently, open dump-
ing volume which is diverted to landfilling shows
lower resistance than in a case where incineration
absorbs the tonnage previously dumped. Keeping
in mind that resistances calculated here are guides
to direct comparative costs of disposal, this find-
ing is exactly what one might expect in that
incineration is a more costly disposal route than
landfilling.
This brief analysis points out one of the poten-
tial merits of a rating system such as the one used
here for planning future disposal facilities. It is
conceivable that the system presented here could
be refined to a point where it would permit
accurate prediction of the least costly method of
handling a future waste volume.
-------
-------
PART III
Mechanisms for Mitigating Problems Caused
by Packaging Materials in
Waste Disposal
-------
-------
Mechanisms for Mitigating Problems Caused by Packaging
Materials in Waste Disposal
INTRODUCTION
A variety of activities which may result in the
mitigation of problems caused by packaging
materials in waste disposal are discussed in Part
III of this report. Not all of the activities analyzed
are considered desirable or practical. Those that
do not appear worthwhile are nevertheless in-
cluded in the discussion for the sake of complete-
ness and in order to indicate the limits of practical
intervention.
Our method of approach is exploratory and
begins with a formulation of the objectives that
might be framed by the Public Health Service in
relation to packaging. This is followed by a dis-
cussion of the mechanisms whereby the objectives
may be achieved. The mechanisms for achieving
the objectives are then evaluated in some detail
in light of the objectives. In the next section,
barriers to achievement of the objectives are
described. Finally, recommendations based on the
analysis are presented.
Before proceeding, we should like to attempt
an answer to a fundamental question which may
be raised in connection with this part of the report.
The question is, "Why should a government
agency take an active part in mitigating disposal
problems caused by packaging?"
The answer derives from the nature of solid
waste generation. Solid wastes, much like air and
water pollutants, create a problem because their
adverse effects are not automatically removed by
the workings of the free market. This is best
illustrated in the case of packaging by recalling
that neither the manufacturer's decision to make a
certain package nor the consumer's decision to
purchase that package are influenced by con-
sideration of disposability.* The market does not
reward either party for making or buying a highly
disposable package, nor are there economic sanc-
*Disposability here refers to handling the material after
a user has discarded it and has no further use for the
package.
tions attached to the use of a container which
resists disposal processing.
In order to influence either the packaging in-
dustries or the consumer, economic rewards must
be attached to containers which are disposable and
sanctions must be imposed on containers which
resist disposal processing. Since neither packagers
nor package buyers are likely to impose such re-
wards and sanctions voluntarily, the intervention
of a third party is essential to remove what econ-
omists call the "external diseconomies" which
packaging creates in waste disposal.
The Federal Government is only one of several
such third parties. While the following discussion
concerns itself primarily with action on the federal
level, appropriate activities could also be pursued
on a regional, state, or municipal level. Even
privately operated waste disposal corporations
and citizen's committees could fulfill the "third
party" role, although their effectiveness would be
limited and the impacts of their actions on the
packaging industries would be negligible.
Formulation of Objectives
If one were asked to sum up in a single word
the basic problem which packaging materials
represent for waste collection and disposal facility
operators, that word would be "cost." Packaging
materials are a relatively recent large volume
waste product, whose handling can increase solid
waste collection and disposal expenditures. In-
creased costs may show up as a requirement for
more collection equipment, the need for a larger
labor force, as a requirement for new landfill
sites, as higher maintenance and labor costs in
incineration, and as a requirement for the addition
of air pollution control equipment.
If packaging materials represented a health or
safety hazard, the justification for government
action aimed at packaging would exist without
question. However, with some very minor ex-
ceptions—polyvinyl chloride materials which
decompose into chlorine compounds when
147
-------
148
PACKAGING
burned—packaging materials do not represent a
health hazard. They may give rise to air pollution
if they are burned in incinerators which are
improperly operated. But pollution is created by
the incinerator operator, not packages. Glass or
metal containers thrown away carelessly may cut
tires or people's feet. But here again, the fault
lies with those who litter, not with container
manufacturers. Finally, food wastes or chemical
residues left in containers can create ground water
pollution or serve as nutrient to insects and
rodents; in such instances, also, the containers
do not cause the health hazard.
Public Health Service activities related to
packaging must, consequently, encompass these
economic objectives. Objectives which embrace
all basic economic problems created by packaging
can be formulated as follows:
(1) Reduce the quantity of packaging materials
used, thereby reducing the quantity of such wastes
which must be transported and handled.
(2) Reduce the destruction of valuable natural
resources.
(3) Reduce the technical difficulty of handling
such wastes in disposal or salvage facilities.
(4) Dispose of solid wastes more effectively and
efficiently by known methods such as landfill and
incineration and by new approaches to solid waste
processing.
MECHANISMS FOR ACHIEVING
OBJECTIVES
Generally, mechanisms for achieving the ob-
jectives outlined above are: regulation, creation
of incentives, imposition of taxes, pursuit of
appropriate research and development efforts, and
educational efforts. More specifically, the follow-
ing activities appear suited to each objective.
Reduction of the Quantity of Packaging
Wastes Generated
There are two ways in which the quantity of
packaging materials which end up as waste can
be reduced: (1) regulation of the packaging indus-
try to eliminate "overpackaging" and (2) regula-
tion forcing the reuse of containers or recycle of
the materials for reprocessing.
"Overpackaging," as used here, refers to a
tendency in retail commerce to use more packaging
than is absolutely necessary for product contain-
ment and protection. As used in industry, the
term refers to quality rather than quantity; in
industrial jargon, a product is overpackaged when
a more costly material is used than is necessary.
It is our conviction that many products are
overpackaged in the sense that quantitatively
much more packaging is used than is necessary.
Potato chips in bags are sufficiently packaged.
They need not also be in boxes or tins. There
is, similarly, no technical justification for packag-
ing many small, durable items on display boards
via blister or skin packaging; however, there are
commercial reasons for doing so.
Concerning reuse and recycle, it should be
noted that most packages cannot be reused be-
cause they are not sufficiently durable or they
become contaminated during use. Recycling is
theoretically more possible if adequate technology
for separating and reprocessing of materials is
first created. That is, with the exception of return-
able containers as such, if the packages are reduced
to their raw material state they can be used
again.
Conservation of Natural Resources
To accomplish this aim, three means seem
suitable: (1) prohibition of use of certain materials
in packaging applications; (2) regulation requiring
that containers be made of specified materials
and be returnable and reusable; and (3) improve-
ment of salvage and conversion by making packag-
ing waste more salvable; by rewarding those
who use secondary materials or, conversely, by
taxing virgin resources; development and use of
more salvable materials; and by aiding salvage
operators.
This objective overlaps somewhat with the
first one—reduction of the quantity of packaging
materials which must be handled. The chief
difference between the first objective and this
one is in point of view. Whereas it may be difficult
to justify government action for the purpose of
regulating industry and thus aiding disposal
facility operators, it may be possible to justify
action on the grounds that vital national resources
are being wasted needlessly.
Reduction of the Technical Difficulty of
Handling Packaging Wastes in Disposal
Facilities
Three ways of achieving this objective can be
identified: (1) modification of packages to give
them characteristics which better fit disposal sys-
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
149
tern requirements; (2) elimination of materials
which are "undesirable;" and (3) development of
new disposal technology which can handle packag-
ing wastes with less trouble and cost.
Package modification may be accomplished by
one or more activities, among them educational
efforts, development of new design criteria, R&D
effort, and use of the government's purchasing
leverage. This is a potentially promising approach
to mitigating some problems created by packaging
in waste disposal.
Elimination of undesirable materials, by what-
ever means, implies thorny legal and administra-
tive problems which will be fully treated below.
Development of new disposal technology gen-
erally falls outside the scope of this analysis
since packaging materials represent a small part
of total waste, and process development must
take all wastes into account.
EVALUATION OF MECHANISMS
Mechanisms for achieving the objectives in-
clude: (1) support of research and development;
(2) educational activities; (3) incentives and sub-
sidies; (4) taxes; and (5) various forms of admin-
istrative regulation. A detailed discussion of each
mechanisms will be presented.
Research and Development
R&D can be performed by the Public Health
Service in-house; research by qualified profit, non-
profit, and university groups can be supported by
contracts or grants; finally, R&D activity in
industry can be aided, supported, or encouraged.
In relation to packaging, research and develop-
ment can be oriented toward three basic areas:
development of materials which are more easily
disposed of, separated, and reused; development
of a technology of salvage and reuse; and develop-
ment of disposal technology that will be capable
of handling packaging wastes without trouble.
This last area of research appears to be the most
promising, but as previously mentioned is outside
the scope of this analysis. Research devoted to the
improvement of salvage technology would also
be promising.
Materials Research
Least fruitful, in our view, would be effort
expended on changing the characteristics of pack-
aging materials. The primary reason for this is
that exactly those characteristics which make a
package difficult to handle in disposal are those
which make it desirable as a package. This is a
way of saying that any container which is easily
disposed of is a poor container; and while such a
generalization could not be applied to all packages,
it is applicable to those packaging categories
which create difficulty in disposal.
Changes in materials and containers which
would be desirable from a disposal point of view
are these:
(1) Plastics—should have better burning rates
so that they will not create trouble in incineration;
should be degradable in soil; should be made
easier to separate by some mechanical means.
(2) Steel—if tin and lead were eliminated from
steel cans the steel would be more acceptable for
salvage; nonferrous metals (aluminum ends on
steel cans) make the steel less acceptable in
salvage; containers should be made in such a
manner that they can be flattened, crushed, or
collapsed with modest pressure by the housewife
without use of tools or machinery.
(3) Aluminum—currently two or more types of
aluminum alloys are used to make a can; a single-
alloy can would be more desirable from the
salvage point of view.
(4) Paper—synthetic coatings (clay, plastics)
and photogravure inks create problems in re-
pulping or deinking; coatings and inks should be
created which provide presently obtainable char-
acteristics but do not cause problems in reuse of
the paper.
(5) Glass—containers should be easier to break
without losing their strength in use; when broken,
glass containers should fall apart into uniform
pellets, not slivers and shards that create safety
hazards.
As can be seen from the above, some of the
desirable characteristics are not obtainable with-
out significantly changing the molecular structure
of the materials, thereby changing their vital
characteristics (more flammable plastics and new
paper coatings). To change other characteristics
would call for the creation of new container
types which would cost considerably more than
currently available packages (glass and collapsible
steel). Yet other changes are much more prac-
tical—tinless steel and single alloy aluminum,
which are already beginning to be used com-
mercially in packaging.
-------
150
PACKAGING
While research directed at achieving some of
these changes is justified, particularly if the
material modification would aid in the recovering
of packaging materials for reuse, we believe that
R&D expenditures on the development of disposal
or salvage technology would be more fruitful.
Most of the difficulties created by packaging
are due to inadequate technology or the absence
of technology in waste disposal. So long as wastes
are landfilled without prior shredding and grind-
ing, glass, plastics, and aluminum containers will
be deposited in unaltered form and will retain their
form. Ground up thoroughly, small bits of glass,
metal, and plastics would be much more acceptable
as fill material, even if they did not degrade or
decompose. In incineration, more sophisticated
combustion techniques could eliminate problems
caused by plastics. Or separation of plastics by
some automatic means followed by separate
burning in specially designed incinerators to
alleviate the problems of grate fouling which are
encountered when shock loads of plastics are
burned could be used as a solution. In the same
vein, development of effective, low cost, automatic
materials separation technology would be a more
practical aid to composting than development of
degradable plastics—and would probably be less
costly and more likely to succeed as well.
Public Health Service research efforts aimed at
packaging materials and containers should be
restricted, in our view, to encouragement of
industrial developmental work to bring about
early commercialization of tin-free steel cans,
single alloy aluminum, and new paper coatings.
All of these developments would aid salvage.
Other desirable materials changes which would
make packaging easier to dispose of appear to
call for inordinate R&D efforts. Once materials
with the desirable characteristics are obtained
in the laboratory, they would have to be demon-
strated as economic alternatives to existing
materials. Finally such R&D effort may turn out
to be unimportant as disposal technology is
improved.
Salvage Technology Research
The research goal most worthy of pursuit would
be the development of automatic materials separa-
tion techniques. At present, only steel cans can
be separated from waste effectively, using mag-
nets. Air float systems can be employed to sort
out light materials—but plastic films and paper
are indiscriminately mixed in such systems.
Inertial and ballistic systems can sort out heavier
nonferrous materials, but these; too produce mix-
tures of glass aluminum, plastics, wood, etc.
To achieve effective separation, invariably involves
hand sorting of wastes, which is a costly activity
and unappealing to the workers.
Absence of systems which could selectively
and automatically separate wastes is one of the
real bottlenecks in waste handling and reuse.
Development of such a technology would seem
feasible and would involve the mating of tech-
nologies developed in several industrial activities:
(1) sensing techniques used in the process in-
dustries, aerospace, and medical electronics;
(2) materials handling technology developed for
agriculture (automatic harvesters); for food
handling (e.g., American Machine & Foundry's
automated short-order kitchen); for packaging;
for metals fabrication, etc.; (3) computer and/or
numerical control technology used in metal
working, electronic data processing, and process
control; and (4) materials tagging, marking, and
tracing techniques.
Research efforts in this area would involve
identification of sensing techniques which could
recognize and classify waste materials with little
or no modification; marking of those materials
which cannot be sensed, for example, by infrared
sensitive materials; and combination of sensing
techniques with materials handling equipment
in an operating system. Feasibility of such a
technique could be explored in phases, and we
recommend that Public Health Service undertake
or contract for the first phase of this research,
a state-of-the-sensing-art evaluation performed
to discover the match between existing technology
and segregation requirements in waste handling.
Some strides have recently been made in waste
materials preparation and handling equipment in
steel with the advent of the Proler steel shredder.
Support by the Public Health Service of similar
endeavors to improve waste materials handling
would be appropriate to improve salvage. An
example of such effort would be funding of an
ongoing effort to develop a waste paper shredder -
pelleter which promises to automate container-
board reuse by reducing these containers to
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
151
uniform pellets.* These bulky containers are typi-
cally shipped in bales, stacked in tall piles in
warehouses, and conveyed from point to point
by fork-lift trucks.
Other activities to improve salvage technology
might include development of processes for sepa-
rating plastic coatings from paper and automated
sorting of glass and plastics by color.
Educational Efforts
Educational efforts, some formal some informal,
are already under way under the auspices of the
Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Public
Health Service. In what follows, specific programs
will be discussed and directed at three groups:
industry, including sanitary facility operators;
the consumer; and governmental agencies within
the federal establishment.
The objective of all of these efforts should be
to disseminate, exchange and/or develop in suit-
able form information concerning packaging ma-
terials and their performance in waste disposal or
salvage facilities, on the assumption that the
recipients of the information will voluntarily
modify their activities as soon as they clearly
perceive the problems involved.
The above assumption is optimistic but sound.
Many of the individuals and organizations in-
volved in packaging, directly or indirectly, face
constraints other than lack of information. These
constraints will not be removed by educational
efforts, and the actions of those involved may
consequently not be modified. But in those in-
stances where the primary constraint is ignorance,
educational programs can be expected to be effec-
tive, especially if they are combined with other
activities such as disincentive programs, regula-
tion, supporting research and development, and
incentive programs.
Industry Programs
To produce packages which are easy to process
in disposal facilities has not been one of the
traditional aims of package manufacturers. At
least one reason for this has been a general lack
of information about the disposal problems pack-
ages can cause. Another has been public apathy
*Detailed information concerning this machine may be
obtained from the National Committee for Paper Stock
Conservation, Chicago, Illinois.
concerning the entire question of waste generation
and waste disposal.
In recent years, public interest in solid waste
has been aroused. The popular press is full of
articles on this subject. Some have viewed the
problem with alarm, have suddenly discovered
the "crisis" proportions of solid waste generation,
have warned that we will be inundated with
empty beer cans, plastic bottles, and soft drink
bottles, etc.
The trade press has also been active in present-
ing the subject from various angles. At the same
time, the establishment of a federal-level pro-
gram—the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
of the Public Health Service—to aid in the solu-
tion of pressing waste disposal problems has raised
the subject to national prominence.
Keep America Beautiful and other organiza-
tions have existed for some years through the
support of industry. The primary thrust of their
activity is directed at litter. More recently, several
major packaging companies have assigned full
time staff members to direct attention to other
aspects of solid waste besides the more common
emphasis on litter. The Glass Container Manu-
facturers Institute in 1967 added a full time
"manager of environmental pollution control pro-
grams." Another industry group—a "Materials
Research Council"—was formed in late 1967 to
evaluate actions that industry might take to deal
with packaging solid waste. This latter group is
composed of representatives of several major pack-
aging companies. Other industry associations have
special committees or groups to evaluate the role
of packaging in solid waste. However, they are
mostly concerned with litter or have been limited
to a brief survey of "the solid waste problem."
To date these industry efforts taken as a whole
are nominal. In some instances, the principal aim
of industry action appears to be to counteract
unfavorable legislation aimed at a particular ma-
terial or container type. However, the majority
of companies taking the initiative in this field
appear to be sincerely interested in attacking the
problems in a realistic manner.
Such voluntary efforts have considerable prom-
ise in our opinion and should be supported to the
fullest by the Public Health Service. The mech-
anism for so doing would be educational programs.
What might such programs accomplish? Per-
haps the most important aim would be to remove
-------
152
PACKAGING
some of the misunderstandings which separate
industrial and government officials (at all levels).
Industrial leaders have a tendency to view all
government action, however remotely connected
with their activities, as a potential threat. There
also seems to be a widespread conviction in
industry that government officials connected
with solid waste handling view the packaging
industries as somewhat negligent or indifferent to
disposal problems. The fact that both of these
views can be substantiated with isolated examples
does not help matters.
The real root of these misunderstandings is
lack of communication between industry and
government. That is not to say that an open ex-
change of views would remove some of the actual
differences which exist between packagers and
disposal facility operators. But so long as such
misunderstandings exist, a rational approach to
the reconciliation of differences remains blocked.
It is our recommendation, consequently, that
the Public Health Service take the lead in bringing
together representatives of the packaging indus-
tries and local sanitation officials, researchers, and
federal and state officials in regional conferences,
symposia, and seminars.
The Public Health Service should endeavor to
conduct such meetings in an informal, off-the-
record atmosphere. The object of the meetings
would be to air problems and grievances, to discuss
research requirements, the constraints faced by
the packaging industries, and similar pertinent
subjects. We expect that the outcome of such
exchanges would be favorable. They would lead to
package modifications undertaken voluntarily;
to modifications of waste processing suggested by
packagers, whose familiarity with their materials
would aid processors; and to the improvement
of recycling and reuse of waste materials.
A second aim of educational programs would be
to make available to all interested parties a
sufficiency of existing information, in easily usable
form, on waste disposal, packaging, and other
appropriate subjects. At the present time, it is
not possible to obtain on short notice and with
little effort a summary of all publications on, say,
the subject of incineration. To obtain such
information requires the expenditure of con-
siderable effort in searching the available litera-
ture. If the aim of the investigator is to analyze
the combustibility of plastics in municipal
incinerators, his task would be doubly difficult.
To fulfill this second aim, we recommend that
the Public Health Service establish a Solid Waste
Disposal Technology Information Center, oper-
ated either as a free service or on a subscription
basis.
The Information Center would store all litera-
ture on a variety of subjects pertaining directly
or in an ancillary manner to solid waste tech-
nology; thus, in addition to literature on the
technology of disposal and collection, it would
store data on the volume and character of wastes,
waste generation, the composition and perform-
ance characteristics of materials, health aspects
of solid waste, information on special waste
problems such as agricultural manures and
building rubble, information about secondary
materials markets, etc. Such a system could be
designed as an extension of the Solid Waste
Information Retrieval System (SWIRS) currently
operated by the Office of Information of the
Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
Organization of the information should be such
that comprehensive searches embracing more
than one subject could be undertaken by the
use of key words. This suggests that the system
would have to be automated (if not computerized).
Monthly abstracts of inputs could be published
by the center to familiarize use:rs with new infor-
mation available.
Periodic assessment of the data stored and of
incoming information requests would reveal
data gaps. These could be filled by appropriate
investigations in-house or by outside research
organizations; if data would be available from
industrial sources, corporations could be requested
to supply the information needed.
Consumer Programs
The programs outlined above would reach
principally industrial organizations including in-
dustry associations and sanitary facility operators.
This leaves out of account an important third
party—the consumer. A widespread change in
public attitudes toward solid wastes and packag-
ing would do much to create a favorable environ-
ment for mitigating problems created by packag-
ing. In a section which follows on barriers to
action, consumer attitudes are: cited as an impor-
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
153
tant deterrent to the achievement of Public
Health Service objectives.
The aim of any consumer education effort
would have to be to create a willingness to co-
operate with waste disposal organizations and
packagers in various ways. The campaign against
litter is an example of such an effort. While not
visibly effective except in isolated instances,
it would be accurate to say that anti-litter
education helps to curb the growth in littering
and is effective in inculcating proper attitudes in
children, who may be the Jitterbugs of tomorrow.
Similar programs touching on other areas of
waste disposal activity would also be effective.
Among such programs might be efforts to create
an awareness in the public mind of (1) the costs
and technology of disposal; (2) the volumes of
wastes generated, with special emphasis on pack-
aging; (3) the "squander" aspects of waste
disposal; and (4) efforts to show how the consumer
can help waste disposal facility operators (buy
returnable containers, flatten cans, crush non-
returnable bottles and jars, support local programs
of salvage and reclaiming, etc.).
Such programs could be pursued best in coop-
eration with voluntary private social service
groups—Keep America Beautiful, Inc., National
Educational Television Network, church groups,
the Boy and Girl Scouts, etc. Public Health Serv-
ice contribution to such efforts might take the
form of supplying information, films, and financial
assistance.
1ntra -Government Information Programs
There are five federal agencies which have a
fairly direct influence on packaging: the Con-
sumer and Marketing Service of the Department
of Agriculture; Defense Supply Agency, Depart-
ment of Defense; the General Services Admin-
istration; the Food and Drug Administration,
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare;
and the Interstate Commerce Commission.
None of these departments and agencies con-
cerns itself with the disposability of packaging
materials. At the same time, however, they have
the power to influence packaging materials in
various ways.
For instance, polyvinyl chloride plastics in the
glass-clear form could not be used in food pack-
aging until FDA approval of the material had
been granted for the modifying additives used to
obtain clarity. While this material has been found
acceptable by FDA under its present criteria, it
is not a very desirable material from the waste
disposal point of view when it is incinerated be-
cause on burning the plastic decomposes into
potentially hazardous chlorine compounds. Modi-
fication of FDA licensing procedure to take into
account potential material hazards arising in dis-
posal might have prevented use of this material in
food packaging.
Intra-governmental information programs
would have as their first aim to acquaint all those
concerned with packaging, either in a regulatory
role or as purchasers, with desirability criteria
developed by the Bureau of Solid Waste Manage-
ment, Public Health Service. Once this is ac-
complished, cooperative effort to work out
modified specifications and purchasing standards
could be undertaken.
What is proposed here is, essentially, educa-
tional programs leading to regulatory action or to
incentive type programs. FDA and Interstate
Commerce Commission action, for instance, could
be used to prevent the widespread use of unde-
sirable materials or configurations—by withhold-
ing permission to use a material in certain appli-
cations or by influencing its transportability.
Government purchasing, based on criteria which
embrace disposability, would serve as an incentive
for the development of packaging products which
better fit disposal requirements.
These programs, to be of maximum effective-
ness, would take the form of interagency task
forces or study groups and should not be restricted
to the dissemination of documentary materials to
agency staffs, although that may be a suitable
first step.
The effectiveness of educational efforts would
be extremely difficult to measure. For this reason,
cost/effectiveness yardsticks would prove largely
useless, with the result that justifying such pro-
grams would be somewhat difficult. This would be
particularly true in the case of expenditures on
consumer education. However, the levels of ex-
penditure involved would also be modest. For
instance, a Waste Disposal Technology Informa-
tion Center could probably be operated for under
$200,000 annually (Table 95). Two-day regional
seminars, if held on government property, could
-------
154
PACKAGING
probably be staged for $7,000 each in expenses for
program printing and mailing, audiovisual sup-
port, intra-city transportation, coffee, production
of proceedings, and a concluding dinner for 50
participants.
TABLE 95.—Estimated annual cost of operating a waste
disposal technology information center a
Personnel and equipment
Cost
Staff—salary and overhead (3 senior analysts,
1 secretary/clerk) $100, 000
Staff travel and telephone 50, 000
Production, reproduction, and mailing expenses 45, 000
Equipment allocation:
Automated information retrieval system b. 2, 000
Other equipment * 500
Total annual outlay 197, 500
* Excludes the costs of special studies undertaken to fill data gaps
and assumes an operating system. First year operating costs would be
higher.
b $10,000 system, 5-year depreciation.
c $5,000 in equipment, 10-year depreciation.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
Incentives and Subsidies
Various forms of incentives have been used by
the federal government for decades to achieve
desired objectives. In general, incentives in this
analysis would be any expenditures of tax receipts
made by the government, or use of the govern-
ment's purchasing power, to bring about changes
in packaging materials use or reuse. Expenditures
can be either direct (subsidies, outright grants,
price support) or indirect (tax credits). It is im-
portant to keep in mind throughout the following
discussion of incentives that such measures can
also be viewed as indirect taxes. For example, any
incentive payment which results in increased use
of waste paper is also a hidden tax on virgin pulp
because the incentive helps to narrow the gap
between the costs of obtaining and processing
these two raw materials.
The Question of Justification
The basic difference between use of incentives
and subsidies and regulatory authority is that
incentive type programs are commonly used by
the federal government to bring about changes
considered necessary for the public welfare; whereas
regulation is practiced only as a last resort.
Government subsidy of desalination develop-
ment, atomic energy, the supersonic transport
(SST), water treatment fatality construction,
solid waste disposal technology development,
highway construction, shipbuilding, agricultural
price supports, and a host of other activities are
examples of government use of tax funds to bring
about changes in the economic and technological
environment. Some of these activities are also in-
direct taxes on commodities and services. Support
of atomic power development, for instance, is an
indirect tax on hydrocarbon fuels; subsidies of the
shipbuilding industry are an indirect tariff on
more efficient foreign shipbuilding companies
which, given an unsupported U.S. shipbuilding
industry, might for a time capture all of the U.S.
shipbuilding business.
In view of this situation, justification of incentive
type programs aimed at improving packaging
material disposability and salvability should
present no problems.
Incentives and Salvage
Incentive type mechanisms appear to have the
best chance of being effective in attempts to
improve salvage. This, in turn, would result in a
reduction of total packaging material tonnage
entering the waste stream and would contribute
to the conservation of valuable natural resources.
Salvage and reuse have been declining in the
United States because our natural resources
abound and because virtually all raw material
development efforts have been focused on the
efficient winning, purification, and conversion of
virgin materials. Research and development
work to utilize wastes and to process and move
them efficiently has been minimal since the value
of secondary materials has been low in relation
to virgin materials, and scrap and waste handling
organizations have consequently not had the
incentives to improve their technology and to
invest capital in innovative ideas.
In order to increase significantly the quantities
of waste materials which are used as virgin sub-
stitutes, it would be necessary to bring about a
series of changes and improvements in the second-
ary materials industries which—had the nation
suffered shortages in the past—would have been
brought about by the natural workings of the
market. The reasons for doing so are twofold:
first, higher secondary materials use rates would
ease the load on waste disposal facilities; and
second, higher reuse ratios have to be achieved
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
155
as we slowly but inexorably approach the point
where total demand from population increase
and rising living standards at home and around
the world begin to strain our virgin resources.
Five specific ailments afflict the secondary mate-
rials industries:
(1) Collection systems are inefficient, inade-
quate, or nonexistent.
(2) Wherever practiced, collection is frequently
sporadic except collection of materials with fairly
stable markets like scrap iron and steel.
(3) Materials handling technology—separation,
reduction, storage, movement—is frequently in-
ferior to analogous virgin materials handling
technology.
(4) Secondary materials prices are highly
erratic, which discourages investments in new
technology and prevents development of efficiently
operating collection systems.
(5) Secondary materials are inferior to virgin
products because they are less homogeneous and
frequently polluted, and consequently they are
not in demand as substitutes for easier-to-process
virgin stocks.
Improvement of salvage generally would require
an attack on all of these ills. Incentive type pro-
grams could be used with telling effect to solve a
number - of these problems. Collection systems
could be established by subsidy of appropriately
deployed existing organizations, for instance scrap
companies, Goodwill Industries, Inc., the Salva-
tion Army, etc. Capital could be made available to
secondary materials companies to improve their
technology—better separation equipment, shred-
ders, pelleters, balers, automated warehousing,
and the like. Price supports for secondary mate-
rials could be used to maintain a strong and con-
tinuing collection effort regardless of price swings.
Potential secondary materials users could be en-
couraged to use, or use more of, such materials
by subsidizing the necessary investments they
must make in plants and facilities to store, con-
vert, and/or purify such materials.
Of these possible activities, two appear to be
the most likely to result in a marked improvement
at lowest cost: price supports of secondary mate-
rials and tax credits for scrap processors and ma-
terials-using industries to stimulate their invest-
ment in necessary secondary materials processing
and using plant. Both actions would have multiple
effects. They would make secondary materials
more attractive to collect and process; they would
assure a steady supply of these materials, thereby
making them a secure source of raw materials;
they would permit more careful segregation and
pre-processing of wastes, thereby making them
more attractive to buy; and they would provide
the wherewithal for technological improvements.
Today, an important barrier to waste reuse
is the fact that prices paid for wastes are not high
enough to permit their processing into truly useful
commodities. Heterogeneous waste paper, for
example, cannot be sorted to the degree necessary
at going prices. Similarly, repulping and deinking
costs tend to be high unless the papers processed
are already fairly well sorted. It thus becomes
necessary, in order to improve this situation, to
make up the differential between sales price and
processing costs, leaving a margin for profit.
Similarly, the plant and equipment needed to
repulp these materials must be created. External
action is called for to make the use of secondary
materials at least comparable in attractiveness
to developing virgin resources.
The scope of this study did not permit detailed
analysis of the secondary materials industries.
Consequently, further investigation should be
undertaken to establish exact levels of price sup-
ports that would result in maximum recycling at
an acceptable cost for each of several commodities.
Such a study, however, should focus on all
secondary materials, not just packaging wastes.
Furthermore, the investigation should attempt to
compare two alternatives: support of secondary
materials reuse, giving appropriate credit for ma-
terials conservation, and support of waste disposal
facility operations. It may turn out that the latter
course would cost less overall.
Incentives to waste materials users and dealers
could take two forms: (1) an investment tax
credit, which would permit a corporation to deduct
a specified percentage of an investment from in-
come tax, and/or (2) an accelerated depreciation
rate which would permit the corporation to write
off the investment in a specified period of time,
usually shorter than that allowed for a similar
class of investment; an accelerated depreciation
allowance may also include special provisions
such as, for instance, a one-time additional
depreciation deduction.
Credits and allowances of this type may be
given for construction of production plants which
-------
156
PACKAGING
use high proportions of waste, e.g., paperboard
mills and electric steel furnaces, and for purchase
of waste handling equipment such as shredders,
balers, and the like. In this instance also, further
investigation is in order to ascertain the probable
effects of various tax incentive programs.
The two incentive type mechanisms discussed
above have the merit that they could be applied
on a national scale with relatively modest admin-
istrative programs. In contrast to these programs,
the use of incentives to improve secondary mate-
rials collection by some direct method (price
supports would improve it indirectly) would
require a considerable amount of investigation of
collection practices in the large municipalities of
the nation. Investigation would have to center on:
(1) the nature of existing collection systems, in-
cluding such aspects as distance of the city from
using industries; (2) identification of potential
organizations which might become bases for
secondary materials collection activities; (3)
assessment of the problems confronted by both
groups of organizations; and (4) analysis of the
incentives which may bring about changes in the
locality. Most probably, separate programs tailored
to the needs of each city would have to be worked
out and administered.
Incentive programs of the type discussed above
would not be suitable to the modification of con-
tainers to achieve packaging wastes which are
less contaminated and consequently more salvable.
Whereas contamination of wastes is due in part
to such things as use of material combinations
in packaging, they are no less due to the fact that
wastebaskets and trash barrels are used to hold
every kind of discard, paper as well as plastics,
cigarette ends along with apple cores, garbage
and ashes, magazines and yard clippings.
Government Purchasing Policy as an Incentive
In 1966, the Federal Government spent $76.9
billion on goods and services. According to the best
available estimates—by Business and Defense
Services Administration, General Services Admin-
istration, trade associations, and private industry
calculations—federal spending on packaging ma-
terials was something in excess of II billion in
1966, about $850 million in the form of packaging
purchased as part of products and commodities,
about $150 million in the form of packaging
purchased directly as containers, e.g., boxes,
cans, pallets, etc.
These expenditures, representing nearly 6
percent of all packaging, were made for packaging
products whose characteristics were laid down in
comprehensive detail in specifications formulated
by either the General Services Administration or
the Defense Supply Agency of the Department of
Defense, the agencies which purchase almost all
products, commodities, and packaging used by
federal agencies.
The situation sketched out above points up
the significant purchasing leverage exercised by
the government which could be: used as a direct
force to influence packaging. By specifying the
use of materials and container types most suitable
for disposal, salvage, or both, government pur-
chasing power could be employed to ensure that
the government itself does not contribute to dis-
posal difficulty and squandering of natural
resources. More importantly, however, such action
could also have an important effect on nongovern-
ment packaging by creating the base for tech-
nological innovation.
To give one example, it would be possible to
spur commercialization of a tin-free steel can by
specifying that all foods, canned beverages, and
other canned goods purchased by the government
after a certain date must be in steel cans which do
not contain tin, or that tin-free steel cans will be
given preference in competitive bids. Such a
specification would create a large market for such
containers at a stroke and would thereby remove
a portion of the risk of developing such packag-
ing. Exploitation of this new technology for com-
mercial purposes would be almost certain to
follow—in packaging any innovation is potentially
profitable because it can give a product a "new
and improved" image. Ultimately, inclusion of
steel cans in scrap iron bundles would become
feasible as tin, an unacceptable impurity, is
eliminated.
To accomplish such objectives would require
establishment of close working relations with
GSA and DOD to formulate mutually beneficial
objectives. Early targets for joint action might
include, in addition to the recently developed tin-
free steel can, such things as a single-alloy alumi-
num can; degradable paper coatings, laminants,
and adhesives equal in performance to plastics;
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
157
limitation of the types of plastic materials which
may be used in packaging; development of ma-
terial identification systems which could be used
in manual or automatic waste segregation;
development of glass containers that shatter
without resulting in jagged slivers; and similar
changes and modification.
Taxes
Two kinds of taxes will be discussed under this
heading, a use tax and a deterrent tax. A use tax
would be one imposed on packaging in order to
raise sufficient revenues to pay for its disposal;
such a tax would influence package material or
container selection only indirectly. A deterrent
tax is one imposed on either a packaging material
or a container configuration in order to achieve
one or more of the objectives formulated at the
outset of this analysis—a way to limit use of a
material by artificially raising its price.
The Concept of Packaging Use Tax
A use tax on packaging would be a tax levied
on all packages, whose aim would be to obtain
sufficient revenues for the disposal of the packages
in the most efficient manner permitted by present
disposal technology. Basically, under this concept,
when a consumer pays for a package, he pays for
its disposal.
Such a concept has several advantages over a
deterrent type tax, to be discussed below: it
would be easier to justify; it would be less dis-
criminatory for it would be applied to all packag-
ing; it would be less likely to disturb free materials
selection by packagers; and while providing the
economic base for the best possible disposal
practice, it could also be used to spur reuse of
containers and recycling of materials.
The concept has some intrinsic and potential
disadvantages, among them the need for an
elaborate machinery to administer the tax
efficiently; the possibility that the consumer may
be charged twice for the same service; the fact
that such a tax may be viewed as a "license to
pollute"; the possibility that revenues may be
used for other than their intended purposes;
and, finally, the fact that such a tax would neither
reduce packaging waste quantities, nor reduce
the technical difficulty of processing, nor would
it eliminate waste of natural resources. It would,
however, attack the fundamental difficulty cre-
ated by packaging materials, that of high dis-
posal costs.
A packaging use tax might work in this manner:
(1) It would be imposed on the finished con-
tainer, not on the packaging material.
(2) The amount of the tax would vary depend-
ing on the resistance of the container to disposal.
The basis for the level of the tax to be imposed
could be the resistance index presented in this
report. Needless to say, the index would have to
be refined considerably before it could be put to
use.
(3) Funds obtained would be channeled to
disposal facility operators on the basis of local
collection rates and/or population served. Salvage
businesses would also be supported from such a
tax on the basis of tonnage of materials they
remove from the waste stream. Thus, a salvage
company which recovers a certain tonnage of
steel cans or corrugated board for reuse would
be able to claim the disposal use tax levied on the
packages he recovers because he has accomplished
disposal of these materials.
(4) Ideally, such a tax would be determined at
the national level. However, it could be adminis-
tered on a state level also or on the local level
following state enabling legislation.
(5) The tax would be collected on the local level
from the retail merchant (or purchasing industry),
whose obligation it would be to show the tax as
part of his mark-up, to maintain adequate records,
and to pay the tax either to a federal, state, or
local agency. He would be permitted to retain a
percentage of the tax to cover his collection
expenses.
The basic technical problem in connection with
this concept would be that of working out the
exact level of the tax to be imposed. For maximum
fairness, the tax levied on a particular package
would have to reflect its disposability, thus re-
warding those containers which are easily disposed
of. If the system is precise enough, it would act,
indirectly, to bring about packages which are
more desirable from a disposal point of view.
Determining the tax on the basis of disposability
would call for the establishment of an extensive
package tax bureau within the federal establish-
ment, capable of rapidly evaluating new packages
and modifications of old packages. The manufac-
turer would need to submit his package to the
3Z6-388 O - 69 - 12
-------
158
PACKAGING
Bureau for evaluation. The retail merchant would
have to maintain long and constantly changing
lists of packages, each with its particular disposal
fee. New record-keeping tasks would also be im-
posed on scrap and waste handling organizations.
It is not difficult to imagine the kinds of con-
C
troversies and litigation which may arise in the
course of administering such a tax.
To fulfill the basic objective of such a tax—to
raise revenues for waste collection—it is not
necessary to determine a specific fee for each
package type. Broad fee groupings would suffice.
However, in such a case, one of the secondary
benefits of such a tax, that of bringing about
desirable changes in packaging, would have to be
sacrificed.
Another problem would be that of "double
taxation," whereby the consumer, having paid
the disposal fee on packaging materials at the
store, would also have to pay for the disposal of
his refuse, including many other things in addition
to packaging, to the trash collector. Such a situa-
tion would be unavoidable unless all other items
which are discarded are also taxed for purpose of
disposal; some items, like yard clippings, building
rubble, etc., would be difficult to fit into such a
system.
A package disposal fee could be viewed by
some people as a "license to pollute," and may
cause more littering. Congress is also generally
opposed to measures which may be interpreted
in this way. For this reason, effluent taxes have
not been viewed with favor by Congress even
though they are accepted control mechanisms
in Europe.
Disposal fee income would have to be allocated
with care to local government bodies so that
such funds would be used for their intended
purposes, not for the fulfillment of other, perhaps
equally desirable, goals. Controversies surrounding
the use of gasoline taxes point out some of these
problems, and unsatisfactory experience with use
taxes generally could act as a barrier to the
acceptance of a disposal fee concept.
In spite of these many problems, a disposal
fee type of tax should be analyzed in detail as
a potential mechanism for easing the economic
plight of waste handling organizations. The
analysis should embrace not only packaging
materials but all disposable commodities and
should be a two part investigation. Part I would
explore the reaction of industrial, commercial,
and government executives and legislators to the
proposed tax concept; Part II would involve
technical assessment and prepa.ration of recom-
mendations dealing with the system to be used
for determining the level of the tax, the type
of agency that should administer it, and the
manner in which it would be administered. Such
an investigation would then be used as the basis
for legislative proposals.
A Deterrent Tax
An example of a deterrent tax would be a
1 cent per pound imposition on all plastic resins
used in packaging applications or a 1 cent per
unit tax on nonreturnable beverage containers.
The basic principle at work in this case is that of
selective taxation, with materials and configura-
tions singled out for taxation on the basis of
disposal criteria.
While such a tax appears a potentially attractive
tool for guiding packaging materials choice
and container design, we doubt that it could be
justified and believe that its effectiveness would
be difficult to predict.
The basic problem is that such a tax would of
necessity be discriminatory since it would be
imposed selectively. For instance, it may be
desirable from the point of view of an incinerator
operator to keep the amount of plastic wastes
to a minimum because plastics in high concentra-
tions create problems. Significantly, the problem
arises as a result of concentration, not because
of material composition as such. A tax on plastics
would be difficult to justify on such grounds
unless higher taxes are imposed on other materials
which do not even burn, and unless configura-
tional characteristics are also taken into considera-
tion. For instance, plastic films and plastics
appearing as very thin coatings on paper do not
cause trouble in incineration. Therefore, they
should not be taxed to the same degree as plastic
boxes or bottles.
Justification would be similarly difficult in
the case of container types. Since bottles and
cans for beverages are conspicuous as litter, it
may appear desirable to tax nonreturnable type
containers to limit their sales appeal. It may be
argued that the vast majority or orderly citizens
who do not litter but do desire "disposable"
packaging would be unduly penalized for the
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
159
activities of a few anti-social members of the
population. If, on the other hand, nonreturnable
beverage containers are taxed because they rep-'
resent a waste of resources, it would be difficult
to justify such a tax without also taxing all other
nonreturnable containers—the bulk of packaging.
Yet again, a tax imposed on no-deposit beverage
containers because they could be returned and
have been returned in the past is open to the
charge that whatever applies to beverages
applies equally to other commodities sold in
glass and cans. Once upon a time, almost all
packaging was returnable.
Deterrent type taxes would have widely vary-
ing effectiveness, even if justification were found
for imposing them. If the aim is to eliminate or
substantially curb consumption of a material, a
deterrent tax would have to be made high enough
to have an effect on those applications where
price of the package is not the dominant considera-
tion. Such a tax would, in effect, price the ma-
terial out of the packaging market and would be
a form of indirect regulation. Direct regulation
may be more desirable, in such a case, because
changes in technology or consumption would not
affect the prohibition, which would be possible
if the deterrent is a tax. For instance, a high
enough tax on plastics may force them out of
packaging. Producers would then presumably
look for other outlets. Assuming, for the sake of
the argument, that they would find a large vol-
ume market—automobile bodies, building ma-
terials, paving materials, paper substitute in
publishing—the resin price may drop low enough
so that packaging applications would become
feasible for plastics in spite of the tax. If plastics
are prohibited outright, they could not reappear
in packaging following substantial price drops.
If the tax is not designed to drive a material
from the market, its effectiveness would be re-
stricted to those applications where package
costs, rather than package performance, are
critical. In the case of plastics, for example,
which have won a place for themselves in packag-
ing on the basis of performance, the effect of a
tax would be less acute than on paper, which
dominates packaging because of its cost advan-
tages. While it would be possible to calculate a
tax which would force plastics from the market,
it would be difficult to determine what effect a
lesser imposition would have because package
cost in itself is not the only determining factor in
many applications where plastics are used.
It is well to recall, in this connection, that the
price of a product sitting on a grocery or drug
store shelf is based on a variety of cost and noncost
considerations. These would include: cost of the
product, cost of the package, cost of distribution,
cost of advertising and promotion, expectation
of volume to be sold (which affects all costs al-
ready cited), and a judgment of the product's
value to the consumer. Concerning the last point,
many products, especially luxuries, cosmetics,
toys, novelties, hobby goods, and the like have
prices which do not relate directly to total cost of
production and distribution. At the same time,
package qualities (appearance, communication
potential, etc.) are more important in these prod-
uct categories than package performance. The
chances are that the manufacturer already pays
a premium for quality and would not be deterred
from using a particular material or configuration
if it is taxed, unless, of course, the tax is prohibi-
tively high.
If glass or metals are taxed, a somewhat dif-
ferent situation appears. Both of these materials
are used in packaging in large volumes
primarily because of their physical performance
characteristics and low costs. They are thus found
in utility goods packaging. Utility goods are
highly competitive and price is usually closely
related to actual production and distribution
costs. In these applications, a tax would almost
always be passed on to the consumer and would
not act as a deterrent. For instance, metal cans
and glass jars are used predominately in packaging
of such utility goods as cooked vegetables, fruits,
soups, and other like staples. In the case of these
commodities, the profit margin on the end-
product is low. A tax on the basic container ma-
terial would almost certainly seriously affect
profitability of the product. In such a case, the
additional cost would be passed on as an al-
ternative to selling the utility goods at cost.
A tax on metal cans would have different effects
depending on what is taxed. A general tax would
probably have no effect. If it is levied only on
tin-plated steel cans in order to bring about a
switch to tin-free steel, it would probably accel-
erate commercialization of such a container. A
tax on aluminum cans could result in a switch to
steel if the tax is high enough; aluminum and steel
-------
160
PACKAGING
cans compete for beverage markets on the basis of
cost, performance, and consumer preference. If
the tax is nominal, aluminum manufacturers
would most likely absorb it. A tax on aerosol dis-
pensers would almost certainly be passed on to
the consumer—who chooses the more expensive
aerosol form of a product because of its con-
venience, not its price.
A tax on wooden containers would have to be
rather substantial to have an effect. Wooden
pallets and skids, kegs, and boxes are used prin-
cipally because their costs are low in comparison
with metal. It might also cause a shift to cor-
rugated containers which would mean an increase
in the total waste load; wooden containers are
reused typically; corrugated containers tend, on
the whole, to make only a single trip. Taxation
of paper and textile packaging to reduce its use
would be less meaningful because these materials
are the most disposable of all packaging materials
and constitute about 50 percent of total packaging
tonnage. We do not believe that a tax on paper
would result in the reduction of the quantity of
packaging wastes generated; it would merely in-
crease the costs of packaging.
In order to use a deterrent tax as an instrument
for influencing packaging, we would recommend
that detailed systems analysis of effects, not only
on materials or container consumption but also in
inter-materials competition, be undertaken. Such
analysis would only be warranted, however, if
some assurance could be gained that the deterrent
tax route to control would meet with legislative
success, which does not appear very likely.
Regulation
Within the context of this report, regulation
means any legislative measure enforced by the
executive arm of the government, which imposes
some action on package materials producers,
converters, and packagers and/or users (con-
sumers). The action imposed must be involuntary
in nature, which contrasts with incentives and
disincentives; these latter leave those affected a
margin of choice. Mechanisms of the more volun-
tary type are discussed separately.
Regulations may be imposed by governments
at all levels. The focus of this analysis, however,
is on federal regulation since this report deals with
packaging and waste disposal on a national basis.
Government regulation in the: sense used here
can mean a variety of things: the establishment of
standards, the control of production through
quotas, the prevention of unfair trade practices,
quality monitoring, or full scale regulation of in-
dustry as practiced in air, land, and water trans-
port by the Civil Aeronautics Board, Interstate
Commerce Commission, and the Federal Maritime
Commission, respectively.
The Nature of Current Regulatory Activity
As part of this analysis, we reviewed the activ-
ities of numerous federal departments, agencies,
and bureaus in an effort to discover the types of
regulatory activities which are currently employed
and the fundamental reasons used to justify them.
We felt this to be an important step toward
assessing the possibilities of successful regulatory
activity in packaging. A summation of our findings
is presented in Table 96. Excluded from the tabu-
lation are those agencies primarily engaged in
regulating labor, manpower, and wage questions.
Although these latter activities impinge upon
industrial practices, they are not strictly con-
cerned with commodities.
In the course of this review of department and
agency regulatory or quasi-regulatory activities,
we did not encounter any instances of regulation
aimed at the correction of external diseconomies
such as those created by packaging materials in
waste disposal. The nearest analogy to such a
situation is water pollution; the polluted dis-
charges from one plant or facility create dis-
economies for other operators downstream and
for people wishing to use water bodies for recrea-
tion. The Department of the Interior has author-
ity to abate such pollution in certain instances.
However, it is possible to justify such abatement
powers on the grounds that water pollution creates
health hazards.
There are other instances where the govern-
ment has been granted regulatory power over
commodities or industries. Some control over the
production, grading, labeling,
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
161
TABLE 96.—Major Federal Government departments and agencies with regulatory Junctions and principal justifications for
their activities »
Department or agency
Basic principle for use of regulatory power
Protection Maint. of Conserva- Support Maint. of Control of
health and Consumer a free tion of of vital nation's public
safety protection economy resources industries defense service
posture utilities
Department of Justice: Antitrust division. X X
Department of the Interior: Office of
Oil and Gas X
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries X X
Bureau of Mines X X X
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration X X
Department of Agriculture: Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service. X X
Consumer and Marketing Service X X X
Commodity Exchange Authority X X X
Department of Commerce: Business and
Defense Services Administration X X X
Maritime Administration X
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare: Public Health Service X
Food and Drug Administration X X
Department of Transportation: Federal
Aviation Department X X
Atomic Energy Commission X X X X
Civil Aeronautics Board X X X X
Federal Communications Commission.... X X X X
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. . X
Federal Maritime Commission X X X X X
Federal Power Commission X X X
Federal Trade Commission X X X
Interstate Commerce Commission X X X X
Securities Exchange Commission X X
Small Business Administration X
ft Excluded are all departments and agencies dealing with questions of labor.
Source: General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service, Office of the Federal Register, United States Government
Organization Manual 1967-68. Washington. D.C., 1967.
labeling of pharmaceuticals, foods, and materials
of packaging used in food. The Federal Trade
Commission regulates the quality of fabrics
shipped in interstate trade to prevent the sale of
flammable materials in apparel applications. And
government control of certain public service
industries—transportation, communications, and
power generation—is practiced.
In all of these instances and others that might
be cited, intervention is justified on the grounds
that regulation will result in health, safety, or
consumer protection; the maintenance of a free
but fair economic system; the conservation of
important natural resources, the support of
industries vital to the national welfare; mainte-
nance of the nation's defense posture; the control
of monopolies or semi-monopolies such as power
generation and communications; and control of
industries closely linked to defense preparedness
like air, water, and land transportation.
Regulation in Packaging
The above situation would seem to indicate
that any regulatory activity directed at packag-
ing would have to be based on new concepts of
control, not on precedent. Three exceptions to this
general statement exist. One would be regulatory
activity whose purpose is conservation of natural
resources; the second, control of packaging ma-
terials which create a potential health hazard;
the third, consumer protection. Government
action is not unfamiliar to the packaging industry
and packagers as may be seen in Table 97. In
fact the industry is in the midst of trying to
-------
162
PACKAGING
i
Act and
o S
$ M
1
.2
tMlli
•as^lfl
i II * T! S "S ^
•?H«: §£<«•*
2
I
H
+^
«
ja
H
I
1
3 ,
bU
V
PS
bD I
C
I
;
H
« CO S CO
!!)!
I §
I
"3
S
_i a
^ 3
.9
4^
V
1
I
•a
.5
1
1
Ha si
!
3 S 1 ^^
"3 J « K f
a a *i to —
^ s
.s
1
13
H
IS
s §
8--S
Q
I
s
I
g
Q
~ I—I
I r
£
I
I
S
I
I*
i
«
IS
•<
CO
U
a
m *
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
163
assimilate the 1966 Fair Packaging and Labeling
Act after a lengthy battle of several years' dura-
tion. However, all regulatory activity cited is
aimed at the prevention of commercial abuses
and the promotion of health and safety, or it deals
with international trade on high-tax commodities
like alcohol.
Control based on conservation of resources
may be employed to reduce the quantity of paper
wasted. According to Forest Service and industry
forecasts, by the end of the century U.S. capacity
to produce pulpwood may be seriously strained
if current domestic consumption and pulp export
trends continue. This view, incidentally, is not
shared by all companies in the paper industry.
Since the bulk of our aluminum (80 percent) is
imported, squandering of this material is a con-
tribution to the gold drain. Domestic shortages
in ferrous metals and hydrocarbons are less
likely to occur in the foreseeable future.
Only one packaging material—polyvinyl
chloride—may be seen as a substance which is
potentially hazardous. Since this material rep-
resents a small fraction of total plastics used in
packaging—and plastics are a small percentage of
packaging—the impacts on total waste generation
of controlling polyvinyl chloride would be
negligible.*
Authority to regulate packaging, based on the
justification that these materials create an
economic burden for waste disposal system
operators, would be extremely difficult to realize.
The chief reason for this is that the waste
generators—householders, business operators, in-
stitutional managers—must logically pay the
costs of disposal. It may be asked: Why cannot
the waste generator be made to pay a sufficiently
high amount for waste disposal services to cover
all expenses? After all, it is their wastes which
must be handled. If the packaging industries
are held responsible for the added costs of disposal,
a situation is created which would be analogous
to holding a wheat farmer responsible for flour
dust emanating from a grain mill.
*PVC is used at the rate of over 2 billion pounds per year
for manufactured products such as garden hoses, floor
coverings, rain wear, shoe soles, construction materials.
etc., and so could be a larger factor in total solid waste
today than the relatively small volume likely to be used in
packaging in future years.
A second reason why it would be difficult to
obtain regulatory authority is the fact that
regulation, once begun, would tend to be complete.
The basic reasons for this contention are the
complexity of packaging and the fact that
packages fulfill intangible, difficult-to-measure
services. A package may be likened to an intricately
woven fabric whose strands are made of tangible
qualities (physical performance) as well as more
intangible qualities (shape, appearance, "con-
venience," etc.). It is not possible to unravel this
fabric without destroying it. Consequently, it
would be difficult to promulgate effective regulations
without eventually controlling all aspects of
packaging. Since packaging touches all economic
activities in some way, the regulation of packaging
would consequently involve exercise of some degree
of control of merchandising, product design, etc.
We do not mean to imply that all forms of
regulation would have this effect, only that
truly effective regulation would require such an
extreme step. This will become clearer as we
examine three hypothetical cases of regulation:
(1) regulation of the quantity of materials to
be used in packaging; (2) regulation of materials
to reduce difficulty in processing; and (3) regula-
tion of certain container types.
Case 1: Regulation of Quantity
In this case regulation would focus on restricting
the amount of materials which may be used, with
the aim of reducing the quantity of packaging
materials which end up in trash barrels.
The basic difficulty here would be that of
establishing meaningful criteria of measurement.
Neither in terms of quantity nor in terms of
values is there a uniform relationship between
package and product. A package may weigh
many times more than the product (aspirin
bottle) or much less (wooden pallet carrying
machinery). In terms of value, the package
may be an insignificant percentage of the prod-
uct's value (cardboard box housing a television
set) or the most expensive component of the
product (hair spray can) Table 98.
In such a situation, broad standards would be
meaningless, and a regulating agency would have
to immerse itself into a morass of detailed judge-
ments which would have to be made about each
commodity and each package configuration used
for each commodity.
-------
164
PACKAGING
TABLE 98.—Package costs of selected products
As a percentage of product sales price, f.o.b. factory
Product and packages Percent
Paint in an aerosol can
Paint in a conventional metal can
Toy in a film-overwrapped carton
Toy in a blister pack
Motor oil in a metal can
Motor oil in a fiber can
Small appliance in a corrugated carton.
T.V. set in a corrugated carton
Beer in a tinplate can
Beer in a one-way glass bottle
Frozen food in a boil-in-bag and carton.
Frozen fish in a carton
Moist pet food in a metal can
Dry pet food in a carton
Cereal in a folding carton
Cornmeal in a paper bag
Analgesic in a plastic bottle
Antibiotic in a plastic bottle
Baby food in a glass jar
Baby juice in a metal can
16
5
14
8
26
10
6
1
43
36
10
5
17
9
15
5
10
1
36
33
a The figures above are not presented aa averages. In any given product
field, the cost ratio may vary widely even among the same size packages
made of the same materials.
Source: Modern Packaging, 40(9): 93, May 1967.
Such regulation, carried to a logical conclusion,
would also involve the government in packaging
and merchandising decisions which are presently
the exclusive domain of industry. Should or
should not a soap bubble bottle be in the form of
Mickey Mouse? If the decision is no, less material
may be used, but the product may not be as easy
to sell. Should or should not a fountain pen be
encased in plastic and mounted on a display
board? Should dolls be displayed in cartons faced
with cellophane on one side? Or, conversely,
displayed without wrapping? Such decisions
would have to be made routinely in order to
achieve the objectives of regulation. The rever-
berations of this type of activity would be felt
throughout U.S. industry and commerce.
Although it would be difficult to predict the
costs of such a program, it would appear that the
administrative expenses both on the government
and industry side would be better spent in the
form of subsidies to waste disposal agencies.
Case 2: Regulation of Materials
Regulation, in this case, would focus on reducing
the difficulty of processing packaging wastes by
either outlawing highly resistant materials or
requiring that certain types of materials not be
used as components of specific packages. This
type of activity can be much more selective, and
consequently less disruptive, than regulation of
the quantity of materials that would be permitted
in packaging. Nevertheless, the regulatory body
would be forced to deal with problems which are
currently solved by the operation of market
forces.
It should be noted at the outset that prohibition
of material types would necessarily upset the
"materials balance" in packaging. Careful studies
of the effects of any specific prohibition would
have to be made to forecast the likely responses
and to evaluate the waste disposal implications
of such responses. For example, prohibition of
glass would undoubtedly create a vast market
for metals and plastics. If plastics should capture
a large share of glass markets, new plastic pro-
duction facilities would be built, plastics prices
might fall further, making thesie materials more
competitive with paper. As plastics begin to dis-
place paper, disposability of packaging materials
would deteriorate. It is, therefore, highly con-
ceivable that further regulation, aimed this time
at plastics, would have to be passed to remove the
ultimately adverse effects of a ban on glass. Such
regulation could, in turn, have yet other undesir-
able effects. In this case also, control of one part
of the packaging industry would seem to lead
perforce to control of all activities.
If regulatory action takes the form of more
specific prohibitions, the danger of creating
large disruptions diminishes, but effectiveness of
regulation also suffers. It would be possible, for
instance, to require that tin be eliminated from
steel cans; that twist-off bottle caps which leave
a ring of aluminum adhering to the bottle neck be
replaced with other closures; that paper be
coated and imprinted with materials which are
easily removable by a specific de-inking process;
that aluminum cans be made of a single alloy;
etc. All such requirements would aid salvage and
reuse; they would not have an effect on disposal
difficulty in incinerators, landfills, and composting
plants. Justification for such moves could be made
on the grounds of conservation, particularly
if adequate means of separating and collecting
these materials are created simultaneously and
the use of such materials is promoted in industry.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
165
Requirements which specify material character-
istics would also be covered by this case. One
such requirement might he that all packaging
materials be biodegradable. This would in effect
be a prohibition of metals and glass—assuming,
for the moment, that biodegradable plastics
could eventually be developed. If such a require-
ment is imposed only on one or two materials,
for instance, paper and plastics, the requirement
would be difficult to justify. Similar difficulties
would be encountered in the promulgation of
other material characteristic specifications that
could be envisioned, for instance, combustibility,
compaction under pressure, etc.
Thus it would appear that regulation of ma-
terials is only feasible in a very limited sense to
bring about more salvable and reusable packages,
but that other requirements would either lead to
complete control of packaging or would be ex-
tremely difficult to realize in practice.
Case 3: Regulation of Container Types
Regulation of container types would be similar
to the regulation of materials. The most frequently
proposed regulation of this type is a ban on non-
returnable beverage containers. Legislation of this
type was proposed in 19 states in 1967; altogether,
32 proposed laws were presented; none passed
(Table 99). All of these laws were proposed as
TABLE 99.—.Z967 container-litter legislative bills introduced '
State
Bill number
Purpose of bill
Both bans on nonreturnable containers.
Minnesota.
Alabama H.653 Ban on nonreturnable bottles.
Connecticut S.1157 Bans nonreturnable beverage bottles and cans of aluminum.
Kansas A.1326 \$ tax on no-deposit containers.
Maine H.892 Bans uonreturnable bottles.
Massachusetts H.2893 Bans use of uonreturnable bottles.
H.3033 Mandatory deposit on all bottles and cans.
Michigan H.1158...
H.2024.. .
H.2416 Requires 50 deposit on nonreturnable bottles.
H.2556 Prohibits sale of beer in nonreturnable bottles.
H.3248 Bans uonreturnable bottles.
S.8 Bans nonreturnable bottles.
S.153 Requires bridges be fenced to prohibit littering and dumping of objects onto
highway.
H.920 Bans nonreturnable bottles.
H.1218 Bans sale of beverages in cans of more than 10% aluminum.
H.2127 Requires 30 deposit on cans and bottles.
H.2575 Bans bottles on lakes and public beaches.
S.560 Requires 30 deposit on bottles and cans.
S.1019 Bans use of cans of more than 10% aluminum.
Provides for 10 tax on cans and nonreturnable bottles.
Bans nonreturnable bottles.
Requires 10 deposit on all cans and nonreturnable bottles.
Requires 10 deposit on all beer cans and bottles.
Bans sale of malt beverages and soft drinks in other than returnable containers.
Requires 40 deposit on cans and bottles.
Tax of 1 mil on nonreturnable containers; 2 mils on such containers with self-
opening devices.
North Dakota S.146 Deposit required on all cans and bottles.
Oklahoma H.514 Bans sales of bottled soft drinks on Capitol grounds.
Pennsylvania S.1147 Prohibits use of nonreturnable bottles.
Bans beer in cans and nonreturnable bottles.
Requires 20 deposit on all bottles for soft drinks and beer.
Requires offer of 10 redemption on labels of beer cans and bottles.
Missouri H.552...
H.553
Montana H.462. ..
Nebraska LB.281
New Hampshire H.677 . .
New Mexico H.215
New York S.4190. . .
South Dakota H.507.
Washington H.131.
Wisconsin A.559.
A.636 Bans sale of beverages in nonreturnable bottles.
ft None of these proposed laws was enacted.
Source: John E. Evans. Litter Legislation in 1967. Courtesy of Keep America Beautiful, Inc.
-------
166
PACKAGING
instruments to curb litter. Let us examine this
situation in a little more detail.
Legislation aimed at nonreturnable type con-
tainers, to be effective in reducing litter or in
promoting the use of reusable containers, must
have several characteristics: (1) it must prohibit
the use of all nonreturnable container types cur-
rently used for a certain commodity; (2) it must
impose a sufficiently high deposit so that the con-
sumer is impelled to return the container; (3) it
must provide for the ban of new container types
which may appear in response to the prohibition,
e.g., plastic bottles; and (4) it must anticipate
problems of definition; thus it should define a
beverage container as any type of container, by
whatever name it may be called, so that beverage
"jugs," "jars," "tubs," etc., cannot be sold in
violation of the spirit of the law.
Probably the most important point above is a
high deposit. It may be possible to require that all
beverage containers be returnable, but it is not
possible to force an affluent population to return
such bottles without sufficient incentives. Legisla-
tion which permits one kind of no-deposit con-
tainer but bans another serves only to boost the
sale of the exempted container.
The real effectiveness of such regulation to
reduce litter may be questioned. In the State of
Vermont, where such legislation was passed, the
ban on bottles did not measurably reduce the costs
of litter collection; consequently, the ban was
repealed after one year of enforcement (1955-
1956) .9 Taxes imposed on those container types
most frequently encountered along our highways
and streets would probably be more effective if
such tax receipts were used to clean up litter. This
is the apparent intent of some of the proposed laws
shown in Table 99. But whereas total litter may
not be reduced, such legislation may be used
effectively, in combination with other steps, to
keep substantial amounts of packaging out of the
waste stream.
A nation-wide law which would (1) ban non-
returnable glass beverage containers, (2) impose a
high deposit on metal beverage cans, (3) require
that the retailers accept and segregate empty
aluminum and steel cans, and (4) prohibit the use
of tin in steel beverage containers could result in
the recycling of much glass, aluminum, and steel if
local waste disposal agencies, scrap dealers, and
scrap users cooperate.
Major problems of such an action, aside from
problems of justification, would be (1) that
retailers would be saddled with an additional
materials handling chore, whose costs would
have to be passed on to the consumer in some
form; (2) empty beverage containers would
produce unpleasant odors and would have to
be stored in a special place; (3) in many smaller
communities, aluminum and steel would be
available in quantities too small to justify collec-
tion; and (4) cooperation from waste disposal
agencies and scrap collectors may not be forth-
coming.
It is clear from the foregoing that regulation
of containers, even in a relatively narrow area
like beverages, could give rise to some vexing
problems of implementation. Such problems
would increase in number many times if regulation
is extended into other areas.
Summary
Regulation of packaging to achieve objectives
set forth earlier does not appear to be a practical
approach for two reasons.
(1) It would be unlikely to meet with legisla-
tive approval because sufficient justification does
not exist for government intervention.
(2) The administrative chore of carrying out
effective regulation would be disproportionately
greater than the benefits which could be envi-
sioned because packaging is a very complex
activity and would consequently require govern-
ment action on too many fronts.
Another reason, which was developed earlier,
is that one of the objectives which could be
achieved by regulation—modification of materials
to improve their salvability—appears easier to
achieve by less direct action incentive or subsidy.
BARRIERS TO ACTION
General
In the foregoing analysis, numerous barriers
to effective action on the part of the federal
government were mentioned or implied. In this
concluding section, we should like to discuss
these barriers in somewhat more detail to charac-
terize their nature.
Barriers to action are identifiable forces which,
together, form the environment in which packag-
ing exists and tend to make change difficult.
No single barrier, taken by itself, would be suffi-
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
167
cient to seriously block action. Taken together,
however, the cultural, demographic, socio-
economic, and techno-economic factors discussed
here are a formidable obstacle in the path of many
of the approaches to mitigating disposal problems
arising from packaging.
One general barrier, implicit in all that has been
said in this and earlier sections of the report, is
the fact that all those forces which promote the
continuing evolution of packaging in presently
established directions are forces antithetical to
the best interests of waste disposal and salvage.
operators. Since Public Health Service objectives
with regard to packaging are formulated to aid
waste handling, those basic movements which make
packaging what it is may be viewed as barriers.
A summary of the barriers, to be discussed here,
is presented in Table 100. It shows the barriers
and their relationships to the three basic objectives
outlined at the outset. We have made an attempt,
in the tabulation, to indicate the relative impor-
tance we attach to each barrier vis-a-vis each
objective.
TABLE 100.—Importance of barriers to waste reduction
objectives
Waste reduction objectives
Reduce Reduce Conserve
quantity of technical natural
packaging difficulty resources
in waste
Techno-economic:
Large number of
materials 2 4 5
Production technology... 3 2 5
Socioeconomic:
Pervasive nature of
packaging 3 3 1
Self-service merchandis-
ing 3 2 3
Cultural: Free enterprise
philosophy . 5 5 4
Demographic:
Population growth 4 1 2
Affluence 4 3 4
Desire for convenience... 3 3 4
Code: 1—Negligible barrier.
2—Minor barrier.
3—Moderately important barrier.
4—Important barrier.
5—Very important barrier.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
Techno- Economic Barriers
Techno-economic barriers consist in the large
number and interchangeability of packaging
materials and their combinations which make
any regulation based on material or configurational
characteristics difficult; and in the highly devel-
oped state of raw materials conversion technology,
which has a depressing effect on the consumption
of secondary materials, as was discussed in
Part II of this report.
To meet with legislative approval, proposed
regulatory action in packaging has to be justified
and must have some chance of succeeding in
practice. Blanket-type regulation, e.g., a complete
ban on nonreturnable glass containers, is unlikely
to accomplish the desired aim of reducing packag-
ing waste generation because substitutes for
glass exist, all of which would be discardable and
would cause just as much difficulty in disposal
as the container banned.
More specific legislation would be difficult to
write and enforce. For purposes of illustration,
let us consider only one commodity, milk, and
its packaging. For instance, if plastic coatings
are prohibited on milk cartons, the industry may
counter by using hot-melt coatings. Since these
are part plastic and part wax, legislation would
have to specify exactly what percentage of
plastics would be permissible; the line may have
to be drawn between synthetic and natural
resins, etc. If the legislation would not simul-
taneously outlaw plastic bottles, these may take
over part of milk packaging. If plastic bottles
are outlawed but plastic coated paper is per-
mitted, the legislation would have to be specific
as to the ratios of plastic to paper that would
be permitted, or else a situation may arise where
a few paper fibers, embedded in plastic, would
be sold as plastic-"coated" paper. If plastic
coatings and plastic bottles and hot-melt coatings
were all prohibited, this would probably not bring
a return to wax-coated milk cartons; these have
irritated the consumer for years. Rather, non-
returnable glass containers may make their
appearance.
This illustration, based on a single commodity,
is sufficient to show that the problems of regula-
tion would be quite serious when extended to all
products, mainly because there are many ma-
terials, comparable in cost, among which the
-------
168
PACKAGING
packager can choose, and many ways in which
he can combine them.
The highly developed technology of converting
raw materials into packaging is a barrier to
actions designed to promote salvage and reuse.
Production technology in packaging has evolved
around raw-material resources. Much of the
packaging industries' production, marketing, and
acquisition activities reflects this raw materials
orientation.
To promote the use of secondary materials,
it is necessary to reorient user industries from a
virgin materials focus to a secondary materials
focus. Understandable resistance to such efforts
can be anticipated since heavy investments in
plant, equipment, and land have been and are
being made to process virgin stocks. In the glass
and paper industries, also, plants have been
located with reference to raw materials sources,
not with reference to secondary materials genera-
tion points. Secondary materials thus suffer from
locational drawbacks along with having techno-
logical demerits.
In addition to the two techno-economic barriers
discussed, there are others which have already
been covered in earlier parts of this report,
specifically the "contamination" of packaging
wastes, the low price of secondary materials,
and the trends toward package type multipli-
cation and continued proliferation of exotic
material marriages.
Socioeconomic Barriers
Perhaps the most important socio-economic
fact, which acts as a barrier to the control of
packaging, is the pervasive nature of this activity
in U.S. economic affairs. Packaging touches
virtually all aspects of our economic life.
Since packaging reaches into all areas of dis-
tribution—barring only shipment of certain bulk
commodities—it is difficult to intervene in one
area of packaging without disrupting one or
more others, thereby possibly creating new dis-
posal problems and necessitating further control.
If, for instance, plastic coatings and all-plastic
containers were to be outlawed, a variety of
products now packaged in paper may appear in
the market place in glass, metal, metal-coated
paper containers or using more durable coatings
than plastics. Certain product configurations
would disappear, e.g., translucent, pliable sham-
poo tubings. Heavy investments in plastic ex-
trusion, shrink-wrapping, blow-molding, and
other machinery would be idled. Merchandising
practices would undergo a transformation as
film-wrapped products would be eliminated, and
millions would be spent redesigning satisfactory
existing packages. Plastics prices would drop
precipitously as idle capacity would be created.
Certain firms would be forced out of business or
into new ventures. Similar effects would result
from any other, or any degree, of regulation.
What the complexity of packaging means, in
effect, is that it is difficult to predict the results
of intervention with any degree of accuracy.
Consequently, a great deal of money would have
to be spent to prepare studies in adequate depth
and detail to be used as justification for legisla-
tive action whose outcome would be doubtful.
When such activity is viewed in the light of the
percentage of total waste that packaging rep-
resents, control of packaging may appear the
most costly and least practical of several
alternatives.
A second socioeconomic barrier is the intimate
relationship between packaging and self-service
merchandising. Packaging in its modern form
is largely a response to the needs of such mer-
chandising. Packaging provides the ingredients
of display, demonstration, communication, and
salesmanship which are missing in stores with
a minimum of clerks. It also supports innovative
new product merchandising by providing adequate
protection for new types of food and chemical
products.
Any serious attempt to reduce the absolute
quantity of packaging used and to improve the
salvability or disposability of containers will
necessarily interfere with the free and natural
selection of materials for packaging. A regulatory
agency could not take into consideration—
because it could not measure—the intangible
qualities that containers give to products on
sale. Consequently, regulatory measures would
necessarily have to disregard a vital packaging
function, communication.
Self-service merchandising also implies con-
venience to the consumer, a lower selling cost
to the merchant by reason of lower labor inputs,
and consequently lower prices. Regulated changes
in packaging may reduce package costs by
reducing packaging material use, but they may
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
169
ultimately cause an upward shift of product
price by indirectly increasing selling costs. This
would be an undesirable result of regulatory
change, which would have to be justified by
corresponding savings in disposal. Neither price
deteriorations nor savings in disposal, however,
appear to be predictable.
Cultural Barriers
The United States is the home of a volun-
taristic society based on the concept of free
enterprise action in the economic sphere. This
is, perhaps, the fundamental difficulty as concerns
government action aimed at packaging.
The role of government, in our society, has
been essentially passive in the economic realm—
passive certainly in comparison with the roles
played by governments in less voluntaristic
societies.
Government regulation of commerce has been
restricted largely to consumer protection from
health and safety hazards and deceptive practices,
the protection of free competition, and the like.
With the exception of minimum wage laws and
wartime legislation, the Federal Government
has not intervened to regulate industry in order
to eliminate diseconomies except where the
health and safety of the population were threat-
ened. Air pollution legislation is an example of
intervention justified by health threats.
On the other hand, government does engage
and is presently active in the development of
new technology, either directly or by subsidy,
on the grounds that the private sector either
cannot or will not develop a particular, desirable
technology. Defense-related developments fall
into this category, but such activities as research
and demonstration work in desalination, educa-
tional television, and the development of a
supersonic commercial aircraft are not strictly
linked with maintenance of the nation's military
posture. Public Health Service grants to munic-
ipalities for the demonstration of new disposal
technology are yet another example of government
support of new developments.
While these latter activities exist, we do not
find any instance of government regulation of
industry aimed at easing the economic plight of a
private group external to the industry being reg-
ulated. Regulation of packaging to assist waste
disposal agencies is precisely such a situation.
We emphasize the words "economic" and "ex-
ternal." Minimum wage legislation is an example
of legislation aimed at the betterment of the
economic conditions of wage earners within indus-
try. Air pollution control regulations benefit
groups external to an industry, but their justifica-
tion is not in the economic but in the health
sphere.
Demographic Barriers
In the sense that there will be a need for more
products to feed, clothe, shelter, and entertain a
growing population, packaging will grow; and
thus population increase is a basic barrier to any
effort at reducing the quantity of packaging ma-
terials which will enter the waste stream.
Equally important are other trends which may
be classed as either demographic, cultural, or
socio-economic, but which we include here. Two
of these are growing affluence and more leisure
(Tables 101 and 102).
TABLE 101.—Index of disposable personal income and per capita personal consumption expenditures on selected items '
[1960 = 100]
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966
Disposable personal income/family 100
Per capita personal consumption expenditures:
103 107 111 119 127
136
Recreation
Foreign travel
Religious and welfare activities
100
100
100
100
101
107
101
102
108
112
110
104
114
121
123
106
126
134
129
112
135
144
144
116
157
157
155
125
• Based on current dollars.
Ibid. Survey of Current Business, 47(7), July 1967.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics.
The National Income and Product Accounts of the United States, 1929-
1965. Washington, D.C., 1966. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. Current Population Reports. Series P-25, No. 372. Wash-
ington, D.C., 1967. Midwest Research Institute.
-------
170
PACKAGING
TABLE 102.—Estimates of average work week and length of vacation per year by major occupational groups: 1960 and 1976
Major occupational group
Managers, officials, and proprietors. . . . .
Sales workers . .
Farmers
19
Hours
worked
per week
38. 5
47. 4
36. 0
36. 6
38. 9
38. 2
35.0
44. 5
34. 2
150
Average
vacation
per year .
(length
in weeks)
2.8
2.9
2.0
1.7
2. 1
1.9
1.3
.7
1.4
19
Hours
worked
per week
35.5
43.8
33.0
33.6
35.9
35.0
31.0
41.0
31.4
176
Average
vacation
per year
(length
in weeks)
3 8
3.2
3 0
2.5
2.8
2.4
2.4
.8
2.2
Total, all groups. .
38.5
2.0
35.4
2.8
Source: Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Projections to the Years 1976 and 2000: Economic Grouch, Populations, Labor Force, and
Leisure and Transportation. OHHRC Report 23. Washington, B.C., 1962. p. 59, 72.
These forces at work in our economy to bring a
higher living standard combine to support a
growth in packaging by supplying the wherewithal
to purchase goods, by creating a demand for con-
venience, by removing the need for thrift and the
motives for salvage, and by creating resistance to
unpleasant chores and disciplines which are per-
ceived as unnecessary, e.g., separating waste com-
ponents, compacting of wastes, returning deposit-
type bottle, and the like.
Such attitudes are barriers to government
action in that popular support of regulation
cannot be expected to materialize.
Recommendations
On the basis of the above evaluation of mecha-
nisms, it is recommended that the Public Health
Service:
(1) Undertake a comprehensive analysis of the
secondary materials industries as a preliminary
step to the formulation of a policy and program
which will result in increased use of waste materials
by industry. Such analysis would define, among
other things, the technological requirements and
economic conditions necessary to increase waste
materials use.
(2) Formulate policies and develop a funding
program to support industrial, association, and/or
public (federal, state, or local) development and
construction of devices and systems for the prep-
aration, handling, and processing of secondary
materials.
(3) Initiate programs in conjunction with in-
dustry and/or industry associations to encourage
the adoption of materials acceptable for reuse.
(4) Take the initiative in the development of an
automated waste separation process. First step
in this direction would be an investigation of the
state of the art of sensing instrumentation.
(5) Plan and conduct meetings on various levels
which would involve packaging executives, de-
signers, engineers, materials producers, and associ-
ations from industry; and local and state waste
disposal agency operators. The objectives would
be to establish a useful forum for information
exchange, to familiarize each group with the
problems of the other, and to stimulate useful
exploration of actions that each may take.
(6) Establish a Solid Wasle Technology In-
formation Center either on a free or subscription
basis, aimed at State and local disposal agencies,
waste handling equipment makers and process
designers, and other organizations exploring or
interested in new or advanced methods of waste
handling. Such a Center could be built on the basis
of the Solid Waste Information Retrieval System
(SWIRS) now under development by the Office
of Information of the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
171
(7) Cooperate with private groups in the
development of consumer and industrial educa-
tional programs to increase awareness of the
dimensions of solid waste generation and handling.
These could be in the form of informative publica-
tions, use of audio-visual and other media, and
would include furnishing information about avail-
ability of such programs.
(8) Form an interagency task force or study
group involving the staffs of other federal agencies
which have an influence on packaging to familiar-
ize them with the Bureau of Solid Waste Man-
agement mission; and to establish design criteria
or specifications aimed at more acceptable
packaging from a solid waste viewpoint. A part
of this would include use of federal purchasing
criteria to bring about desirable changes in
packaging of products purchased by and for
federal agencies.
(9) Conduct or support a study to determine
the feasibility, desirability, and necessity of a
packaging use tax on the basis of "disposal re-
sistance" as developed in this report.
REFERENCES
1. Question accuracy of APWA solid waste report.
Refuse Removal Journal, 10(9): 20 Oct. 1966.
2. Ibid., and interview, Mr. George Walsh, editor,
Refuse Removal Journal, 11: ( ) Oct. 1967.
3. Report of the Vermont State Litter Commis-
sion, State of Vermont, Dec. 15, 1956. p. 6.
4. Weststrate, W. A. G. Comments. In Wiley,
J. S. A discussion of composting of refuse
with sewage sludge. Compost Science, 8(1):
24-25, Spring-Summer 1967.
5. Charles H. Lipsett. Industrial wastes and
salvage. The Atlas Publishing Company,
New York, 1963. p. 58.
6. W. S. Story. Problems of the salvage industry
as they relate to solid waste disposal. In Pro-
ceedings, National Conference on Solid Waste
Research, American Public Works Association,
Chicago, Illinois, December 1963. p. 162.
7. A. T. Luey. TAPPI programs and paper stock.
Fibre Market News, 10(60): 6, Section II,
October 19, 1967.
8. Charles H. Lipsett. Op. cit. p. 7.
9. Vermont State Litter Commission. Op. cit.
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
The Dlsposabiliftj of Packaging Materials
-------
-------
TABLE 103.—Calculation of disposal resistance index: 1976
Material
Paper and paperboard
Metals.. ..
Glass
Wood
Plastics. . . . . .
Textiles
Total
Tonnage
share
0. 5686
.1296
.1832
.0681
.0482
.0023
1. 0000
Incineration
0.18
Value
150
480
490
210
310
190
Index
15. 352
11. 197
16. 158
2.574
2.690
.079
48.050 .
Sanitary landfill
0.13
Value
170
160
160
270
290
120
Index
12. 566
2.696
3.811
2.390
1.817
.036
23. 316
Open dumping
0.64
Value
100
100
100
100
100
100
Index
36. 390
8.294
11. 724
4.358
3.084
.147
63. 997
Composting
0.01
Value
230
460
360
180
480
180
Index
1.308
.596
660
.123
.231
.004
2.922
Salvage
0.04
Value
200
240
250
450
330
250
Index
4.549
1.244
1.832
1.226
.636
.023
9.510
Total
1.00
70. 165
24. 027
34. 185
10. 671
8.458
.289
147. 795
1 Material market share times process share times value = index. Source: Midwest Research Institute.
175
-------
176
PACKAGING
I
•e
e
8
I
e
1
BJS
13s.
3
m
oooooo
OOOOOO
888888
§OOOO
oooo
ggggoooooooooo
§0000000000000
ooooooooooooo
888888888888888
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
888
88888888888888
888888888888888
888888888888888
—--—
88888888888888
W i"H r-li--ICv|COr—(i-Hr—^.HC^lrHr—li—I
I
_^1
S.8.S
rt ^ JK •
5 -S o-»
U fe co tn
S g SB
01 -3. a
ff bB-C
,'g § * S
' fe 'S S j<
ii'
1
I
ss
j
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
TABLE 105.—Disposability resistance calculations: paper and paperboard, 1966
177
Open dump
Product
Containerboard . ...
Folding boxboard
Special foodboard
Set-up boxboard . .
Tube and can stock
Drum stock . ...
Wrapping paper ....
Shipping sacks
Bag paper
Converting paper
Glassine, greaseproof. . . .
Coated printing paper . . .
Book paper
Tissue paper
Pulp, pressed and molded .
Total
Index number
Share of
. . 0. 495
. 144
.076
.022
.016
.005
.025
.039
.067
.048
.008
.015
.021
009
.010
1.000
Value t>
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Index «
49.5
14.4
7.6
2.2
1.6
.5
2.5
3.9
6.7
4.8
.8
1.5
2. 1
.9
1.0
100. 0
100. 0
Landfill
Incineration
Composting
Salvage, reuse, and
conversion
Value b
205.0
115.0
115.0
115.0
210.0
290.0
115.0
115.0
115.0
115.0
240.0
130.0
115.0
115. 0
115.0
Index c
101.5
16.6
8.7
2.5
3.4
1.5
2.9
4.5
7.7
5.5
1.9
2.0
2.4
1.0
1.2
163.3
160.0
Value b
129.0
189.0
189.0
189.0
204.0
289.0
189.0
189.0
189.0
114.0
114.0
106.0
106.0
114.0
189.0
Index <*
63.9
27.2
14.4
4.2
3.3
1.4
4.7
7.4
12.7
5.5
.9
1.6
2.2
1.0
1.9
152.3
150.0
Value b
260.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
260.0
280.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
260.0
180.0
260.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Index °
128.7
25.9
13.7
4.0
4.2
1.4
4.5
7.0
12.1
12.5
1.4
3.9
3.8
.9
1.0
225.0
230.0
Value b
150.0
225.0
225.0
225.0
250.0
250.0
225.0
225.0
225.0
425.0
372.0
372.0
372.0
275.0
275.0
Index c
74.3
32.4
17.1
5.0
4.0
1.3
5.6
8.8
15.1
20.4
3.0
5.6
9.8
2.5
2.8
205.7
210.0
a On the basis of tonnage share.
b Values calculated from Table 30 using the weighted average of factors
used for each disposal process. Open dumping carries the value of 100
throughout.
Index is derived by multiplying share of total market by value number.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
TABLE 106.—Disposability resistance calculations: paper and paperboarJ, ./976
Open dump
Product
Containerboard . . ...
Folding boxboard .
Special foodboard
Set-up boxboard
Tube and can stock ...
Drum stock .
Wrapping paper
Shipping sacks
Bag paper
Converting paper . .
Glassine, greaseproof. . .
Coated printing paper . . . .
Book paper ... . .
Tissue paper
Pulp, pressed and molded . . .
Total
Index number ...
Share of
total a
0. 550
.129
.083
.013
.014
.004
.021
.030
.073
.028
.007
.016
.019
. 005
.008
. . 1. 000
Value b
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
Index c
55.0
12.9
8.3
1.3
1.4
.4
2. 1
3. 1
7.3
2.8
. 7
1.5
1.9
. 5
.8
100.0
100. 0
Landfill
Incineration
Composting
Salvage, reuse, and
conversion
Value b
205.0
115.0
115.0
115.0
210.0
290.0
115.0
115.0
115.0
115.0
240.0
130.0
115.0
115. 0
115.0
Index G
112. 7
14.8
9.5
1.5
2.9
1.2
2.4
3.6
8. 4
3.2
1.7
2. 1
2.2
. 6
.9
167.7
170.0
Value >>
129.0
189.0
189.0
189.0
204.0
289.0
89.0
189.0
189.0
114.0
114.0
106.0
106.0
114.0
189.0
Index c
71.0
24.4
15.7
2. 5
2.9
1.2
4.0
5.9
13. 8
3.2
.8
1. 7
2. 0
. 6
1.5
151. 2
150.0
Value k
260.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
260.0
280.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
260.0
180.0
260.0
180.0
100. 0
100.0
Index °
143.0
23.2
14.9
2.3
3.6
1.1
3.8
5.6
13. 1
7.3
1.3
4.2
3.4
. 5
.8
228. 1
230.0
Value b
150.0
225.0
225.0
225.0
250.0
250.0
225.0
225.0
225.0
425.0
372.0
372.0
372.0
275. 0
275.0
Index o
82.5
29.0
18.7
2.9
3.5
1.0
4.7
7.0
16.4
11.9
2.6
6.0
7.1
1.4
2.2
196.9
200.0
3 On the basis of tonnage share.
b Values calculated from Table 30 using the weighted average of factor
used for each disposal process. Open dumping carries the value of 100
throughout.
- Index is derived by multiplying share of total market by value number.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
-------
178
PACKAGING
W
*e
i
w»
„
^
.•s
53
•8
V)
g.
• 3
Q
1.
r^
0
F— t
3
3
£-H
i
Jr
at
OT
W)
.3
1
a
o
U
a
to
cmers
~
i
I
I
1
1
0
(S
hi
&
i
i
i
1 X
S »;g
^•3 om
S h S^:
S?«
«a«
&36
|OJ
i
« i'o
t;-S(M
tn3°
1
a
l&
»3o
!°
3S.&
!!»&I
(S'8
l| =
^§°
al=
« g<=
si"
5S°
to
.S SB
SS2
m
•S &w
||2
a
l&s
ft-— _;
a .gO
ft
O
U
^
•s8
go
Q
§
1
S-
COdl/5C>]-^i— ti— tlOlOlO
8OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO
i— trflrtTfiTjfi— 4 ,— (r-HlOlO
§000000000
ooooooooo
fOCOCO^^T^TjfT^MCO
OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO
§000000000
OooooSooo
rHMpHM^iCOsYSlOr^T-l
gggggggggg
822221— 'oooo
ooooooooo
io.n.n.n,/,u,inu,1J,
O O O O O O ^ o O O
oooooo^ooo
i/Si/^LOuOi/Di/Su^i/^u-jirt
8OOOOOoOOO
ooooooooo
uoi/>uomi/5iOi/3iouom
§000000000
ooooooooo
^TfTfT^flO^^jyJjyj
gggggggggg
gggggggggg
(C
b
V
.2
:-\ li
: » ° 53 JE
' "i "s B 'i
'. § « ^ 1
• a, S fl " tS 6C
. § •« s - a c :
:|3c£*'ae : g
a a JJ '§ C § s'-S g, |
aSjasSSiiBirg
rt 5*Sr2 d COD^H U O
« .9 S
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 179
TABLE 108.—Disposability resistance calculation: Metals, 1966
Product
Steel cans ...
Aluminum cans and ends . . .
Collapsible tubes
Rigid aluminum foil containers .
Aluminum foil converted
Steel drums and pails
Metal strapping
Gas cylinders
Metal caps
Metal crowns ... ...
Total
Index Number. .
Share of
0.723
.023
.002
.006
.019
. 115
.056
.008
.018
.029
1.000
Open dump
Value t>
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Index c
72.3
2.3
.2
.6
1.9
11.5
5.6
.8
1.8
2.9
99.9
100.0
Landfill
Value b
130.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
290.0
370.0
450.0
130.0
130.0
Index c
94.0
3.3
.3
.9
2.8
33.4
20.7
3.6
2.3
3.8
165.1
170.0
Incineration
Value b
476.0
486.0
476.0
486.0
476.0
486.0
486.0
496.0
476.0
476.0
Index c
344. 1
11.2
1.0
2.9
9.0
55.9
27.2
4.0
8.6
463.9
460.0
Composting
Value b
460.0
460.0
460.0
480.0
480.0
480.0
480.0
480.0
460.0
460.0
Index c
332.6
10.6
.9
2.9
9.1
55.2
26.9
3.8
8.3
13.3
463.6
460.0
Salvage, reuse, and
conversion
Value b Index c
250. 0
250.0
500.0
250.0
400.0
100.0
100.0
400.0
500.0
500.0
180.8
5 8
1.0
1.5
7.6
11.5
5.6
3.2
9.0
14.5
240.5
240.0
* On the basis of tonnagejihare. c Index is derived by multiplying share of total market by value number.
* Values ci
;d for eac!
throughout.
^ Values calculated from Table 33 using the weighted average of factors
used for each disposal process. Open dumping carries the value of 100 Source: Midwest Research Institute.
TABLE 109.—Disposability resistance calculation: Metals, 1976
Open dump
Product
Steel cans
Aluminum cans and ends
Collapsible tubes ...
Rigid aluminum foil containers . .
Aluminum foil converted ....
Steel drums and pails
Metal caps
Metal crowns
Total
Index number ...
Share of
0.679
.083
.001
.009
.028
.093
.059
007
.019
.022
1.000
LandBll
Incineration
Composting
Salvage, reuse, and
conversion
Value i>
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Index c
67.9
8.3
. 1
.9
2.8
9.3
5.9
. 7
1.9
2.2
100.0
100.0
Value b
130.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
290.0
370.0
450. 0
130.0
130.0
Index c
88.3
12.0
. 1
1.3
4.1
27.0
21.8
3 2
2.5
2.9
163.2
160.0
Value t>
476.0
486.0
476.0
486.0
476.0
486.0
486.0
496. 0
476.0
476.0
Index o
323.2
40.3
.5
4.4
13.3
45.2
28.7
3.5
9.0
10.5
478.6
480.0
Value b
460.0
460.0
460.0
480.0
480.0
480.0
480.0
480.0
460.0
460.0
Index o
312.3
38.2
.5
4.3
13.4
44.6
28.3
3 4
8.7
10.1
463.8
460.0
Value b
250.0
250.0
500.0
250.0
400.0
100.0
100.0
400 0
500.0
500.0
Index °
169.8
20.8
.5
2.3
11.2
9.3
5.9
2 8
9.5
11.0
243. 1
240.0
a On the basis of tonnage share c Index is derived by multiplying share of total market by value number,
b Values calculated from Table 33 using the weighted average of factors
used for each disposal process Open dumping carries the value of 100 Source: Midwest Research Institute.
throughout.
-------
180
3
.?
Q
a
Us
*§*
II!
ss
PACKAGING
88888
e^ 1-1 N N N
S
«s
8888
CO Cfl CO CO
88888
i-l 1-1 1-1 pH —I
88888
^ §1
T3 « 2
i-S i
aii
-S 3 = M
1 »l e^
a
g
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 181
TABLE 111.—Disposability resistance calculation: Glass, 1966
Open dump Landfill Incineration Composting Salvage, reuse, and
Product Share of conversion
Value b Index c Value b Index c Value b Index c Value b Index c Value b Index c
Food containers 0. 367 100. 0 36. 7 160. 0 58. 7 486. 0 178. 4 360. 0 132. 1 250. 0 91. 8
Returnable bottles 085 100. 0 8. 5 160. 0 13. 6 486. 0 41. 3 360. 0 30. 6 150. 0 12. 8
Non-returnable bottles 325 100.0 32.5 160.0 52.0 486.0 158.0 360.0 117.0 250.0 81.3
Drug and cosmetic containers. .. .196 100.0 19.6 160.0 31.4 486.0 95.3 360.0 70.6 250.0 49.0
Household and industrial con-
tainers 027 100.0 2.7 160.0 4.5 486.0 13.6 360.0 10.1 250.0 7.0
Total 1.000 . .. 100.0 .. . 160.2 486.6 .. 360.4 .. .. 241.9
Index number 100.0 .. . 160.0 ... . 490.0 360.0 240.0
1 On the basis of tonnage share. ° Index is derived by multiplying share of total market by value number.
»Values ca" ~ ~
:d for eacl
throughout.
b Values calculated from Table 36 using the weighted average of factors ~
used for each disposal process. Open dumping carries the value of 100 bource: Midwest Research Institute.
TABLE 112.—Disposability resistance calculation: Glass, 1976
Open dump Landfill Incineration Composting Salvage, reuse, and
Product Share of conversion
Value b Index « Value b Index » Valueb Index » Value b Index ' Value b Index «
Food containers 0.279 100.0 27.9 160.0 44.6 486.0 135.6 360.0 100.4 250.0 69.8
Returnable bottles 036 100.0 3.6 160.0 5.8 486.0 17.5 360.0 13.0 150.0 5.4
Non-returnable bottles 550 100.0 55.0 160.0 88.0 486.0 267.3 360.0 198.0 250.0 137.5
Drugs and cosmetic containers.. .126 100.0 12.6 160.0 20.2 486.0 61.2 360.0 45.4 250.0 31.5
Household and industrial
containers 009 100.0 .9 160.0 1.4 486.0 4.4 360.0 3.2 250.0 2.3
Total 1. 000 .... 100. 0 160.0 486. 0 . . 360. 0 246. 5
Index number 100.0 . . 160.0 490.0 360.0 .. . 250.0
* On the basis of tonnage share. c Index is derived by multiplying share of total market by value number.
b Values calculated from Table 36 using the weighted average of factors Source: Midwest Research Institute.
used for each disposal process. Open dumping carries the value of 100
throughout.
-------
182
PACKAGING
I
1
1
1
£
0
!
Q
(
en
i-H
a
>j
BO
4
H
V
M)
n
>
"3
1/1
Ml
.S
I
a.
3
o
u
g
tciaerati
R
£3
,
is
8 o
1
1
-
8g§gg
1.O LO CO 1C l^
ggggg
e»5 « co eo m
ggggg
— 1 ^H B5 CO S
ggggg
« g
iz; r* H 55 >
a)
"S
en
C
M
t
rt
S
8
S
T3
g
1
o
CO
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
TABLE 114.—Disposability resistance calculation: Wood, 1966
183
Product
Nailed boxes
Tight cooperage
Slack cooperage. . .
Veneer packages
Total
Share of
total «
0. 808
155
007
.022
008
1 000
Open dump
Value b
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Index c
80.8
15.5
. 7
2.2
.8
100.0
Landfill
Value b
275.0
275.0
275.0
275.0
115.0
Index «
222.2
42.6
1.9
6.1
.9
273.7
270.0
Incineration
Value b
204.0
204.0
549.0
549.0
204.0
Index »
164.8
31.6
3.8
12.1
1.6
213.9
210.0
Composting
Value <>
180.0
180.0
220.0
220.0
180.0
Index c
145.4
27.9
1.5
4.8
1.4
181.0
180.0
Salvage, reuse, and
conversion
Value *
450.0
450.0
300.0
450.0
450.0
Index c
363.6
69.8
2.1
9.9
3.6
449.0
450.0
a On the basis of tonnage share.
b Values calculated from Table 39 using the weighted average of factors
used for each disposal process. Open damping carries the value of 100
throughout.
c Index is derived by multiplying share of total market by value number.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
TABLE 115.—Disposability resistance calculation: Wood^ 1976
Product
Nailed boxes
Wirebound boxes
Tight cooperage ....
Slack cooperage
Veneer packages
Total
Index number
Share of
total •
. . 0. 828
. . .142
003
.023
.004
1.000
Open dump
Value b
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Landfill
Index ° Value b
82.8 275.
14. 2 275.
. 3 275.
2. 3 275.
.4 115.
100.0 .
100 0
0
0
0
0
0
a On the basis of tonnage share. c
b Values calculated from Table 39 using the weighted average of factors
used for each disposal process. Open dumping carries the value of 100
Index «
227.7
39.1
.8
6.3
.5
274.4
270 0
Incineration
Value b
204.0
204.0
549.0
549.0
204.0
Index c
168.9
29.0
1.6
12.6
.8
212.9
210.0
Composting
Value b
180.0
180.0
220.0
220.0
180.0
Index «
149.0
25.6
.7
5.1
.7
181.0
180.0
Salvage, reuse, and
conversion
Value b
450.0
450.0
300.0
450.0
450.0
Index '
372.6
63.9
.9
10.4
1.8
449.6
450.0
Index is derived by multiplying share of total market bv value number*
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
-------
L84
PACKAGING
/;
J
•a
/)
3
s
/!
?
a
5
^
>
I
I
3-
j
.
s
^
wf
£
J
3
*«
W>
.s
o
a
o
U
fl
•I
[ncineri
d
«
^
^
IH
•|
en
x
I^B
« tj a X
g«s a
g
2^
£3"?
&J5°
Cfi
i&o
.sS«
£3o
rt
T3 ^>0
25§
S?ia0
Q
3&.&
il&i
.2's0
si-
£ so
11-
aJs
PQ£o
S2^
5lo
»
•2 ««
2 a1^
a Mo
EQ
it3
llao
Q
(
rt ^"O
0.^3 «3
| JO
CJ
Density
0.05
^roducts
O O O O
o o o o
m m m LC
§O O o
o o o
T? T? u^
Tj< Tf Tj* 1^
§000
O 0 o
IO »/5 m ir;
rH CO CO (M
0000
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 185
TABLE 117.—Disposability resistance calculation: Plastics, 1966
Product
Plastic films
Bottles and tubes .
Other plastic containers
Plastic closures .
Total
Index number
Share of
total a
0. 599
217
. 145
.039
1.000
Open dump
Value b
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Index c
59.9
21.7
14.5
3.9
100.0
100.0
Landfill
Value b
245.0
325.0
325.0
245.0
a On the basis of tonnage share. c
b Values calculated from Table 42 using the weighted average of factors
used for each disposal process. Open dumping carries the value of 100
throughout.
TABLE 118. — Disposability resistance
Product
Plastic films. .
Bottles and tubes
Other plastic containers .
Plastic closures . .
Total
Index number . . ...
Share of
total »
0. 465
.224
.278
.033
1.000
Open dump
Value t>
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Index c
46.5
22.4
27.8
3.3
100.0
100.0
Index c
146.8
70.5
47.1
9.6
274.0
270.0
Incineration
Value b Index c
266. 0 159. 3
351. 0 76. 2
351.0 50.9
346. 0 13. 5
. . 299. 9
300.0
Index is derived by multiplyin;
Source: Midwest Research Ins
Composting
Value b
480.0
480.0
480.0
500.0
Index c
287.
104.
69.
19.
480.
480.
5
2
6
5
8
0
Salvage, reuse, and
conversion
Value b
325.0
325.0
325.0
500.0
Index c
194.7
70.5
47.1
19.5
331.8
330.0
g share of total market by value number.
ititute.
calculation: Plastics, 1976
Landfill
Value b
245.0
325.0
325. 0
245.0
Index c
113.9
72.8
90.4
8.1
285.2
290.0
Incineration
Value b Index c
266. 0 123. 7
351.0 78.6
351.0 97.6
346. 0 11. 4
. . 311.3
. . 310.0
Composting
Value b
480.0
480.0
480.0
500.0
Index
223.
107.
133.
16.
480.
480.
°
2
5
4
5
6
0
Salvage, reuse, and
conversion
Value b
325.0
325.0
325.0
500.0
Index c
151.1
72.8
90.4
16.5
330.8
330. 0
a On the basis of tonnage share. p Index is derived by multiplying share of total market by value number.
b Values calculated from Table 42 usina the weighted average of factors „ „ . _
used for c
throughou
a On the basis of tonnage share. p Index is derived by multiplying share i
b Values calculated from Table 42 using the weighted average of factors , „
used for each disposal process. Open dumping carries the value of 100 Source: Midwest Kesearch Institute.
throughout.
-------
186
PACKAGING
sla0
112
Ift
s
I
3
*'«
s
ass
J
a
£
Its
o
o
(N
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
TABLE 120.—Disposability resistance calculation: Textiles, 1966 and 1976
187
Product Share of
total a
Open dump
Value b Index c
Landfill
Value b Index c
Incineration
Value b Index c
Composting
Value b Index e
Salvage, reuse, and
conversion
Value b Index c
1966—textile bags.
1976—textile bags
1. 0 100.0 100. 0 120.0 120.0 190.0 190.0 180.0 180.0 250.0 250.0
1. 0 100.0 100. 0 120.0 120.0 190.0 190.0 180. 0 180. 0 250.0 250. 0
fl On the basis of tonnage share.
b Values calculated from Table 45 using the weighted average of factors
used for each disposal process. Open dumping carries the value of 100
throughout.
3 Index is derived by multiplying share of total market by value number.
Source: Midwest Research Institute.
-------
-------
APPENDIX II
Bibliography
-------
-------
Adam says plastics important ally for paper.
Pulp & Paper, 41: 5-6, May 22,1967.
Advertisers fail to note worth of packaging,
management association told. Advertis-
ing Age, 37(17): 18, May 1966.
Aerosol production continues upward climb.
Aerosol Age, 10(6): 24-26, June 1965.
Aerosols are up—in output but also in cost.
Modern Packaging, 41(3):185, Dec.
1967.
Aerosols: new ways to grow. Modern Packaging,
40(12): 117-121, Aug. 1967.
Aerosols set new records. Modern Packaging,
40(7) :202-203, Mar. 1967.
ALARIE, A. Can garbage become a "national
asset"? Compost Science, 8(1): 3-7,
Spring-Summer 1967.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON INSTITUTE, INC. Spring
and billions of waiting cans. Business
Conditions Weekly, 1963.
ALEXANDER, T. Where will we put all that
garbage? Fortune, 148-151, Oct. 1967.
ALTHOUSE, G. F. Continuous-flow refuse collec-
tion. American City, 81 (12): 90-91,
Dec. 1968.
THE ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION. Aluminum Sta-
tistical Review, 1966.
Aluminum cans recoverable. Science News, 91(18):
428, May 1967.
Aluminum growth cited by official. Steel, 156(13):
7, Mar. 1965.
Aluminum: new dent in the 'tin' can? Chemical
Week, 95(24): 31, Dec. 1964.
AMERICAN PAPER AND PULP ASSOCIATION. Statistics
of paper. 8th ed., 1964. 106 p.
AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE, INC. Paperboard
industry statistics, 1966. New York,
1967. 29 p.
AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE, INC. The statistics
of paper: 1967 supplement.
An interesting and—newly emerging—trend is to
adapt film-structuring techniques to
other containers. Modern Packaging,
40(8): 103, Apr. 1967.
Another PVC first: shampoo. Modern Packaging,
38(12): 103, Aug. 1965.
ANREDER, S. S. Cardboard lovers. Barrons,
46:3-4, Feb. 28, 1966.
Applying technology to unmet needs; a report
on the solid waste problem. Appendix
v. 5. In National Commission on
Technology, Automation, and Eco-
nomic Progress. Technology and the
American economy; report of the Com-
mission. Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1966. p. V161-
V174.
Approved: a returnable plastics milk bottle.
Modern Packaging, 39(5): 94-96, Jan.
1966.
ARMSTRONG, W. L., tr., and J. S. WILEY, ed.
International Research Group on Re-
fuse Disposal (IRGR). Information
Bulletins No. 13 and 14. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office. 84 p.
ARTHUR, D. LITTLE, INTC. The role of packaging
in the U.S. economy; a report to the
American Foundation for Management
Research, Inc., 1966.
Asbestos: awaiting "trial." Chemical Week, 99(11):
32, Sept. 1966.
THE ASSOCIATED COOPERAGE INDUSTRIES OF
AMERICA, INC. The wooden barrel
manual, 22(1), Sept. 1951.
ATTIG, G. K., and J. CLAY. Put "teeth" into
compaction. American City, 81(3):
88-90, Mar. 1966.
Background for packaging. Modern Packaging,
36(12): 41, Aug. 1963.
Background for packaging. Modern Packaging,
39 (5): 47, Jan. 1966.
Background for packaging. Modern Packaging,
39(11): 43, June 1966.
Background for packaging. Modern Packaging,
40(8): 39, Apr. 1967.
Background for packaging. Modern Packaging,
40(9): 41, May 1967.
Background for packaging. Modern Packaging,
40(12): 41, Aug. 1967.
Background for packaging. Modern Packaging,
41 (3): 44, Nov. 1967.
Back to bags. Modern Packaging, 39(9): 113-118,
May 1966.
BALDWIN, N. T. Industry optimism warranted.
Paperboard Packaging, 50 (8): 126-127,
Aug. 1965.
191
-------
192
PACKAGING
BALDWIN, N. T. And still no satisfactory sub-
stitute. Paperboard Packaging, 52(8):
103-105, Aug. 1967.
BARNES, S. The great garbage explosion. Ma-
chine Design, 38(3): 100-109, Feb.
1966.
BARNES, S. The disposal gap. Machine Design,
38(7): 144-149, Mar. 1966.
Battle of the bag. Forbes, 92: 50, Nov. 1, 1963.
Battle over cans stiffens. Chemical Week, 95(16):
85-86, Oct. 1964.
BEIZER, J. Aluminum welcomes packaging fight.
Iron Age, 196(15): 29, Oct. 1965.
BENNETT, K. W. Packaging wraps up sales gains.
Iron Age, 195(15): 26-27, Apr. 1965.
BERKIN, H. H. What the baking industry needs
from packaging material suppliers.
Paper 7 rade Journal, 40-41, Nov. 1964
BETTENDORF, H. J. Packaging in educated, mo-
bile societies. Paperboard Packaging,
Aug. 1962.
BETTENDORF, H. J. Yardsticks of box growth—
for Canada or other countries. Paper-
board Packaging, 1-4, Oct. 1962.
BETTENDORF, H. J. Paperboard mill section.
Paperbord Packaging, 57-67, Aug.
1967.
Better barrier pouch for milk. Modern Packaging,
109, Dec. 1967.
Better diet for oxygen steelmakers. Business Week,
178, June 1966.
Biaxial orientation ups soluble-film strength.
Chemical Engineering, 108-110, Nov.
1964.
Big package deal in Chicago. Chemical Week,
117-119, Apr. 22, 1967.
Big things are happening in PVC films—in pack-
aging. Modern Plastics, 94-97, Aug.
1961.
BILLINGS, C. H. Operation "big squeeze" takes
on refuse disposal. Public Works, 87-
88, Jan. 1966.
Bioriented rigid PVC sheeting. Modern Packaging,
136, Aug. 1965.
BISHOP, W. D., R. C. CARTER, and H. F. LUDWIG.
Gas movement in land-filled rubbish.
Public Works, 64-68, Nov. 1965.
BLACK, R. J., and P. L. DAVIS. Refuse collection
and disposal; an annotated bibliography,
1960-1961. Public Health Service Pub-
lication No. 91. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1963.
Suppl. E.
BLUMENTHAL, L. A. Scramble in the market-
place. Dun's Review and Modern
Industry, 86-87, Dec. 1965.
Board coating. Paperboard Packaging, 23-25,
Mar. 1967.
Board output up 4 percent in latest week. Fibre
Market News, 1, June 16, 1967.
BOGUE, M. D. Municipal incineration. Cincin-
nati, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Weli'are, 1968. 27 p.
Boom in plastics shipping bags. Modern Packaging,
34-35, Feb. 1964.
BOOTH, E. J. Buried 25 years and still legible.
American City, 26, July 1965.
BRAUN, P. A regional refuse-disposal solution.
American City, 96-97, Dec. 1967.
BRAUN, R. Reutilization of solid waste by
composting. Secondary Raw Materials,
41-42, Nov. 1967.
Brighter future seen for flexible packaging.
Modern Packaging, 39(10): 202-
203, July 1966.
BROUSSARD, J. P. Properties of ionomers: films.
Modern Packaging, 40(9): 173-175,
June 1967.
BROWN, V. How much does composting cost
per ton?: away from the "slop and
ashes" of yesteryear. Compost Sci-
ence, 8(1): 16-17, Spring-Summer
1967.
BROYLES, H. C. "Papercans" versus metal
cans. Current Municipal Problems,
5(4): 75-81, May 1964.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Glass Container
Industry (SIC 3221). Technological
trends in major American industries.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1966. p. 51-52.
BURKINSHAW, L. D. Polycarbonates for packag-
ing. Modern Packaging, 37(9): 147-
150, June 1964.
BURVANT, R. Factors affecting packaging in
future. Food Engineering, 39(8): 46-47,
Mar. 1966.
BUSCH, T. W. Paper coating additives. Tappi,
49(6): 34-38, June 1966. CSMA notes
trend to large can sizes. Printers' Ink,
290:31, Mar. 1965.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
193
CAMERON. F. B. Packaging in plastics: plastics
in packaging. Plastics World, 23(3):
16-18, Mar. 1965.
Can engineering cope with the debris of afflu-
ence? Product Engineering, 38(21):
37-44, Oct. 1967.
CAN MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, INC. Metal cans
shipments, 1966.
CAN MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, INC. Steel, tin,
aluminum consumed in metal cans,
1963.
Can plastics. Plastics World, 18(6): 30, June 1967.
Canmakers are putting new barrier linings inside
their packages (both composite and
metal). Modern Packaging, 40(8): 122-
332, Apr. 1967.
Cans: a passion for obsolence. Modern Packaging,
40(6): 118-123, Feb. 1967.
Cans: when will packagers reap the big economies
of new materials? Modern Packaging,
41(1): 299-301, Sept. 1967.
CAPP, J. P. Fly ash utilization. Combustion,
37(8): 36-40, Feb. 1966.
Captive blow molding—milk shows the way.
Modern Packaging, 40(6): 102-108,
Feb. 1967.
Car junkyards try sophistication. Business Week,
108-112, Feb. 26, 1966.
A cargo of grief for U.S. steelmakers. Fortune,
141, Oct. 1967.
Cartons look for half '66 gain in '67. Paper, Film,
and Foil Converter, 46, Feb. 1967.
CARTY, T. M. What's the latest on plastic milk
bottles? Modern Plastics, 88-91, Feb.
1966.
CASTAGNE, M. R. Paper bags show steady
growth—producers optimistic for
future. Paper Trade Journal, 43-44,
May 24, 1965.
CASTAGNE, M. R. What's new in coating '64.
Pulp & Paper, 37-40, Apr. 1964.
Challenge & response. Forbes, 56-57, Feb. 1967.
Challenge of a complex industry met by aluminum
adaptability. Quick Frozen Foods, 62,
July 1962.
The changing can picture. Financial World, 10-11,
May 1966.
Chasing the waste. 7 he Economist, 728, Feb. 1966.
Chemical giants eye another major market:
plastic gallon and half-gallon milk
packs. Printers' Ink, 12, Dec. 1964.
Chemical industry & packaging: not yet fully aware
of impact in this $26 billion business.
Oil Paint and Drug Reporter, 7, Mar.
1966.
Chemical profile polyethylene—H D. Oil, Paint
and Drug Reporter, 3, Oct. 1967.
Chemical profile polyethylene—L D. Chemical
Marketing, 9, Oct. 1967.
City-county development of a sanitary landfill.
Public Management, 63, Apr. 1965.
CLARK, P. S. Can aerosols spray their troubles
away? Industrial Design, 50-56, May
1967.
CLARK, P. S. The coming (any minute) revolu-
tion for plastics. Industrial Design,
64-69, Oct. 1967.
CLARK, P. S. Some impressive developments in
technology and design. Industrial
Design, 78-83, June 1967.
CLARY, B. Wax: its past, present & future.
Paperboard Packaging, 31-35, July
1967.
Closures show ingenuity. Food Engineering, 102-
103, Mar. 1965.
Coating competition stiffens. Chemical Week,
103-104, Nov. 1964.
Coatings and adhesives wrap up sophisticated
needs in packaging. Oil, Paint and
Drug Reporter, 44, Dec. 1966.
Coatings for paper. Chemical and Engineering
Netvs, 86-93, Sept. 1963.
Cold-workable new plastic may punch out big
market. Chemical Engineering, 108,
May 1967.
COMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTES, AMERICAN PUBLIC
WORKS ASSOCIATION. Municipal refuse
disposal. 2d ed. Chicago, Public Ad-
ministration Service, 1966. 526 p.
COMMITTEE ON SOLID WASTES, AMERICAN PUBLIC
WORKS ASSOCIATION. Refuse collection
practice, 3d ed. Chicago, Public Ad-
ministration Service, 1966. 525 p.
Companies fail to use packages as medium, pack-
aging conference told. Advertising Age,
36(14): 43-45, Apr. 1965.
Composites to improve bag-in-box. Package
Engineering, 12(4): 14, Apr. 1967.
The composting game: Mobile loses—Houston
takes chance. Refuse Removal Journal,
9(8): 36-38, Aug. 1966.
-------
194
PACKAGING
CONSUMER AND MARKETING SERVICE, DAIRY
DIVISION. Packaged fluid milk sales in
federal milk order markets—by size and
type of containers and distribution
method—during November 1965. Publi-
cation C & MS-11 (Nov. 1965). U.S.
Department of Agriculture Consumer
and Marketing Service, Dairy Divi-
sion, Mar. 1967. 46 p.
Consumer markets—big, different in 1987.
Chemical & Engineering News, 45(15):
28-31, Apr. 1967.
Consumer attitudes to aerosols reported in Union
Carbide study. Aerosol Age, 11(8):
57-58, Aug. 1966.
Container seeks a bigger package. Business Week,
185-188, Oct. 1967.
Containers & closures. Metalworking Weekly, 17,
Mar. 1965.
Converting perspectives 1967. Paper, Film and
Foil Converter, 41(2): 44-46, Feb. 1967.
Cook-in aluminum cans. Modern Packaging,
37(4): 97, Dec. 1963.
COOKE, L. M. Shrinkable polyethylene films.
Plastics World, 24(4): 28-29, Apr. 1966.
Copolymer plastic refuse-can liners . . . trim 20
percent off refuse-collection time.
American City, 81(6): 100-101, June
1966.
Corporations: scrappy market. Time, 89(18):
98-100, May 1967.
Corrugated & solid fiber section. Paperboard
Packaging, 52(8): 74-82, Aug. 1967.
Corrugated box sbipments hit all-time high.
Pulp & Paper, 37: 13, Oct. 1963.
Corrugated container for ships' stores. Transpor-
tation & Distribution Management,
43-45, July 1967.
Corrugated: peaking out or pushing up? Modern
Packaging, 40(11): 102-107, July 1967.
CUSCADEN, R. At Downing Box: scrap handling
conies of age. Paperboard Packaging,
52 (5): 17-20, May 1967.
CUSCADEN, R. Shrinkage and the grocery prod-
ucts industry. Paperboard Packaging,
27-28, Jan. 1967.
DAVIS, P. L., and R. J. BLACK. Effects of
garbage grinding on sewage systems
and environmental sanitation. APWA
Reporter, 29(12): 16-18, Dec. 1962.
DAWSON, S. Glass, metal, plastics and paper in
spirited rivalry. Kansas City Star,
Sept. 21, 1964.
DsLoNG, R. F., and J. F. HELMS. New film
combinations. Modern Packaging, 151-
157, Nov. 1965.
Designing closures for dual purpose. Modern
Plastics, 116-119,192,194, Sept. 1964.
Disposal system makes cash from trash. Engineer-
ing News-Record, 32, Mar. 1964.
Dobrow charts '66 paper prospects, predicts
production, profit records. Pulp &
Paper, 7-8, Feb. 1966.
DOOLEY, D. D. Hot melt adhesives: why they
are so popular. Material Handling
Engineering, 66-69, Feb. 1966.
Drop shows Witt can can take it. Advertising Age,
44, Dec. 1964.
Drugs and food preservatives: ideas of EEC
opening markets and simplifying sales
efforts. Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter,
3, Apr. 1965.
DUNCAN, S. Future of paper and board in frozen
food packaging. Paper Trade Journal,
48-51, May 1965.
EVA resin coatings. Modern Packaging, Apr. 1966.
Edible, transparent films for frozen foods. Quick
Frozen Foods, 33-37, May 1964.
Electrostatic gravure goes to market. Paper,
Film and Foil Converter, 59, Feb. 1967.
Engineers ponder need for novel concepts.
Modern Packaging, 120-123, Sept.
1967.
Equipment and materials. Modern Packaging, 52,
Dec. 1966.
EASROVE, D. Thermoplastic polyurethanes.
Modern Packaging, 130-135, Jan. 1966.
EVANS, J. C. W. How important is converting to
paper and board manufacturers?
Paper Trade Journal, 30-31, Aug.
1967.
EVANS, H., Jr. A new idea in landfill operation.
American City, 114-115, Mar. 1967.
Explosive growth due for PVG bottles. Chemical
and Engineering News, 25-26. Feb.
1966.
FALTERMAYER, E. K. How to wage war on
ugliness. Fortune, 130-134, May 1966.
Federal attack proposed for environmental health
woes. Chemical Engineering, 74(14):
50, July 1967.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
195
FEDOH, W. S. Consumer spending foretells
plastics demand. Chemical and
Engineering News, 45: 84-94, Nov. 20,
1967.
FEHN, C. F., J. O. HALL, M. ROSENTHAL, J. R.
CAIN, J. H. RIGSBY, and H. FARMER.
Bulk storage and mechanized collec-
tion of combined refuse. Public Works,
95(9): 130-131, Sept. 1964.
FELDMUHLE, M. J. Coated printings: what is
needed in the future. Pulp & Paper,
40(38): 42-48, Sept. 1966.
FERGUSON, BROOKS & KELLY, and W. L. ARM-
STRONG, trs., and J. S. WILEY, ed.
International Research Group on Re-
fuse Disposal (IRGR). Information
Bulletins No. 15 and 16. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.
58 p.
FERGUSON, BROOKS & KELLY, trs., and J. S.
WILEY, ed. International Research
Group on Refuse Disposal (IRGRD).
Information Bulletins No. 19 and 20.
Washington, U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, 1965. 68 p.
FIFE, J. A. European refuse disposal. American
City, 81(9): 125-128, Sept. 1966.
Film bundling saves 50 percent. Modern Packag-
ing, 41(2): 152-153, Oct. 1967.
Film package without film. Modern Plastics,
43(10): 80-81, June 1966.
Fibre Box Association. Fibre Box Industry Statis-
tics 1966.
FLEMING, R. R. Solid waste disposal. American
City, 81(1): 101-104, Jan. 1966.
FLEMING, R. R. Solid waste disposal: incinera-
tion and composting. American City,
81(2): 94-96, Feb. 1966.
Flexible packaging: the common denominators.
Modern Packaging, 41(3): 136-141,
Nov. 1967.
Flexible packaging: confused and complicated.
Modern Packaging, 41(2): 122-127,
Oct. 1967.
Flexible packaging: the overlooked components.
Modern Packaging, 41(4): 112-117,
Dec. 1967.
Flexible packaging: something for everything.
Modern Packaging, 40(8): 137-140,
281-336, Apr. 1967.
Flexography: how big in corrugated? Modern
Packaging, 41(1): 142-145, Sept. 1967.
Fly ash utilization makes slow progress. Power,
111(5): 116-120, May 1967.
Folding Paper Box Association of America. The
Folding Paper Box Industry Statistics
for 1966, 1966.
For a more beautiful U.S., the President asks
this—. U.S. News and World Report,
59(8): 71, Feb. 1965.
For better breathing: a landfill. American City,
80(10): 62, Oct. 1965.
Forecast for PVC bottles: clearing. Modern
Plastics, 44(1): 105-109, Dec. 1966.
Foreseeable future of polycoatings in packaging.
Paper Trade Journal, 147(17): 147-
149, Apr. 1963.
Fox, G. G. Paper bag disposal system finds
ready acceptance. Public Works, 71-
72, Nov. 1964.
Friends, foes, and forecasts for the old tin can.
Marketing Magazine, 61-63, Jan. 1967.
FULMER, M. E., and R. F. TESTIN. The role of
plastics in solid waste. A study done
for the Society of the Plastics Indus-
try, Inc., 1967.
Fundamentals of sanitary landfill operation.
Public Works, 88-89, Dec. 1964.
FURLOW, H. G., and H. A. ZOLLINGER. Reclama-
tion of refuse. Current Municipal.
Problems, 18-29, Jan. 1966.
Future boom seen for gas incinerators. American
Gas Journal, 49-52, Oct. 1965.
Garbage for health and power. Business Week,
82, July 1, 1967.
Garbage heaps are mountainous problem for
many major cities. The Kansas City
Star, Apr. 17, 1967. p. 16.
Garbage in, merchandise out. Scientific American,
58, Jan. 1967.
GAULKE, R. G. Dramatic foil container ad-
vances combine sense with imagina-
tion. Quick Frozen Foods, 60, July
1962.
GILBERTSON, W. E., and R. J. BLACK. A
national solid waste program is
created. Compost Science, 6(3): 4-7,
Autumn-Winter 1966.
GLACE, M. M., JR. A new type of municipal
incinerator. American City, 89-93,
Nov. 1959.
-------
196
PACKAGING
Glass. Chemical and Engineering News, 80-85,
Nov. 1964.
Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc.
Glass Containers, 1966, 1966.
Glass containers: belabored by uncertainty. Mod-
ern Packaging, 177-180, July 1967.
Glass: fighting back with new strength. Modern
Packaging, 112-116, Jan. 1967.
Glass makers institute adds impetus to no-
returns with $5,200,000 drive. Ad-
vertising Age, 10, July 4, 1966.
GLENN, D. A. Folding carton trend analysis.
Paperboard Packaging, 126-127, Aug.
1963.
GOOD, I. L. Outsize-trash collection proves
popular. American City, 35, Jan. 1967.
Goodrich gets license for rigid, clear PVC bottle.
Chemical and Engineering News, 22
Nov. 1967.
GORDON, M. Cities' rubbish woes grow as volume
rises, dumping sites fill up. The Watt
Street Journal, Oct. 18, 1961.
Government guideline. Modern Packaging, 41(1):
253-254, Sept. 1967.
GRUENDLER, W. P. How much does composting
cost per ton?: salvage income at
Mobile, Alabama, plant. Compost
Science, 8(1): 18, Spring-Summer, 1967.
GRUENWALD, A., and J. A. REYNOLDS. Less
than $3,000 per ton. American City,
80(10) = 100-101, Oct. 1965.
Guss, L. M. Packaging Is Marketing. American
Management Association, 1967.
HPI Newsletter. Hydrocarbon Processing, Jan.
1966. p. 13.
HANKILA, M. Fill first, then compact. American
City, 81 (5): 173-174, May 1966.
HANKS, J. J., and H. D. KUBE. Industry action
to combat pollution. Harvard Business
Revietv, 44: 49-62, Sept.-Oct. 1966.
HAUCK, J. E. Flame-retardant plastics quash
smoke, noxious gases. Materials En-
gineering, 66(3): 80-83, Sept. 1967.
Heat recovery makes garbage less a burden.
Chemical Engineering, 74(16): 72-73,
Aug. 1967.
Heat sealing of polyolefins. Modern Packaging,
38(8): 139-144, Apr. 1965.
HERNANDEZ, G. Deep-hole method extends land-
fill use. American City, 82 (3): 17, Mar.
1967.
HERSHSON, M. Reconditioned steel drums, econ-
omies and advantages. A report
presented before the; Petroleum Pack-
aging Committee in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, June 1964. A reprint
from the National Barrel & Drum
Association.
Highlights from the packaging show. Modern
Packaging, 40(10): 113-115, June 1967.
HIRSCH, W. Z. Cost functions of an urban
government service: refuse collection.
Revietv of Economics and Statistics,
87-92, Feb. 1965.
HOFFMAN, D. A. "Burns" refuse without a
flame. American City, 82(2): 102-104,
Feb. 1967.
HOLHEUZER, O. Steel wheel dozer improves
landfill compaction. Public Works,
98(4): 119, Apr. 1967.
The hot melts. Modern Packaging, 38(2):113-118,
Oct. 1964.
Household products leading nonfood aerosols.
Department Store Economist, 29(4):
91-92, Apr. 1966.
How big is plastics in packaging? Modern Plastics,
44(9): 98, May 1967.
How to dispose of disposables? Chemical Week,
101(11): 32-33, Sept. 1967.
HUFFMAN, G. L. Town meeting on milk pack-
aging paper. In Milk Industry Foun-
dation—Convention Proceedings, Sales
and Advertising Section, 1965. p.
40-44.
HUGHES, W. E. A consolidation after unprec-
edented gains. Paperboard Packaging,
101-102, Aug. 1967,
Illinois agency adopts refuse disposal policy.
National Civic Review, 383, July 1963.
In Chicago, it was "tell us what you want".
Modern Packaging, 148-154, June
1967.
In London, it was innovation. Modern Packaging,
112-116, July 1967.
In-plant plastic bottle service. Paperboard Pack'
aging, 123, Aug. 1967.
In the U.S.: Government report predicts many
1967 gains. Pulp & Paper, 5 Mar.
1967
Industrial packaging battles nonpackaging. Mod-
ern Packaging, 136-141, Oct. 1967.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
197
Industry arms for war on waste. Chemical Week,
78-80, Jan. 1960.
Industry statistics. Paperboard Packaging, 149,
Aug. 1967.
Industry trends: paperboard output picture for
1966. Paper Trade Journal, 1, Jan.
1967.
Industry trends: the industry in 1966. Paper
Trade Journal, 1, Feb. 1967.
Industry trends: Slatin—supply /demand picture:
total industry. Paper Trade Journal,
7-8, Jan. 1967.
Industry-wide market for shipping bags seen with
new use by Diamond Crystal. Printers''
Ink, 12, July 1964.
INGLE, G. W. PVC and the F&DA—a status
report. Modern Packaging, 137-139,
Mar. 1966.
Integrated bulk packaging system via poly-
ethylene shrink film. Modern Plastics,
45(3): 116, Nov. 1967.
lonomer: a new thermoplastic. Modern Plastics,
42(1): 98-99, 209, Sept. 1964.
It's like corrugated paperboard, except . . . Mod-
ern Plastics, 45(1): 97, Oct. 1967.
JACKSON, P. Refuse container-train collection
system results in savings. Public
Works, 98(2): 74-75, Feb. 1967.
JONES, R. F. Improved polypropylene for bot-
tles. Modern Packaging, 41(1): 180-
183, Sept. 1967.
KAISER, E. R. Composition and combustion of
refuse. In Proceedings, MECAR Sym-
posium Incineration of Solid Wastes,
American Society oj Mechanical En-
gineers, Process Industries Division,
New York, March 21, 1967. New
York Metropolitan Engineers Council
on Air Resources, 1967. p. 1-9.
KAPLAN, M. What's the future for fibre cans?
Paperboard Packaging, 50(8): 132-133,
Aug. 1965.
KEARNS, J. T. Licensed haulers. American City,
82(2): 60, Feb. 1967.
KEITH, J. A. Pawtucket's two-pronged attack.
American City, 8(18):108-109, Aug.
1966.
KOCH, A. S. Sanitary landfill lives up to county's
expectations. Public Works, 96(7):
70-71, July 1965.
Kneax: boon to papermaking industry? Agri-
cultural Research, 15(7): 11, Jan. 1968.
LACK, A. Opinion: a housewife says. Modern
Packaging, 41(1): 98-100, Sept. 1967.
LAMAR, S. T., and A. A. D'ADDIECO. Barrier
properties of paper coated with blends
of ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers
and wax. Tappi, 48(7): 28-32, July
1965.
Laminated-plastic shipping bags make market
debut. Chemical Engineering, 72(17):
80, Aug. 1965.
LASTELIC, J. K. U. to offer Ph.D. for garbage
men. Kansas City Star, June 1, 1967.
p. 1.
LATHROP, E. C., S. I. ARONOVSKY, S. B. KNAPP,
F. W. O'NEIL, R. G. HlTCHINGS,
A. J. ERNST, and T. F. CLARK.
Fiber shipping containers from sugar
cane bagasse. Tappi, 40(10): 787,
Oct. 1957.
LATHROP, E. C., T. F. NAFFZIGER, and E. R.
STIVERS. Boxboard from wheat straw
to replace wood veneer in wire-bound
shipping containers. Tappi, 34(4):
145-152, Apr. 1951.
Lighter fluid: breakthrough for PVC. Modern
Packaging, 40(12): 110-113, Aug. 1967.
LoEHniNG, D. A. Flipping their lids. Borrows
47: 3-8, May 29, 1967.
LORDI, F. E., and E. D. SHUSTER. Making PE
containers from sheet. Modern Plastics,
44(8): 123-126, Apr. 1967.
LUCIA, F. J. Disposal of bulk wastes. Public
Works, 95(10):100-102, Oct. 1964.
Luke: packaging to double by 1975. Printers' Ink,
294: 67, Apr. 1967.
LYNCH, L. W. Evaluations of plastics films.
Modern Packaging, 177-183, Oct. 1964.
MCALLISTER, J. Food store packages as con-
sumers see them. Sales Management,
60-70, June 1966.
MCALLISTER, J. Food store packages as con-
sumers see them. Sate Management,
40-52, July 1966.
MCCARTHY, V. D. Plastic-coated paperboard
broadens market for resins. Quick
Frozen Foods, 68-69, July 1962.
McELWEE, W. From landfills to streets. Ameri-
can City, 24, Apr. 1966.
326-388 O - 69 - 14
-------
198
PACKAGING
McKEEVER, F. Paper explosion in the institu-
tions market. Paper Trade Journal,
72-73, Dec. 1965.
McKiNNEY, R. E. The imminent solid-waste
crisis. American City, 23, June 1966.
MCLAUGHLIN, D. T. Folding carton section.
Paperboard Packaging, 83-9], Aug.
1967.
McMANus, G. J. Will aluminum come to the
rescue of the tinplate producers? Iron
Age, 23-24, Nov. 1964.
Made from corn: edible, fully soluble, transparent
barrier film. Farm Chemicals Magazine,
114-115, Nov. 1967.
MAILEY, H. V. Landfill: from eyesore to asset.
Public Works, 95-96, Nov. 1964.
Making PE containers from sheet. Plastics En-
gineering, 123-126,201-202, Apr. 1967.
Market Newsletter. Chemical Week, 53, Aug. 12,
1967.
Materials: the battle rages. Dun's Review and
Modern Industry, 88-89, Dec. 1965.
MATHER, G. Continuing to grow at a healthy
rate. Paperboard Packaging, 95-96,
Aug. 1967.
MATHER, G. Paper cans—most dynamic conver-
ting operation today. Paper Trade
Journal, 55-62, May 1965.
MAUSER, F. F. The future challenges marketing.
Harvard Business Review, 168-188,
Dec. 1963.
MAY, R. B. Scrap-steel shredding units law-
changes could solve cities' derelict cars
problem. The Wall Street Journal, May
9, 1967. p. 3.
MAY, W. F. Advances in plastics packaging.
Plastics World, 23, Jan. 1965.
MAY, W. F. Plasti—"quote". Plastics World, 12,
Jan. 1965.
Metal of future is getting there. Business Week,
p. 116, June 1967.
Metals light to hold their beer. Business Week,
92-94, Mar. 1967.
Metals go modern. Food Engineering, 37(3): 96-98,
Mar. 1965.
MEYER, W. Equipment and processes for paper
bonding. Adhesive Age, 9(9): 22-26,
Sept. 1966.
MICHAELS, A. Solid waste disposal. Waste Man-
agement, D-l—D-5, Dec. 1966.
Mix, S. A. Solid wastes: every day, another 800
million pounds. Today's Health, 44(3):
13-17, Mar. 1966.
MOCK, J. A. Control glass properties with films
and coatings. Materials Engineering,
66(3): 90-93, Sept. 1967.
Modern Packaging: Encyclopedia Issue 1965, 38
(3A), Nov. 1964.
Modern Packaging: Encyclopedia Issue 1966, 39
(4A), Dec. 1965.
Modern Packaging: Encyclopedia 1967, 40(13A),
Sept. 1967.
Modern Packaging: Encyclopedia Issue 1967, 40
(4A), Dec. 1966.
Modern Plastics: Encyclopedia Issue 1966, 43(7A),
Sept. 1965.
Modern Plastics: Encyclopedia Issue 1967, 44(.1A),
Sept. 1966.
Molded structural foams are starting to move.
Modern Plastics, 44(8): 96-101, Apr.
1967.
Money in the garbage can. Fortune, 75: 226, Apr.
1967.
MOORE, W. M. Tepee refuse burner has exten-
sion dome. American City, 80(8): 165,
Aug. 1965.
More bounce where it counts. Chemical Week,
96(14): 56-60, Apr. 1965.
More profitable markets for plastics. Plastics
World, 24(4): 34-35, Apr. 1966.
More refuse collected with less work. American
City, 80(7): 26, July 1965.
National Canners Association. The Canning Indus-
try, 1963.
Naturally smokeless incinerators. Science News,
91(17): 403, Apr. 1967.
Navy develops test for PS foam packages, makes
big savings. Modern Plastics, 44(10):
104-106, June 1967.
NEAL, H. R. Scrap has a bundle of problems.
The Iron Age, 197(25): 73-78, June
1966.
NELSON, A. Z. Problems, potential of the paper
stock industry. Secondary Raw Ma-
terials, 56-59, Nov. 1967,
New bounce for plastic bottles. Modern Plastics,
115-236, June 1966.
New fiber to feed pulpers. Chemical Week, 81,
Nov. 1967.
New foam contender. Chemical Week, 43, July
1967.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
199
New heavy duty crusher-disintegrator solves
many municipal waste disposal prob-
lems. Secondary Raw Materials, 39-40,
Nov. 1967.
New ideas in materials applications. Materials
Engineering, 30, Nov. 1967.
New incinerator fights pollution. The Oil and Gas
Journal, 58-59, Sept. 1967.
New incinerator to feature electrostatic precipi-
tator. American City, 36, Dec. 1966.
New know-how prompts brewers to diversity.
Chemical Engineering, 60-62, Aug.
1967.
New packaging. Printer's Ink, 72-73, May 1967.
New Packaging. Printer's Ink, 79, Oct. 1965.
New pastures for milk cartons. Modern Packaging,
136-139, Sept. 1967.
Newest coatings add strength and variety. Food
Engineering, 52-53, Mar. 1965.
1964 scrap consumption best in eight years. The
Iron Age, 270, Jan. 1965.
1964 aerosol output topped 1.3 billion units.
Chemical and Engineering News, 34-36,
May 1965.
1966 problem of choice. Modern Packaging, 133-
142, Apr. 1966.
1966 U.S. production rose 6.4 percent to 46.5
million tons. Pulp & Paper, 5, Apr.
1967.
1966—Year of big change for composite cans.
Chemical & Engineering Netvs, 26-27,
May 1966.
1967: A bigger horn of plenty for packagers.
Modern Packaging, 122-127, Apr. 1967.
No cover material needed for converted refuse.
American City, 18, Feb. 1966.
Nonstop sanitary landfill. American City, 8, May
1958.
Not paper, not textiles, but pure polytetrafluoro-
ethylene. Chemical Engineering, 66-68,
Aug. 1965.
Now: foods hot-packed in a pouch. Modern Pack-
aging, 146-148, May 1966.
NUTTALL, E. P. Magnitude of new pulping ca-
pacity threatens market stability. Pa-
perboard Packaging, 61-142, Aug. 1965.
Officials seek answer to trash problems. Kansas
City Times, 5, June 1967.
The official totals are in. Modern Plastics, 44(2):
110-112, Oct. 1966.
The old trash dump is obsolete. Engineering News-
Record, 176: 20, Apr. 1966.
Only a few do thorough package research. Printer's
Ink, 15-17, Apr. 1967.
Outlook for polystyrene foam. Modern Plastics,
44(11): 75-80, July 1967.
Output up 5.5 percent in 1965, use at 495 Ibs. each.
Pulp & Paper, 40(1): 5, Jan. 1966.
Owens-Illinois says new process yields more color-
ful bottles. Wall Street Journal, Oct.
1964.
PE future is in the bag. Oil, Paint and Drug
Reporter, TPI-04, 3, Jan. 1965.
PR for refuse collection. Public Management, 44(8):
187-188, Aug. 1962.
PVC's 1966 sales could pass 2 billion pounds.
Chemical and Engineering News, 44(1):
18, Jan. 1966.
Packaging—a 4.5 billion-lb. plastics market by
1970. Modern Plastics, 45(5): 92-97,
191, Jan. 1968.
Packaging—a market that accommodates both
the giant and the little guy is poised
for phenomenal growth. Modern Plas-
tics, 43(9): 202-204, May 1966.
Packaging and pollution. Printer's Ink, 294: 61,
Apr. 1967.
Packaging economics. Modern Packaging, 41(3):
243-250, Nov. 1967.
Packaging economics: plastics pace closure growth.
Modern Packaging, 40(12): 207-210,
Aug. 1967.
Packaging economics: price problems in rigid-
plastic containers. Modern Packaging,
40(10): 247-265, June 1967.
Packaging: a giant matures. Modern Packaging,
39(9), May 1966.
Packaging: bottles up to scratch. Economist, 210:
632, Feb. 1964.
Packaging. Forbes, 99: 39, Jan. 1967.
Packaging growth: robust and dynamic. Modern
Packaging, 40(5): 120-126, Jan. 1967.
Packaging lags behind economy but its benefits
to consumers grow: little. Advertising
Age, 37, Apr. 1966.
Packaging 1967. Dun's Review and Modern Indus-
try, 88(5): 133-154, Nov. 1966.
Packaging pacemakers. Modern Packaging, 40(4):
122-125, Dec. 1966.
-------
200
PACKAGING
Packaging: profit and performance. Duns Review
and Modern Industry, 89-144, Dec.
1964.
Packaging trends. Food Processing & Marketing,
Apr. 1967.
Packaging wraps up the future. Fortune, 123-126,
Feb. 1967.
THE PAPER BAG INSTITUTE, INC. Grocer's Bags
and Grocer's Sacks, 1966.
THE PAPER BAG INSTITUTE, INC. Merchandise
Bags, 1966.
Paper bags for household refuse handling—a study
in depth. Paper Trade Journal, 39,
Oct. 1963.
Paper bags used in new refuse collection plan.
Public Management, 229, Oct. 1962.
Paper in captive converting. Modern Packaging,
95-97, Mar. 1967.
Paperboard in the general economy, Paperboard
Packaging, 29-36, Aug. 1967.
Paperboard in general economy. Paperboard Pack-
aging, 132, Aug. 1960.
Paperboard: recovery from its ills. Modern Pack-
aging, 112-118, Mar. 1967.
Para-xylenes yield new engineering plastics. Chem-
ical Engineering, 48-52, Mar. 1965.
A partial answer to the scrap-yard burning prob-
lem. American City, 8, May 1958.
PAUL, P. F. Sources of strength in the fibre box
industry. Paperboard Packaging, 57,
Oct. 1961.
PEDO, D. J. Reorganization cuts refuse collection
costs. Public Works, 110-111, July
1964.
Pepsi's switch to aluminum. .Safes Management,
94-95, Mar. 1967.
PERINO, D. A. Current converting/packaging
trends. Paper, Film and Foil Converter,
64-65, Feb. 1967.
Permit greaseproofing cheap substrates. Package
Engineering, 121, Apr. 1967.
PILARO, J. F. Polyethylene-coated cartons. Quick
Frozen Foods, 64-65, July 1963.
PINKERTON, W. S., Jr. How a major industry
hustles, shades prices as its boom runs
out. Wall Street Journal, June 1967.
PINSKY, J., P. J. JANNKE, and H. M. BEAL.
Drugs in plastics containers. Modern
Packaging, 156-162, Dec. 1965.
Plain talk for packagers. Modern Packaging, 89-93,
July 1967.
Plastic "blisters" encase more products on retail
counters. Watt Street Journal, May
1967.
Plastic bottle use grows. Chemical & Engineering
News, 44(44): 20, Oct. 1966.
Plastic bottles: a search for stability. Modern
Packaging, 40(10): 136-142, June 1967.
Plastic bottles fatten up on food sales. Chemical
Week, 101(12): 57-60, Sept. 1967.
Plastic cans for motor oil. National Petroleum
News, 58: 134-135, Sept. 1966.
The plastic milk bottle: time of decision. Modern
Packaging, 38(7): 163-169, Mar. 1965.
Plastic resins for packaging films could nearly
double in sales by 1975. Oil, Paint and
Drug Reporter, 4, June 1965.
Plastics at the end of the decade. Modern Plastics,
44(8): 171-172, Apr. 1967.
Plastics catch on in crowns. Chemical Week, 96(7):
37-38, Feb. 1965.
Plastics help wrap up a holiday market. Chemical
Week, 97(23): 20-21, Dec. 1965.
Plastics industry forecast for 1980: nearly eight
times present size. Oil, Paint and Drug
Reporter, 7, Feb. 1967.
The plastics industry in 1966: the facts and the
figures. Modern Plastics, 44(5): 115-
122, Jan. 1967.
The plastic market in packaging. Modern Plastics,
43(8): 193-195, Apr. 1966.
Plastics seen gaining for drugs packaging. Oil,
Paint and Drug Reporter, 1, Nov. 1965.
Plastics usage in packaging, propelled by milk
containers, seen doubling in five years.
Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter, 3, Apr.
1965.
POLGLASE, T. R. Modern trends in wire packag-
ing. Wire and W^irc Products, 40(7):
971-974, 1020-1021, July 1965.
POLLARD, T. "Quick" sell counts in packaging.
Kansas City Star, Oct. 1967.
Polyethlene packaging: outlet in the deep freeze.
Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter, 3, Apr.
1963.
Polyethylene, polypropylene: set to invade oil can
market. Chemical and Engineering
News, 45(30): 13, July 1967.
Polypropylene—prices and markets. Modern Plas-
tics, 44(9): 107-110, May 1967.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
201
Polystyrene foam reaches for new markets. Chem-
ical and Engineering News, 45(18): 32-
33, Apr. 1967.
POTTER, B. The bottle pack system. Plastics,
32(351): 71-72, Jan. 1967.
PRESCOTT, J. H. Composting plant converts
refuse into organic soil conditioner.
Chemical Engineering, 232-234, Nov.
1967.
Proceedings of MECAR Symposium, Incineration
of solid wastes, New York, Mar. 1967.
Proceedings, National Conference on Solid Waste
Research, Chicago, Dec. 1963, Univer-
sity of Chicago Center for Continuing
Education. Special Report No. 29.
American Public Works Association,
1964. 228 p.
Process unit wins marketable goods from garbage.
Chemical Engineering, 90-92, Apr.
1964.
Production briefs. Business Week, Nov. 1967.
Products & processes. Fortune. 199-200, Dec.
1964.
Profits in hot melts. Modern Packaging, 113-119,
Sept. 1966.
A program for municipal refuse collection. Pre-
pared by Department of Public Works,
Kansas City, Missouri, Feb. 1966,
Progress in PE extrusion coating. Modern Plastics,
84-89, May 1963.
Pulp—perilous market for chemicals. Chemical
Week, 57-71, Nov. 1966.
PUTMAN PUBLISHING COMPANY. Recent trends
in containers and packaging materials
used for food and beverages. Food
Processing & Marketing, Jan. 1967.
PUTNAM, R. A. Materials guide: paperboard for
packaging. Industrial Design, 73-77,
June 1967.
Putting sparkle into used drums. Chemical Week,
47-52, Aug. 1963.
QFF's annual packaging review. Quick Frozen
Foods, 47-74, July 1966.
Question accuracy of APWA solid waste report.
Refuse Removal Journal, 20-21, Oct.
1966.
Questions & answers. Modern Packaging, 138,
Jan. 1967.
Quieting the clang and clatter. Business Week,
146-147, Dec. 1967.
QUILLEN, B. D. Low cost refuse burner elimi-
nates dump. Public Works, 96-97,
Mar. 1965.
Rx for hospital-drug safety. Modern Packaging,
104-108, Dec. 1967.
Rapid transfer system speeds refuse collection.
American City, 46, Oct. 1966.
Realigning in resins. Chemical Week, 29, May 1962.
Reclamation and reuse of industrial waste. Second-
ary Raw Materials, 27, Nov. 1967.
Refuse processing twists promise doom for dumps.
Chemical Week, 26-27, May 1964.
Refuse Removal Journal reports on the sanitation
industry, 2.8 billion growth market.
Conducted and tabulated by: Andrew
H. Bates, Inc., Apr. 1964.
Refuse sacks are in. American City, 80(12): 96-97,
Dec. 1965.
RENNICKE, N. G. Corrugated box manufacture
—its growth and prospects. Paper
Trade Journal, 148(33): 32-35, Aug.
1964.
Research urged to strengthen scrap trade. Iron
Age, 195(12): 109, Mar. 1965.
President's Science Advisory Committee, Environ-
mental Pollution Panel. Restoring the
quality of our environment. Washington,
D.C., The White House, 1965. 317 p.
Rich, crunch goodness: $10 million a bowl. News-
iveek, 70: 76, Nov. 1967.
RICH, L. Tempest in a milk carton. Dun's Re-
view and Modern Industry, 86(6): 101-
111, Dec. 1965.
RILEY, N. Adhesive in packaging. Soap and
Chemical Specialties, 40(12): 181-183,
Dec. 1964.
ROBINSON, D. Burning curb seen as spurring de-
bris-dumping in city waters. The New
York Times, 38, May 1967.
ROGUS, C. A. Collection and disposal of over-
sized burnable wastes. Public Works,
97(4): 106-110, Apr. 1966.
ROGUS, C. A. European developments in refuse
incineration. Public Works, 97(5): 113-
117, May 1966.
ROGUS, C. A. Refuse collection and refuse char-
acteristics. Public Works, 97(3): 96-99,
Mar. 1966.
ROHR, F. W. One way to control it—burn it.
Actual Specifying Engineer, 18: 74-79,
Nov. 1967.
-------
202
PACKAGING
ROSENTHAL, A. G. Aluminum broadens beach-
head in can market. Modern Metals,
21(8): 24-25, Sept. 1965.
ROSENZWEIG, M. D. New copper technology is
is winning the ore. Chemical Engineer-
ing, 74: 88-89, Dec. 1967.
SANCHAGRIN, T. Change without end in sight.
Printers' Ink, 288:179-180, May 1964.
SANCHAGRIN, T. Management takes control.
Printers'1 Ink, 290: 13-18, June 1965.
SANCHAGRIN, T. New directions for packaging.
Printers' Ink, 292: 15-23, June 1965.
SANCHAGRIN, T, Packaging in 1967: design and
structure. Printers' Ink, 294: 9-21,
Apr. 1967.
SANFORD, C. F. Elmira to try composting.
American City, 80(7): 93-94, July 1965.
Sanitary fill supermechanized. American City, 20,
Dec. 1965.
The sanitary landfill. Current Municipal Problems,
107-112, Aug. 1965.
SANTELLI, T. R. What's new in packaging:
metals, plastics, paper and glass. Pur-
chasing Magazine, 104-105, June 1966.
Science's promise and peril: packaging. News
Front, 53, Jan. 1967.
Scrap shredding offers contamination solution.
Steel, 25, May 1966.
Scrap trading sluggish, but prices are holding.
Steel, 88, May 1967.
SEBASTIAN, F. The worldwide rush to inciner-
ation. American City, 40, Dec. 1967.
Self-supporting landfill helps attract industry.
Public Works, 116, Mar. 1967.
Set-up industry far from fading. Paperboard
Packaging, 110-111, Aug. 1964.
Shakeup due in container markets? Chemical Week,
32-33, Sept. 1966.
The shape of plastics in containerization—more;
bigger and better. Modern Plastics,
45(4): 86-90, 156-157, Dec. 1967.
SHELDRICK, M. G. Better use of wastes spurs
commercial application of hot briquet-
ting. Chemical Engineering, 140-142,
Dec. 1967.
SHERMAN, J. V. Sophisticated scrap. Barren's, 3,
Dec. 1967.
SHERWOOD, P. W. Paper coatings—a growing
market for petrochemical resin mate-
rials. World Petroleum, 50-54, Jan. 1964.
SHERWOOD, P. W. Paper versus plastics in the
U.S. packaging market. British Plastics
91-93, Feb. 1965.
SHILLING, H. Paperstock section: confusing, sat-
isfactory . . . Paperboard Packaging,
47-48, Aug. 1967.
Shredders are reshaping the scrap industry. Steel,
62-68, Dec. 1966.
SIEGAL, R. L. Paperboard vs. plastics: a positive
view. Paperboard Packaging, 71—73,
Oct. 1965.
SIMMONS, R. G. A big transfer trailer. American
City, 108-109, Oct. 1966.
Sintered fly ash goes to market. Electrical World,
94-95, June 1965.
SLATIN, B. Paper and paperboard in the western
states. Oregon Business Review, Dec.
1966.
Slurry system disposes of fly ash. Electrical World,
67-69, Aug. 1966.
SNELL, J. R. How much does composting cost
per ton?: "on the; basis of a dumping
fee only." Compost Science, 8(1): 17-18,
Spring-Summer 1967.
SNYDER, R. E. 42nd annual financial survey of
the rigid paper box industry. National
Paper Box Manufacturers Association,
1966.
Solid waste disposal gets federal effort. Chemical
& Engineering News, 44(51): 50-54,
Dec. 1966.
Solid wastes and systems analysis. American City,
81 (9): 26, Sept. 1966.
Solid wastes. Environmentcd Science and Tech-
nology, 1(3): 199-202, Mar. 1967.
Solid wastes in perspective. Proceedings, sympo-
sium on research needs. American Public
Works Association, Research Founda-
tion, Philadelphia, 1966.
Solid-Wastes Management; Proceedings, National
Conference, Davis Campus, April 4-5,
1966, University of California. 214 p.
Solid wastes. Proceedings, symposium; Kansas
State Department of Health, Lawrence,
1966.
Solid wastes—the job ahead. APWA Reporter,
33(8): 5-11, 25, Aug. 1966.
SOUTHAM, E. V., and R. WINTER. Place and
future of paper in flexible packaging
from a converter's point of view. Paper
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
203
Trade Journal, 150(40): 47-49, Oct.
1966.
SPAULDING, C. A. Prepackaging of meats now a
dynamic converting market. Paper
Trade Journal, 148(40): 35-38, Oct.
1964.
SPAULDING, C. A. Revolution in prepackaging of
fruits and vegetables. Paper Trade
Journal, 149: 32-33, Mar. 1965.
STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Chemical eco-
nomics. Newsletter, Oct.-Nov. 1965.
STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Long range
planning report—Report No. 59, June
1960.
STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Refuse disposal.
Long range planning service—Report
No. 298, Sept. 1966.
STANTON, T. Marketing miniatures; more prod-
ucts come in one-use packages. Wall
Street Journal, Apr. 1966.
Steelmakers set sights on packaging market. Steel,
157(15): 49, Oct. 1965.
STERN, W. Opening up the packaging exposition.
Industrial Design, 91-108, June 1965.
STOAKES, H. R. Rigid paper boxes—where are
they going? Paper Trade Journal, 30-
35, Oct. 1964.
STOVROFF, H. Paperstock section: a continuing
struggle with supply readjustment. . .
Paperboard Packaging, 48-55, Aug.
1967.
TAPPI Deinking Conference covered secondary
fiber use for conservation, technolog-
ical and economic reasons. Fibre Mar-
ket News, 1, Oct. 1967.
Tele-Purchasing: major trend in retailing? Forbes,
55-69, Oct. 1967.
Tensile strength of glass covers broad range.
Chemical and Engineering News, 94-96,
Nov. 1964.
That's not junk; it's billions of dollars. Forbes, 51,
Apr. 1967.
Thermoforming molds a new image. Modern
Packaging, 120-125, Dec. 1967.
They see a market for all they can make. Business
Week, 50-53, Aug. 1965.
A thorough look at composting. American City,
20, May 1966.
Three composting plants and an incinerator.
American City, 20, Jan. 1966.
Throwaway containers get a lift from pop.
Business Week, 70-71, Aug. 1966.
Time for can change? Chemical Week, 33, July
1964.
Tissue: 1967. American Paper Industry, 33-35,
Dec. 1966.
TOENSMEIER, P. A. High viscosity hot melt
coater enlarges markets for waxed
folding cartons. Paperboard Packaging
50-54, Mar. 1965.
Torpedoing container costs, Navy style. Modern
Packaging, 166-168, Sept. 1967.
Transparent trays make new bid for meat pack-
aging. Modern Packaging, 178-180,
Feb. 1966.
TRAUX. D. E. Advantages and limitations of
hot melt adhesives. Paperboard Pack-
aging, 47-50, Apr. 1965.
Tubes: aiming for bigger markets. Modern Pack-
aging, 98-103, May 1967.
Turmoil in PE. Modern Plastics, 45(3): 84-89,
158-160, Nov. 1967.
Turning fly ash from onus to bonus. Chemical
Engineering, 98-302, May 1967.
$20-million market seen for new bottle. Printer's
Ink, 76, Jan. 1965.
A $2}£ billion price tag on anti-pollution. Compost
Science, 28-29, Spring-Summer 1967.
U.S. Depatment of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census. Current industrial reports;
glass containers, 1966.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census. Current industrial reports;
metal cans, summary for 1959, 1960
and 1961.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census. Current industrial reports;
steel shipping barrels, drums, and pails,
summary for 1959, 1960, 1961, and
1965.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and De-
fense Services Administration. Con-
tainers and Packaging, Quarterly In-
dustrial Reports, 17(4), Jan. 1965;
18(1), Apr. 1965; 18(3), Oct. 1965;
18(4), Jan. 1966; 19(1), Apr. 1966;
19(4), Jan. 1967; 20(1), Apr. 1967;
20(2), July 1967; 20(3), Oct. 1967.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and De-
fense Services Administration. Pulp,
-------
204
PACKAGING
Paper, and Board. Quarterly Indus-
trial Reports, 21(2), June 1965; 21(3),
Sept. 1965; 21(4), Jan. 1966; 22(1),
Apr. 1966; 22(2), July 1966; 22(3),
Oct. 1966; 22(4), Jan. 1967; 23(1),
Apr. 1967; 23(2), July 1967; 23(3),
Oct. 1967.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Automobile disposal, a national prob-
lem, case studies of factors that in-
fluence the accumulation of automobile
scrap. Washington, U.S. Department
of Interior, 1967. 569 p.
U.S. Economics Corporation, The Econometric
Institute, Inc. The Outlook for the
Economy and Glass Containers, Second
Report, 30, May 1967.
USI launches lease plan to spur plastic milk bottle
use. Chemical and Engineering News,
45(33): 13, Sept. 1967.
U.S. Steel 'launches' super-thin, thin tin. Steel,
154(16): 43^14, Apr. 1964.
Using waters to propel a rocket. Compost Science,
8(1): 32, Spring-Summer 1967.
VAN BOSKIRK, R. L. The plastiscope. Modern
Plastics, 44(9): 41-43, May 1967.
VAN DERVEER, P. D. Kraft men meet in Wiscon-
sin to hear latest developments. Paper
Trade Journal, 147(40): 46-47, Oct.
1963.
VEAL, P. L. Present and future of rigid PVC
bottles. British Plastics, 38(5): 258-
261, May 1965.
Volume feeding: hungry for cost-cutting ideas.
Modern Packaging, 40(12): 103-106,
Aug. 1967.
Voluntary refuse bag system works. Public Man-
agement, 47(1): 20, Jan. 1965.
Volunteers to tidy up a nation. Supervisory Man-
agement, 11(7): 24-26, July 1966.
War for the packaging dollar. Dun's Review and
Modern Industry, 84(6): 90-91, Dec.
1964.
WARD, R. Achievement and promise in pack-
aging. Drug & Cosmetic Industry,
95(5): 712-843, Nov. 1964.
WARE, JOEL, Jr. New problems for fibre boxes.
Paperboard Packaging, 92-101, Aug.
1965.
Waste disposal at bargain basement cost. Factory,
142-143, Aug. 1962.
Wax pushes into new markets. National Petroleum
News, 112, Jan. 1965.
Wax sales on upswing again. Chemical Week,
61-64, Oct. 1967.
WEAVER, L. The sanitary landfill. American
City, Mar.-May 1956.
WEISGERBER, G. A. Wax treated corrugated
boxes are finding growing use. Paper
Trade Journal, 50-52, May 1965.
WEISSMAN, F. T. Aerosols . . . present and fu-
ture. Soap and Chemical Specialties,
128-129, Oct. 1965.
WEISSMAN, F. T. What's ahead for aerosols?
Soap and Chemical Specialties, 144-
145, Nov. 1965.
What does packaging really cost? Modern Pack-
aging, 90-93, May 1967.
What's happening to prices? Modern Packaging,
115, Dec. 1965.
What's happening with film? Modern Packaging,
86-91, Jan. 1967.
What next for plastics? Modern Packaging, 78,
Nov. 1963.
What supermarkets? Modern Packaging, 36(5):
81-86, Jan. 1963.
When will PVC really arrive? here are portents
and problems. Modern Packaging, 156,
May 1965.
Where are containers heading? Packaging En-
gineering, 34-36, Apr. 1967.
Where are materials and containers heading?
Packaging Engineering, 91-98, Apr.
1967.
Where we go after 200-million. Business Week, 96-
100, Nov. 1967.
Who put the soup in milk cartons? Printer's Ink,
65, July 1967.
WICKER, W. J. A new look at refuse composting.
Public Works, 131-132, Oct. 1964.
The widening, wondrous world of packaging.
Duns Review and Modern Industry,
85-134, Dec. 1965.
Will we bury ourselves in garbage? Engineering
News-Record, 25-26, May 1966.
WILLATT, N. More throw-aways. Barron's, 11,
Aug. 1966.
WILLATT, N. No young squirt. Barron's, 45:5,
June 1965.
WILEY, J. S. A discussion of composting of
refuse with sewage sludge. In American
Public Works Association Yearbook.
-------
IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
205
Chicago, American Public Works As-
sociation, 1966. p. 198-201, 207-208.
WILLIAMS, E. R., and R. J. BLACK. Refuse col-
lection and disposal; an annotated bib-
liography, 1958-1959. Public Health
Service Publication No. 91. Wash-
ington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1961. 73 p. Suppl. D.
WILLIAMS, L. E. The changing role of the paper
stock industry. Secondary Raw Ma-
terials, 48-51, Nov. 1967.
WOLF, H. P. Packaging. Industrial Design, 87-
99, Sept. 1966.
Woodpulp section. Paperboard Packaging, 52(8):
39-46, Aug. 1967.
XT Polymer—new material of design. Modern
Plastics, 43(6):82-171, Feb. 1966.
A year of realization. Modern Packaging, 38(7):
131-143, Mar. 1965.
ZAPF, F., and H. Giles. Mammoth trucks and
mini scooters. American City, 82(1):
77-79, Jan. 1967.
ZAPP, G. M. New machine developments for
modified wax paperboard coatings.
Paper Trade Journal, 148(32): 20-23,
Aug. 1964.
ZEIDMAN, R. H. Who's boss—marketing or pro-
duction? Modern Packaging, 41(3):
124-128, Nov. 1967.
U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 O-326-388
-------
------- |