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

-------

-------